* I was recently asked for my opinion on why there seems to be more hostility and bitterness than ever before between the two parties. While I accept that there is a great deal of bitterness, the truth is that most of it emanates from the left/democrats and is directed at the right/republicans. The issue, then, is why the increased hostility? The answer is fairly straightforward: the democrats and republicans no longer share the same fundamental values. When there is agreement on the basics, then differences over particular issues are not as intense; as both sides feel they are still on the same team. But the left no longer shares the fundamental American values. (It was Obama who said that he wanted to bring "fundamental" change to this country.)
* If you have not had the opportunity to do so, look at the last posting entitled "Why I Am No Longer a Democrat." The comments by the various democrat mayors quoted reflects that they no longer believe in free speech if it opposes their viewpoint; they no longer believe in freedom of religion if it is contrary to their viewpoint; they no longer believe business people who disagree with them have the right to make a living. When Dan Cathy, the CEO of Chick-fil-A, said he believed in traditional marriage, the democrats did NOT say (a quote generally credited to Voltaire): "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The reason is that the democrats are solely issue-oriented. Whatever the issue - gay marriage, abortion, immigration - trumps the fundamentals of free speech or freedom of religion or other fundamental American values. The democrats do NOT believe that there can be an honest, good-faith disagreement on any of their issues. Those who disagree are labeled racists, bigots, ignorant, or haters, and on and on it goes. The main stream media joins in with the labeling. Once you have put those kinds of labels on your opposition it becomes difficult to give any respect to their opinions. In fact, it becomes difficult to respect them as fellow human beings. Hence, the hatred.
* A few examples. It was Obama who disrespected those whom he said "cling to their guns and religion" and dislike people not like them. (Who dislikes whom?) It was Obama who said: "The Republican plan...boils down to this...Dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance." Biden, speaking to an audience with a large number of blacks, said Republicans are going to "put y'all back in chains." Maxine Waters: "And as far as I'm concerned, the Tea Party can go straight to Hell." Former Rep. Alan Grayson, in reference to Fox News: "It is a threat to this country." Wanda Sykes: "(Rush Limbaugh) just wants the country to fail...I hope his kidneys fail." Cher recently expressed that she hoped Rep. Todd Akin would "get raped by a man with HIV/AIDS." (Akin recently made the ridiculous comment about "legitimate" rape, and that a woman's body can prevent a pregnancy in those cases. He immediately apologized, but the penalty for offending the left is, apparently, death. Something they seem to have in common with radical Muslims.) And my personal favorite, in terms of the venomous hatred for anyone daring to hold a contrary viewpoint, comes from Ellen Barkin, expressing her wish that Hurricane Isaac would "wash every pro-life, anti-education, anti-women, xenophobic, gay-bashing racist SOB right into the ocean."
* So maybe the democrats have given up on being the party of "tolerance." But aren't they still the compassionate party? Aren't they the party that cares about the average working guy? After all, it was the then head of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean, who said: "Our moral values, in contradistinction to the Republicans', is we don't think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night." And that sentence, my friends, pretty well sums up why so many vote democrat. They believe that they are being "compassionate." And because those same people let their beliefs dictate their reality, it does not matter to them that Republican policies are the ones that better protect the average person.
* Case in point. Is it more compassionate to provide welfare and food stamps, or a job? Which has a better chance of feeding hungry children: a parent with a good paying job, or welfare and food stamps? According to the Department of Labor, states with Republican Governors have, on average, a 7.6% unemployment rate. Those with Democrat Governors average 8.8% unemployment. When VA Governor Bob McDonnell spoke at the Republican convention he noted that 12 of the 15 states ranked best for doing business in were Republican lead. The bottom three states: Democrat lead and high unemployment (Illinois, 8.9% unemployment, New York, 9.1% unemployment, and California, with 10.7% unemployment). But Governor McDonnell cut spending, did not raise taxes, yet managed to balance the state budget, lower unemployment to 5.9%, and improve his state's standing in the best places to do business to 6th place. Oh, he was even able to create a budget SURPLUS of $448.5 million.
* But Governor McDonnell is not alone. Other Republican governors have obtained similar results: Scott Walker in Wisconsin, Chris Christie in New Jersey, John Kasich in Ohio, Mitch Daniels in Indiana, to name just a few. But the Democrat Governor of California, Jerry Brown, wants to pass a November ballot measure that will significantly raise taxes. It is hard to see where the compassion is for so many people out of work - when the Governor wants to raise the sales taxes on items they buy.
* But lowering taxes and balancing the budget and improving the business climate with resultant lower unemployment is not Obama's way. That is not the Democrat way. After all, it was Obama who said that after you've made a certain amount of money, he thinks you've made enough. It is Obama who creates class warfare by criticizing those who have achieved what used to be called the "American Dream" - success and wealth. Who thinks a society is healthier when it creates millions upon millions of people dependent upon government handouts? (According to the 8/15/12 Investor's Business Daily, we now have over 1/3 of Americans receiving some government welfare, not counting Medicare or Social Security.) Who thinks a society is healthier when the government plays a smaller role with less taxes and less regulations, and allows businesses large and small to thrive?
* There was an interesting piece on FoxNews.com from 8/20/12. A study by the Chronicle of Philanthropy found that states with greater religious participation, such as the South, tended to give a greater percent of their discretionary income to charity. The Northeast, with the lowest religious participation, was also the least generous in charitable giving. (The South tends toward Republican and the Northeast Democrat. But we already know that Republicans give more to charity.) The part I found to be particularly interesting was a comment by a Boston College professor, apparently defending his less than generous Northeast. He said that people in the less religious states give in a "different" way. How? They are more willing to pay higher taxes so the government can equitably distribute more to the poor. And that is how Democrats convince themselves that they are compassionate: by taking other peoples' money and redistributing it around. I would bet these same democrats do not voluntarily pay more than the law requires in taxes. No, their generosity consists of taking other peoples' money. I would also bet that the religious who live in the higher tax states give more of their after-tax income to charity than the liberal, non-religious.
* You see, the real difference between the "compassionate" Obama/today's Democrats and Republicans is this: Obama does not care if his policies bring everyone down to a lower standard of living, as long as it is more "equal." Republicans want to see an ever expanding economy with everyone having the "opportunity" to succeed, to become a millionaire, or even become the next Bill Gates. So, ending where I started, this basic American value of having the freedom to succeed economically and even amass huge wealth, is no longer shared by the Democrats. Unless American values are again taught in our schools and universities, the long term future for freedom and liberty in this country will be very much in doubt.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Why I Am No Longer a Democrat.
* The Chick-Fil-A controversy. The company is a family owned business and its' president, Dan Cathy, said that he believes in the biblical definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a Democrat, said: "Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values." I suppose that means the right to free speech and religious freedom, as given in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, are not Chicago values. Chicago Alderman Proco "Joe" Moreno, another Democrat, indicated he would block Chick-fil-A's efforts to open a store in his ward. So, the right to run a business and make a living are also not Chicago values apparently.
Moreno said: "Because of this man's (Cathy) ignorance, I will now be denying Chick-fil-A's permit to open a restaurant in the 1st Ward." The "ignorance" he refers to arises out of the Judeo-Christian bibles, defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Judeo-Christian values are also not Chicago values. Said Mayor Edwin Lee, a Democrat, of San Francisco: "The closest Chick-fil-A to San Francisco is 40 miles away and I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer." So now we get to threaten businesses if they do not meet our political litmus-test. There's a value. Washington, D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray, a Democrat, referred to Chick-fil-A chicken as "hate chicken." (I don't really know the chickens' opinions on gay marriage, but that's another matter.)
Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, yet another Democrat, said: "There is no place for discrimination on Boston's Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it." So, the Founders then did NOT believe in the First Amendment? I wonder how it ended up in the Constitution. When American soldiers fight and die for this country they are doing so for freedom and liberty for ALL Americans, not just those who are Democrats.
So what's going on here with these Democrats? The "values" that they are expressing are essentially fascist values. The sad part is that they and their party have moved so far to the left, that they often express, as above, completely non-democratic values. The Left also uses language to support their demonization of those opposed to them. Therefore, instead of "gay marriage" they talk about "marriage equality." So, if you are opposed to "equality" you must be evil, ignorant,etc. Hence, the verbal attacks and even threats. (This is analagous to those on the left not using the word "abortion" but, rather, "a woman's right to choose.") Of course, they do make exceptions for their friends and allies. In 2008, candidate for president Barack Obama said: "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian...it is also a sacred union." This comment, expressed on national TV, did not prevent Mr. Emanuel from accepting the job of Chief of Staff to the President. Nor did Mr. Emanuel express any concerns at the time about the President's "values."
Not a single one of these democrats was able to demonstrate that Chick-fil-A discriminated against gays in hiring, or in denying of service. But here's a question: if a Muslim owned restaurant opened in their city and it was run by a devout Muslim who did not believe in gay marriage, what do you think you would hear from these Mayors? Silence. The same silence you hear from them about the real mistreatment of gays that occurs throughout the muslim world.
* Who plays the race/ethnic card? In one of the more racist, elitist and otherwise arrogant comments by an elected official, Senator Harry Reid, the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate, and a Democrat, said this on 8/10/11: "I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican. Do I need to say more?" Yes, Senator, you do. First, an apology to Republican Hispanics would be nice. Second, it is exactly this type of thinking by my former party that I find so incredibly distasteful. If you are Hispanic you must be a Democrat? Why? Because the Democrats will give you more handouts at taxpayers' expense? What about those Hispanics, and there are many, who believe in hard work and the freedom and opportunity to succeed on their own? What about people who don't just want a handout? Need I say more, Senator Reid?
Not to be outdone by Senator Reid, however, is the head of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Obviously a Democrat. Ms. Schultz: "There is nothing, and I mean nothing, in the Republicans' right wing agenda that appeals to the American Jewish Community." So, again, if you are a Jew (like Hispanics) you must be a Democrat. Must I? Really? If I thought she would read it, I would send her the link to this blog and she could see what this Jew finds more appealing from the Right than the Left. But let's be honest. Even if she read the blog, she would say that I just did not know what was best for me. This idea of "group-think" is another distasteful idea promulgated by...that's right...Democrats.
It is precisely this type of thinking that leads Democrats to demonize any minority group member who happens to be a Republican. They trashed Justice Clarence Thomas, a black man, for having conservative views. Larry Elder, a black radio talk show host has been called all sorts of horrendous names by black Democrat callers. And the Democrats will trash Senator Marco Rubio, a Hispanic, if Romney picks him as his running mate.
* Is that your business or Obama's? By now, most people have heard President Obama, a Democrat, say: "If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." He later explained that he was referring to the bridges and roads throughout the country that enable businesses to operate. He had also mentioned having a great teacher to help you. This was after-the-fact nonsense. Here's the proof. Obama had already said: "I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something - there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there." This is nothing other than collectivist thinking, which comes as no shock to those of us paying attention during the last election when Obama said: "it's a good idea to spread the wealth around."
When he said "somebody" helped to build the American system that allows business to thrive, he is correct. But it was the American citizen and taxpayer, often that "self-made" businessman, who did that. And maybe more often, it was private companies building roads and railways and airlines. But don't tell me everyone created Microsoft. Or Apple. Or any number of other businesses, large and small. Yes, there are plenty of smart and hardworking people out there. But it takes more than smarts and hard work, it involves a willingness to take a risk, often with one's own money, to make for a successful business. I know when I work long hours at night or on the weekend no one is there helping me or sitting next to me. (Well, maybe the IRS looking for their cut, but that's a different matter.) So don't tell business people they didn't build their business. Of course they did. And often they do it notwithstanding all the tax and regulatory burdens placed on them.
* Here's the real bottom line for Obama and the Democrats - since you didn't build it, you have no right to keep the proceeds from it. After all, there are other smart people out there. There are other hard-working people out there. Why should millionaires and billionaires get to keep money they didn't really earn? And THAT is how Obama and today's Democrats see the world. Doubt me? Then how about this recent line from Obama in reference to an across the board extension of what's referred to as the "Bush-era tax cuts" - we cannot afford "another trillion-dollar giveaway for millionaires." In other words, the government would be "giving away" a trillion dollars to these wealthy Americans if they don't raise their taxes and take that money away! Except that's backwards from American notions of freedom - if you earned the money, THEN IT'S YOUR MONEY. It is in no sense a giveaway of money that the government neither owns nor has a right to own. Unless, of course, you are Obama or a modern day Democrat, people who have adopted the type of collectivist mentality that was always considered to be antithetical to American values.
And it is, in part, for all of the Democrat viewpoints expressed above that I am no longer a Democrat. For those of you who are Democrats, and if you agree with these leaders of your party, do you at least acknowledge that freedom and liberty and the Constitution have been replaced by other values?
Moreno said: "Because of this man's (Cathy) ignorance, I will now be denying Chick-fil-A's permit to open a restaurant in the 1st Ward." The "ignorance" he refers to arises out of the Judeo-Christian bibles, defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Judeo-Christian values are also not Chicago values. Said Mayor Edwin Lee, a Democrat, of San Francisco: "The closest Chick-fil-A to San Francisco is 40 miles away and I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer." So now we get to threaten businesses if they do not meet our political litmus-test. There's a value. Washington, D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray, a Democrat, referred to Chick-fil-A chicken as "hate chicken." (I don't really know the chickens' opinions on gay marriage, but that's another matter.)
Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, yet another Democrat, said: "There is no place for discrimination on Boston's Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it." So, the Founders then did NOT believe in the First Amendment? I wonder how it ended up in the Constitution. When American soldiers fight and die for this country they are doing so for freedom and liberty for ALL Americans, not just those who are Democrats.
So what's going on here with these Democrats? The "values" that they are expressing are essentially fascist values. The sad part is that they and their party have moved so far to the left, that they often express, as above, completely non-democratic values. The Left also uses language to support their demonization of those opposed to them. Therefore, instead of "gay marriage" they talk about "marriage equality." So, if you are opposed to "equality" you must be evil, ignorant,etc. Hence, the verbal attacks and even threats. (This is analagous to those on the left not using the word "abortion" but, rather, "a woman's right to choose.") Of course, they do make exceptions for their friends and allies. In 2008, candidate for president Barack Obama said: "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian...it is also a sacred union." This comment, expressed on national TV, did not prevent Mr. Emanuel from accepting the job of Chief of Staff to the President. Nor did Mr. Emanuel express any concerns at the time about the President's "values."
Not a single one of these democrats was able to demonstrate that Chick-fil-A discriminated against gays in hiring, or in denying of service. But here's a question: if a Muslim owned restaurant opened in their city and it was run by a devout Muslim who did not believe in gay marriage, what do you think you would hear from these Mayors? Silence. The same silence you hear from them about the real mistreatment of gays that occurs throughout the muslim world.
* Who plays the race/ethnic card? In one of the more racist, elitist and otherwise arrogant comments by an elected official, Senator Harry Reid, the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate, and a Democrat, said this on 8/10/11: "I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican. Do I need to say more?" Yes, Senator, you do. First, an apology to Republican Hispanics would be nice. Second, it is exactly this type of thinking by my former party that I find so incredibly distasteful. If you are Hispanic you must be a Democrat? Why? Because the Democrats will give you more handouts at taxpayers' expense? What about those Hispanics, and there are many, who believe in hard work and the freedom and opportunity to succeed on their own? What about people who don't just want a handout? Need I say more, Senator Reid?
Not to be outdone by Senator Reid, however, is the head of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Obviously a Democrat. Ms. Schultz: "There is nothing, and I mean nothing, in the Republicans' right wing agenda that appeals to the American Jewish Community." So, again, if you are a Jew (like Hispanics) you must be a Democrat. Must I? Really? If I thought she would read it, I would send her the link to this blog and she could see what this Jew finds more appealing from the Right than the Left. But let's be honest. Even if she read the blog, she would say that I just did not know what was best for me. This idea of "group-think" is another distasteful idea promulgated by...that's right...Democrats.
It is precisely this type of thinking that leads Democrats to demonize any minority group member who happens to be a Republican. They trashed Justice Clarence Thomas, a black man, for having conservative views. Larry Elder, a black radio talk show host has been called all sorts of horrendous names by black Democrat callers. And the Democrats will trash Senator Marco Rubio, a Hispanic, if Romney picks him as his running mate.
* Is that your business or Obama's? By now, most people have heard President Obama, a Democrat, say: "If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." He later explained that he was referring to the bridges and roads throughout the country that enable businesses to operate. He had also mentioned having a great teacher to help you. This was after-the-fact nonsense. Here's the proof. Obama had already said: "I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something - there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there." This is nothing other than collectivist thinking, which comes as no shock to those of us paying attention during the last election when Obama said: "it's a good idea to spread the wealth around."
When he said "somebody" helped to build the American system that allows business to thrive, he is correct. But it was the American citizen and taxpayer, often that "self-made" businessman, who did that. And maybe more often, it was private companies building roads and railways and airlines. But don't tell me everyone created Microsoft. Or Apple. Or any number of other businesses, large and small. Yes, there are plenty of smart and hardworking people out there. But it takes more than smarts and hard work, it involves a willingness to take a risk, often with one's own money, to make for a successful business. I know when I work long hours at night or on the weekend no one is there helping me or sitting next to me. (Well, maybe the IRS looking for their cut, but that's a different matter.) So don't tell business people they didn't build their business. Of course they did. And often they do it notwithstanding all the tax and regulatory burdens placed on them.
* Here's the real bottom line for Obama and the Democrats - since you didn't build it, you have no right to keep the proceeds from it. After all, there are other smart people out there. There are other hard-working people out there. Why should millionaires and billionaires get to keep money they didn't really earn? And THAT is how Obama and today's Democrats see the world. Doubt me? Then how about this recent line from Obama in reference to an across the board extension of what's referred to as the "Bush-era tax cuts" - we cannot afford "another trillion-dollar giveaway for millionaires." In other words, the government would be "giving away" a trillion dollars to these wealthy Americans if they don't raise their taxes and take that money away! Except that's backwards from American notions of freedom - if you earned the money, THEN IT'S YOUR MONEY. It is in no sense a giveaway of money that the government neither owns nor has a right to own. Unless, of course, you are Obama or a modern day Democrat, people who have adopted the type of collectivist mentality that was always considered to be antithetical to American values.
And it is, in part, for all of the Democrat viewpoints expressed above that I am no longer a Democrat. For those of you who are Democrats, and if you agree with these leaders of your party, do you at least acknowledge that freedom and liberty and the Constitution have been replaced by other values?
Sunday, July 15, 2012
It's the Economy, Stupid.
* The June jobs report came out and showed that the economy created only 80,000 new jobs. The second quarter averaged only 75,000 new jobs per month, generally considered to be rather lackluster (pathetic actually) by economists on all sides. Unemployment remained at 8.2%; although if you count those who have given up looking it is as high as 14.9%. (Per the Investor's Business Daily, 7/12/12, citing the Labor Dept. numbers.) Unemployment has remained over 8% for the last 3 1/2 years - not coincidentally the same length of time that Obama has been President. Obama proudly proclaims that the private sector has grown 4.4 million jobs while he has been President. But when Reagan inherited a worse economy and worse unemployment numbers, the economy grew 9.5 million jobs. And it did so with a smaller population. (Data from 7/9/12 IBD.) Obama initially said the 80,000 number was a "step in the right direction." He did not repeat that claim. But DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz said she was "pretty happy" with the economy. And Obama's lead economic adviser Alan Krueger claimed that the economy is "continuing to heal."
* Remember when Obama said if he did not get the unemployment rate under 8% he did not deserve to be reelected? No wonder he's not talking about the economy. Nor is he talking about Obamacare, the highly unpopular bill that turned out to be one of the largest tax increases. Instead, he is making up stories about Romney and Bain Capital. I say making up because the liberal Washington Post has a fact checker which says most (if not all) of the Obama campaign's allegations are WRONG! This does not deter either Obama or his campaign from repeating the same falsehoods. It's the old Big Lie theory - say it loud enough and often enough and a whole bunch of people will believe it.
* As we know, Obama wants to let what are referred to as the Bush era tax cuts expire at the end of this year. This will result in an increase in your income taxes, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes and estate taxes. According to the lead editorial in the 7/9/12 Wall Street Journal, Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation reported that 53% of the tax increases will come from business. As the Journal notes: "Those are the businesses that aren't hiring people (already) as they wait out the tax and other policy uncertainties." But let me explain once again: Obama and the left do not care about the actual impact their policies have on people. They just care about the ideology.
* Disagree? Then explain the following. In a 2008 interview with Charles Gibson at ABC, Obama was asked why he would raise the capital gains tax when, historically, a raise in the rates has resulted in less revenue to the government. Obama: "Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness." Again, the ideology over outcome. Still doubt it? One of Obama's close advisers, Andy Stern of the Service Employees International Union, said this: "I think Western Europe...has made different trade-offs which may have ended up with a little more unemployment but a lot more equality." A "little" more unemployment is when some other guy is unemployed. Try telling someone who has lost their job, their home, and their ability to take care of their family, that at least the wealthy are paying more than they already do in taxes. I'm sure that will make the unemployed happy. Again, ideology over results. One last example. When the country was debating Obamacare the LA Times had an article about the Canadian government run healthcare system. They interviewed a doctor who acknowledged that there were long waits, and perhaps lesser care, but he justified it by saying it was, at least, more "equal." Again, ideology over results.
* You still doubt it? Then tell me why liberals cannot stand Republican Governors like Mitch Daniels in Indiana and Scott Walker in Wisconsin, along with various other Republican governors, all of whom have turned around their states' economies. Lower unemployment because of lower taxes and less regulation. Deficits reduced or eliminated. Business moving in. After all, these governors inherited the same "Bush-era" economy that Obama blames everything on. Here's why liberals do not like these Republican governors - liberals do NOT care about results, just their ideology. The fact that Republican policies have benefited people in states with Republican governors is of no import. But the liberals in California will continue to vote in Democrats, notwithstanding cities going bankrupt, and the state being on the brink.
* Speaking of which, San Bernardino is the latest city to decide to file for bankruptcy protection. As noted by the 7/11/12 LA Times, part of the City's problems are "escalating pension costs (and) lucrative labor agreements." These ridiculously high public employee salaries and pensions are given to the unions as a reward by democrats, who receive much in the way of campaign contributions from these same unions. If you want fiscal solvency in your governmental entities, then you need to do what the Republican governors have been doing vis-a vis these unions. Or, if you care more about ideology than results, you can keep voting for more democrats.
* In the 7/6/12 LA Times was a report that retail sales grew only 0.1% in June. The Times notes that this was "the worst monthly showing since August, 2009." Hardly surprising. More people out of work means less people buying. Less people buying means stores will often have to lay off even more people. In a related story, the 7/7/12 LA Times lead business section headline was: "Engine of job growth sputtering." They quote one Chris Christopher, senior principal economist at IHS Global Insight: "There is no reason for small businesses to do well in this environment." Generally, small businesses are the drivers of job growth. The article goes to say that "about 30% of companies plan to reduce the number of employees in the next year, 48% plan to stay at the same level, and only 21% plan to hire new workers." Many businesses have said they have the money to hire, but will not do so until they see what is going to happen with all the new taxes (especially if the "Bush tax cuts" expire), and new taxes and regs under Obamacare. At a time when Obama should have been trying to stimulate the economy with tax cuts and less regulation, he instead spent two years getting Obamacare passed. The "ideology" of equality in healthcare over the negative impact on the economy, and over what will eventually be a negative impact on healthcare in this country.
* But some numbers are up. An increasing number of people are on Social Security Disability. Also way up are the number of people receiving food stamps (although the program is now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). According to the 7/5/12 USA Today the number of people on food stamps has skyrocketed to 46 million people as of April,2012. The USA Today notes that that means one in every seven Americans is on food stamps. Obama has no problem with these numbers - he buys votes with government handouts. The democrats are used to this approach (see above about public employee unions).
* So, we the people have a very real choice in this election. If you prefer things as they are, and do not mind if they get worse, so long as the wealthy pay more in taxes, then vote for Obama. Although maybe you can tell me why the top 10% paying 70% of the federal income taxes, with the bottom 50% paying no taxes is not fair enough. If, however, you prefer job growth, lower budget deficits, and less taxes then vote for Romney. If you are on the fence do yourself a favor. Look at how states run by Republican governors are doing compared to those run by Democrats. Do not let your beliefs (ideology) win out over results (reality).
* Remember when Obama said if he did not get the unemployment rate under 8% he did not deserve to be reelected? No wonder he's not talking about the economy. Nor is he talking about Obamacare, the highly unpopular bill that turned out to be one of the largest tax increases. Instead, he is making up stories about Romney and Bain Capital. I say making up because the liberal Washington Post has a fact checker which says most (if not all) of the Obama campaign's allegations are WRONG! This does not deter either Obama or his campaign from repeating the same falsehoods. It's the old Big Lie theory - say it loud enough and often enough and a whole bunch of people will believe it.
* As we know, Obama wants to let what are referred to as the Bush era tax cuts expire at the end of this year. This will result in an increase in your income taxes, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes and estate taxes. According to the lead editorial in the 7/9/12 Wall Street Journal, Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation reported that 53% of the tax increases will come from business. As the Journal notes: "Those are the businesses that aren't hiring people (already) as they wait out the tax and other policy uncertainties." But let me explain once again: Obama and the left do not care about the actual impact their policies have on people. They just care about the ideology.
* Disagree? Then explain the following. In a 2008 interview with Charles Gibson at ABC, Obama was asked why he would raise the capital gains tax when, historically, a raise in the rates has resulted in less revenue to the government. Obama: "Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness." Again, the ideology over outcome. Still doubt it? One of Obama's close advisers, Andy Stern of the Service Employees International Union, said this: "I think Western Europe...has made different trade-offs which may have ended up with a little more unemployment but a lot more equality." A "little" more unemployment is when some other guy is unemployed. Try telling someone who has lost their job, their home, and their ability to take care of their family, that at least the wealthy are paying more than they already do in taxes. I'm sure that will make the unemployed happy. Again, ideology over results. One last example. When the country was debating Obamacare the LA Times had an article about the Canadian government run healthcare system. They interviewed a doctor who acknowledged that there were long waits, and perhaps lesser care, but he justified it by saying it was, at least, more "equal." Again, ideology over results.
* You still doubt it? Then tell me why liberals cannot stand Republican Governors like Mitch Daniels in Indiana and Scott Walker in Wisconsin, along with various other Republican governors, all of whom have turned around their states' economies. Lower unemployment because of lower taxes and less regulation. Deficits reduced or eliminated. Business moving in. After all, these governors inherited the same "Bush-era" economy that Obama blames everything on. Here's why liberals do not like these Republican governors - liberals do NOT care about results, just their ideology. The fact that Republican policies have benefited people in states with Republican governors is of no import. But the liberals in California will continue to vote in Democrats, notwithstanding cities going bankrupt, and the state being on the brink.
* Speaking of which, San Bernardino is the latest city to decide to file for bankruptcy protection. As noted by the 7/11/12 LA Times, part of the City's problems are "escalating pension costs (and) lucrative labor agreements." These ridiculously high public employee salaries and pensions are given to the unions as a reward by democrats, who receive much in the way of campaign contributions from these same unions. If you want fiscal solvency in your governmental entities, then you need to do what the Republican governors have been doing vis-a vis these unions. Or, if you care more about ideology than results, you can keep voting for more democrats.
* In the 7/6/12 LA Times was a report that retail sales grew only 0.1% in June. The Times notes that this was "the worst monthly showing since August, 2009." Hardly surprising. More people out of work means less people buying. Less people buying means stores will often have to lay off even more people. In a related story, the 7/7/12 LA Times lead business section headline was: "Engine of job growth sputtering." They quote one Chris Christopher, senior principal economist at IHS Global Insight: "There is no reason for small businesses to do well in this environment." Generally, small businesses are the drivers of job growth. The article goes to say that "about 30% of companies plan to reduce the number of employees in the next year, 48% plan to stay at the same level, and only 21% plan to hire new workers." Many businesses have said they have the money to hire, but will not do so until they see what is going to happen with all the new taxes (especially if the "Bush tax cuts" expire), and new taxes and regs under Obamacare. At a time when Obama should have been trying to stimulate the economy with tax cuts and less regulation, he instead spent two years getting Obamacare passed. The "ideology" of equality in healthcare over the negative impact on the economy, and over what will eventually be a negative impact on healthcare in this country.
* But some numbers are up. An increasing number of people are on Social Security Disability. Also way up are the number of people receiving food stamps (although the program is now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). According to the 7/5/12 USA Today the number of people on food stamps has skyrocketed to 46 million people as of April,2012. The USA Today notes that that means one in every seven Americans is on food stamps. Obama has no problem with these numbers - he buys votes with government handouts. The democrats are used to this approach (see above about public employee unions).
* So, we the people have a very real choice in this election. If you prefer things as they are, and do not mind if they get worse, so long as the wealthy pay more in taxes, then vote for Obama. Although maybe you can tell me why the top 10% paying 70% of the federal income taxes, with the bottom 50% paying no taxes is not fair enough. If, however, you prefer job growth, lower budget deficits, and less taxes then vote for Romney. If you are on the fence do yourself a favor. Look at how states run by Republican governors are doing compared to those run by Democrats. Do not let your beliefs (ideology) win out over results (reality).
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Obamacare Upheld Under a Flimsy - and Dangerous - Theory.
In my posting of 4/15/12, entitled "Obamacare at the Supreme Court," I suggested that Chief Justice John Roberts might join an already existing majority in order to be able to assign the writing of the opinion to himself; allowing him to make the decision "as broad or as limited as the Chief wants." Admittedly, I did not anticipate that the Chief would end up being the deciding vote to uphold Obamacare, especially given the fact that four Justices were prepared to throw out the entire law. The liberal media, highly critical of Roberts to date, was gushing with praise for his "courageous" vote.
So what happened? It is not unusual for Courts to look for ways to uphold the constitutionality of statutes passed by Congress. Here, Roberts ruled that the "individual mandate" could not be upheld as an exercise of the interstate commerce clause, as was argued before the Court. Rather, Roberts deemed the requirement to buy insurance as not being mandatory; a failure to do so merely meant that one was obligated to pay a sum of money to the IRS. Obama insisted it was not a tax; Congress in the legislation expressly stated in numerous places that it was a "penalty" for failing to buy insurance. But, according to Roberts, Congress anticipated that many people (up to 4 million) would not buy insurance; and Congress did not intend to make all those people "outlaws." Rather, according to Roberts, Congress was giving the people the option of buying insurance or paying a tax.
Undoubtedly, Roberts believed he was limiting the power of Congress by expressly stating that the mandate could not be upheld under the commerce clause. Said Roberts: "Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and - under the government's theory - empower Congress to make those decisions for him." In this writer's opinion, Roberts was wrong both in considering the penalty to be a "tax," and in thinking that he was limiting the power of the federal government.
If this is a tax, it is the first of its kind. Roberts argued that Congress was merely encouraging people to buy insurance, otherwise they would have to pay a "tax." Roberts: "Congress's use of the taxing clause to encourage buying something is...not new." He pointed to tax incentives to buy homes and get a professional education. However, a "deduction" for buying a home, gives one a tax break. While not buying a home will mean not having that deduction, and likely a higher tax rate, we understand that not qualifying for a deduction is not the same as a tax. As the dissent said: "Taxes have never been popular...they must originate in the legislative body most accountable to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they might pay at the next election, which is never more than two years off."
The dissent continued: "We have no doubt that Congress knew precisely what it was doing when it rejected an earlier version of this legislation that imposed a tax instead of a requirement-with-penalty." Given the fact that Congress had the option to make it a "tax" and declined, meant that Roberts was not simply interpreting the statute - he was rewriting it. Besides, think of all the various taxes that you and I pay. Generally, we are taxed any time money changes hands (like the mob getting their "cut"). An employer pays an employee - taxed. Purchase of a good or service - taxed. We are also taxed for owning real or personal property, and investment property (stocks, some bonds). But under Roberts' decision, you can now be "taxed" for inaction - not buying the insurance. Again, completely different than giving a deduction for those who do buy the insurance.
Which leads me to my next point. If Congress can now tax us for failing to buy a product, how can that power in any sense be considered less all-encompassing than Congress' power under the commerce clause. Roberts tries to limit that power when he says: "Everyone will likely participate in the markets for food, clothing, transportation, shelter, or energy; that does not authorize Congress to direct them to purchase particular products in those or other markets today." Is he kidding? Of course it does! Congress already dictates fuel efficiency in cars. Why can't they order us all to buy small cars or hybrids - or pay a "tax" for failing to do so. Through the Food and Drug Administration the feds dictate certain requirements in food products and labeling. So what's to stop them from telling us we must buy certain food products - or pay a "tax." Given how many areas of life Congress has in some way regulated, there is no apparent limit on what Congress can order us to do - or pay a "tax" if we don't.
The outcome of all this is that the Court has now legitimized the lies of the Congress and the President when they repeatedly insisted that this was not a tax. Roberts thought it was more important to uphold the law under any theory imaginable, rather than insist on the integrity of our elected officials. We already know that politicians lie; now we know that the Court has sanctioned those lies. Said Roberts: "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." Maybe not, but wouldn't it be nice if one branch of government insisted on truthfulness and integrity in our officials.
A side issue rarely commented on, is that Obamacare does not require illegal aliens to purchase the insurance. Nevertheless, they cannot legally be turned away from any emergency room. Maybe someone can explain to me why someone here illegally gets all the benefits but none of the obligations. If the estimate is between 10 and 20 million illegals in the country, why isn't it important for them to have insurance? Wasn't Obamacare intended to cover ALL the uninsured?
The only good news is that Obama now has to run for reelection after having signed into law (Obamacare) the biggest tax increase in our country's history; and having done so during one of our worst economic downturns. Not surprisingly, the White House still will not call the refusal to buy insurance a "tax." Said Press Secretary Jay Carney: "It's a penalty, because you have a choice. You don't have a choice to pay your taxes, right?"
It should be quite clear to all now that there is not a single branch of the federal government that will protect your economic liberty. You have only that liberty that a Congress and President will allow you to have; there are no Constitutional restraints. As noted by various commentators, this decision makes the upcoming November election more important than ever. Do not think for one minute that this President and Reid and Pelosi do not understand the virtually limitless power that Roberts has handed to them. If the democrats retake the House, you can count on them to address their social equality agenda by "giving you the option" (as Roberts would say) of buying a certain good or service - or paying a tax. Even if you like Obamacare, you may not like what the next Congress decides to order you to buy - or pay a "tax."
So what happened? It is not unusual for Courts to look for ways to uphold the constitutionality of statutes passed by Congress. Here, Roberts ruled that the "individual mandate" could not be upheld as an exercise of the interstate commerce clause, as was argued before the Court. Rather, Roberts deemed the requirement to buy insurance as not being mandatory; a failure to do so merely meant that one was obligated to pay a sum of money to the IRS. Obama insisted it was not a tax; Congress in the legislation expressly stated in numerous places that it was a "penalty" for failing to buy insurance. But, according to Roberts, Congress anticipated that many people (up to 4 million) would not buy insurance; and Congress did not intend to make all those people "outlaws." Rather, according to Roberts, Congress was giving the people the option of buying insurance or paying a tax.
Undoubtedly, Roberts believed he was limiting the power of Congress by expressly stating that the mandate could not be upheld under the commerce clause. Said Roberts: "Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and - under the government's theory - empower Congress to make those decisions for him." In this writer's opinion, Roberts was wrong both in considering the penalty to be a "tax," and in thinking that he was limiting the power of the federal government.
If this is a tax, it is the first of its kind. Roberts argued that Congress was merely encouraging people to buy insurance, otherwise they would have to pay a "tax." Roberts: "Congress's use of the taxing clause to encourage buying something is...not new." He pointed to tax incentives to buy homes and get a professional education. However, a "deduction" for buying a home, gives one a tax break. While not buying a home will mean not having that deduction, and likely a higher tax rate, we understand that not qualifying for a deduction is not the same as a tax. As the dissent said: "Taxes have never been popular...they must originate in the legislative body most accountable to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they might pay at the next election, which is never more than two years off."
The dissent continued: "We have no doubt that Congress knew precisely what it was doing when it rejected an earlier version of this legislation that imposed a tax instead of a requirement-with-penalty." Given the fact that Congress had the option to make it a "tax" and declined, meant that Roberts was not simply interpreting the statute - he was rewriting it. Besides, think of all the various taxes that you and I pay. Generally, we are taxed any time money changes hands (like the mob getting their "cut"). An employer pays an employee - taxed. Purchase of a good or service - taxed. We are also taxed for owning real or personal property, and investment property (stocks, some bonds). But under Roberts' decision, you can now be "taxed" for inaction - not buying the insurance. Again, completely different than giving a deduction for those who do buy the insurance.
Which leads me to my next point. If Congress can now tax us for failing to buy a product, how can that power in any sense be considered less all-encompassing than Congress' power under the commerce clause. Roberts tries to limit that power when he says: "Everyone will likely participate in the markets for food, clothing, transportation, shelter, or energy; that does not authorize Congress to direct them to purchase particular products in those or other markets today." Is he kidding? Of course it does! Congress already dictates fuel efficiency in cars. Why can't they order us all to buy small cars or hybrids - or pay a "tax" for failing to do so. Through the Food and Drug Administration the feds dictate certain requirements in food products and labeling. So what's to stop them from telling us we must buy certain food products - or pay a "tax." Given how many areas of life Congress has in some way regulated, there is no apparent limit on what Congress can order us to do - or pay a "tax" if we don't.
The outcome of all this is that the Court has now legitimized the lies of the Congress and the President when they repeatedly insisted that this was not a tax. Roberts thought it was more important to uphold the law under any theory imaginable, rather than insist on the integrity of our elected officials. We already know that politicians lie; now we know that the Court has sanctioned those lies. Said Roberts: "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." Maybe not, but wouldn't it be nice if one branch of government insisted on truthfulness and integrity in our officials.
A side issue rarely commented on, is that Obamacare does not require illegal aliens to purchase the insurance. Nevertheless, they cannot legally be turned away from any emergency room. Maybe someone can explain to me why someone here illegally gets all the benefits but none of the obligations. If the estimate is between 10 and 20 million illegals in the country, why isn't it important for them to have insurance? Wasn't Obamacare intended to cover ALL the uninsured?
The only good news is that Obama now has to run for reelection after having signed into law (Obamacare) the biggest tax increase in our country's history; and having done so during one of our worst economic downturns. Not surprisingly, the White House still will not call the refusal to buy insurance a "tax." Said Press Secretary Jay Carney: "It's a penalty, because you have a choice. You don't have a choice to pay your taxes, right?"
It should be quite clear to all now that there is not a single branch of the federal government that will protect your economic liberty. You have only that liberty that a Congress and President will allow you to have; there are no Constitutional restraints. As noted by various commentators, this decision makes the upcoming November election more important than ever. Do not think for one minute that this President and Reid and Pelosi do not understand the virtually limitless power that Roberts has handed to them. If the democrats retake the House, you can count on them to address their social equality agenda by "giving you the option" (as Roberts would say) of buying a certain good or service - or paying a tax. Even if you like Obamacare, you may not like what the next Congress decides to order you to buy - or pay a "tax."
Monday, May 28, 2012
Conservative Observations
*On this Memorial Day we remember all those that have made the ultimate sacrifice for this country, and for securing for us all the freedoms that we cherish. Sadly, not all of us feel the same way. A talk show host on MSNBC, Chris Hayes, in discussing our fallen heroes had this to say: "I feel...uncomfortable about the word hero because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war." (As reported by Foxnews.com, 5/28/12.) I'm sorry, but I'm going to say it: What a moron! We remember those who gave their lives for this country today; not the civilian policy makers who sent them to war. Is that such a difficult distinction for you, Mr. Hayes? It reminds me of comments from two earlier blogs. In the 12/12/09 posting (Fools, Liars & Thieves) I quoted former President Jimmy Carter: "War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good." In my 6/3/10 posting (Right vs. Left...) I quoted Rabbi Joshua Levine Grater: "War should always be a last resort, and I admit that I am somewhat ambivalent about even that choice." (I will not repeat at length here my comments on these last two quotes, but the posts are still on the blog where you can read my reactions.)
*Speaking of morons, Foxnews.com, on 5/28/12, reported on the reaction of U.S. Senator Charles Schumer to a story in the AP. The AP reported that families traveling by plane this summer may have to pay more to sit next to each other. Apparently, airlines do not cover the cost of a flight from the basic airfare alone. And now they have to deal with rising fuel costs. They had already started charging for checking barrage, watching TV, early boarding, and so on. Now, they are asking as much as $25.00 extra per seat for an aisle seat, a window seat, and a seat with more legroom. Said Senator Schumer: "Unnecessary airline fees shouldn't serve as a literal barrier between mother and child." And unnecessary senators should not be telling airlines how to run their businesses. Here's a shock - he's been a politician his entire adult life, running exactly the same number of businesses as has our President. NONE. And I would be willing to bet that he has no clue whether or not these fees are "unnecessary" for the continued functioning of any of the airlines that have instituted them.
*It gets better. In the town of Fort Lee, New Jersey, you can now be ticketed for careless or distracted walking, as reported by the USA Today, 5/16/12 edition. The fine will be $85.00. The Utah Transit Authority now has a $50.00 fine for distracted walking near trains. Of course, I would never suggest that governmental entities are looking for new and creative ways to take your money in these difficult economic times. (Not to mention yet another effort by government to control your behavior.) But, take the case of Russ and Pat Caswell, as reported in a column by George Will (5/20/12 Ventura County Star). It seems the Caswells had a motel that has not always had the finest clientele. About 30 customers have been arrested since 1994 on drug charges. That's 1.6 arrests per year. I suspect quite a few high schools have a worse arrest record. In any event, as Will tells it, the city of Tewksbury, Mass. is conspiring with the feds to take the property under civil forfeiture laws. And the feds share the money with the locals; with the sale of the motel expected to bring in $1.5 million. Of course, the 68 year old Mr. Caswell will no longer have his source of income, nor his retirement. Mr. Caswell has neither been charged with, nor convicted of, any crime. In fact, he had a history of cooperating with the local police in providing customer ID's and license plates. According to Will, a federal drug agent seeks out properties to steal (really, is there another word for it?) if the equity is at least $50,000. Government power, says Will quoting Madison, "is of an encroaching nature." Per Will: "If unresisted, it produces iniquitous sharing of other people's property."
*And speaking of government "taking," under Obamacare there will be a 2.3% tax on the gross revenue of medical device manufactures. You see, these evil companies make devices that save lives and improve the quality of many lives; but the government simply can't afford to have all these people around needing medical care. So, if we tax these evil-doers, we will get more revenue into government coffers, and hopefully put some of them out of business. Lost jobs? How many of you still think Obama was ever about jobs? If he was, tell me why with the worst economy since the Great Depression, he was focusing all of his time and energy on Obamacare during his first two years in office. According to George Will, in the 5/10/12 Investor's Business Daily, Cook Medical will no longer be opening a US factory this year. Boston Scientific? Built a $35 million research and development facility in Ireland, and is building a $150 million factory in China. Stryker Corp? Laid off 1000 employees. Zimmer? Laying off 450. Covidien? 200 lay-offs, and moving some production to Costa Rica and Mexico. Obama is motivated solely by ideology. You know, the "idea" of "equality." If thousands or millions lose their jobs, he will not lose one night's sleep over it. He and Michelle will just take another vacation.
*And in what may be the most telling phone call to a talk radio show that I will ever hear, a woman called up to Dennis Prager to disagree with a generalization he had made. In the process, she mentioned that she was Jewish and that her father (mid 80's) also listened to Prager and virtually always agreed with him. Then, the question by Prager - did her father ever vote for a Republican? Being a Jewish Republican, I did not need to actually hear the answer. Of course he never did. Prager's explanation was that the Left had done such a good job of demonizing the right that it would never occur to this man (and others like him) to actually vote for the party which had policies with which he agreed. I agree with that assessment, and have mentioned it on numerous occasions in prior postings. In fact, one time a liberal Jew with whom I was speaking was complaining of some of the high taxes in her city. When I said: "Congratulations, when did you become a Republican?", the reply was: Oh G-d forbid!" Many of my fellow Jews cannot even acknowledge that some of the positions that they hold are Republican positions. Even if they worked hard for everything they got in life, with no handouts, they do not believe others are capable of accomplishing the same things; whether it be a good education, a good job, or financial success. They believe the lie of the Left that every left-wing interest group is made up of "victims" of something or other, and only the government can right the perceived wrongs.
Ask them what President said: "This administration pledged itself...to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes" because "the accumulated evidence of the last five years is that our present tax system...exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; ...it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power;...it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment and risk taking." Okay, we know Obama would never say such a thing; but it was a democrat. JFK said it. Tell that to a liberal democrat today and then get back to me with all the excuses they make for the difference between then and now. You see, they do not even recognize how far to the left they, and their party, have moved. Kennedy was a "traditional" liberal democrat: low taxes, personal responsibility, and a strong military to defend the country. As I say near the top left of my postings when you access the site, I left the party, in part, because it left me.
*Let's hear it for the State of New Jersey! The state Attorney General determined that no laws were violated when the NYPD conducted surveillance of Muslim businesses, mosques and student groups within New Jersey, without giving advance notification to New Jersey authorities. Not surprisingly, Muslim leaders are upset, and are considering the filing of a federal civil rights action. You know what I'm upset by? Three thousand fellow Americans, including one with whom I attended all of public school, being murdered on 9/11. The NYPD's Intelligence Division has people assigned to Scotland Yard, as well as police headquarters in 10 other foreign cities. You see, the war on radical islam is far from being over; and the NYPD has done an incredible job in helping to stop numerous planned attacks.
*In a related story, the city of Leicester, England, with a Muslim population of 30-40,000, just elected their first Muslim mayor. According to a story in the 5/24/12 Jewish Press online, the most influential Muslim in Leicester is one Shayk Abu Yusuf Riyadh Ul-Haq. In one of his sermons, Ul-Haq said that having a friendship with a Christian or Jew makes "a mockery of Allah's religion." He also discussed the "evil influence" of Western culture. The article notes that "Leicester has been plagued by forced marriages, kidnappings, physical and mental abuse of women, and other honor-based crimes against those who have not, according to family and local community members, conformed to religious or cultural expectations." Well it's sure comforting to know that they have avoided the "evil influence" of Western culture.
Not surprisingly, Ul-Haq also gave a sermon on the Jews. He had this to say: "They're all the same...It doesn't matter whether they're in New York, Houston, St. Louis, London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester. They're all the same. They've monopolized everything: the Holocaust, G-d, money, interest, usury, the world economy, the media, political institutions...they monopolized tyranny and oppression as well. And injustice." I'm impressed; less than than two tenths of one percent of the world's population and we control the world economy, the media and all political institutions. Seriously, though, if these kinds of comments, along with the ongoing efforts to commit terror attacks on US soil, does not convince you of the need for the type of surveillance being conducted by the NYPD, then you probably need to spend a year in, say, Saudi Arabia. But good luck in finding a Church or Synagogue to attend.
*Speaking of morons, Foxnews.com, on 5/28/12, reported on the reaction of U.S. Senator Charles Schumer to a story in the AP. The AP reported that families traveling by plane this summer may have to pay more to sit next to each other. Apparently, airlines do not cover the cost of a flight from the basic airfare alone. And now they have to deal with rising fuel costs. They had already started charging for checking barrage, watching TV, early boarding, and so on. Now, they are asking as much as $25.00 extra per seat for an aisle seat, a window seat, and a seat with more legroom. Said Senator Schumer: "Unnecessary airline fees shouldn't serve as a literal barrier between mother and child." And unnecessary senators should not be telling airlines how to run their businesses. Here's a shock - he's been a politician his entire adult life, running exactly the same number of businesses as has our President. NONE. And I would be willing to bet that he has no clue whether or not these fees are "unnecessary" for the continued functioning of any of the airlines that have instituted them.
*It gets better. In the town of Fort Lee, New Jersey, you can now be ticketed for careless or distracted walking, as reported by the USA Today, 5/16/12 edition. The fine will be $85.00. The Utah Transit Authority now has a $50.00 fine for distracted walking near trains. Of course, I would never suggest that governmental entities are looking for new and creative ways to take your money in these difficult economic times. (Not to mention yet another effort by government to control your behavior.) But, take the case of Russ and Pat Caswell, as reported in a column by George Will (5/20/12 Ventura County Star). It seems the Caswells had a motel that has not always had the finest clientele. About 30 customers have been arrested since 1994 on drug charges. That's 1.6 arrests per year. I suspect quite a few high schools have a worse arrest record. In any event, as Will tells it, the city of Tewksbury, Mass. is conspiring with the feds to take the property under civil forfeiture laws. And the feds share the money with the locals; with the sale of the motel expected to bring in $1.5 million. Of course, the 68 year old Mr. Caswell will no longer have his source of income, nor his retirement. Mr. Caswell has neither been charged with, nor convicted of, any crime. In fact, he had a history of cooperating with the local police in providing customer ID's and license plates. According to Will, a federal drug agent seeks out properties to steal (really, is there another word for it?) if the equity is at least $50,000. Government power, says Will quoting Madison, "is of an encroaching nature." Per Will: "If unresisted, it produces iniquitous sharing of other people's property."
*And speaking of government "taking," under Obamacare there will be a 2.3% tax on the gross revenue of medical device manufactures. You see, these evil companies make devices that save lives and improve the quality of many lives; but the government simply can't afford to have all these people around needing medical care. So, if we tax these evil-doers, we will get more revenue into government coffers, and hopefully put some of them out of business. Lost jobs? How many of you still think Obama was ever about jobs? If he was, tell me why with the worst economy since the Great Depression, he was focusing all of his time and energy on Obamacare during his first two years in office. According to George Will, in the 5/10/12 Investor's Business Daily, Cook Medical will no longer be opening a US factory this year. Boston Scientific? Built a $35 million research and development facility in Ireland, and is building a $150 million factory in China. Stryker Corp? Laid off 1000 employees. Zimmer? Laying off 450. Covidien? 200 lay-offs, and moving some production to Costa Rica and Mexico. Obama is motivated solely by ideology. You know, the "idea" of "equality." If thousands or millions lose their jobs, he will not lose one night's sleep over it. He and Michelle will just take another vacation.
*And in what may be the most telling phone call to a talk radio show that I will ever hear, a woman called up to Dennis Prager to disagree with a generalization he had made. In the process, she mentioned that she was Jewish and that her father (mid 80's) also listened to Prager and virtually always agreed with him. Then, the question by Prager - did her father ever vote for a Republican? Being a Jewish Republican, I did not need to actually hear the answer. Of course he never did. Prager's explanation was that the Left had done such a good job of demonizing the right that it would never occur to this man (and others like him) to actually vote for the party which had policies with which he agreed. I agree with that assessment, and have mentioned it on numerous occasions in prior postings. In fact, one time a liberal Jew with whom I was speaking was complaining of some of the high taxes in her city. When I said: "Congratulations, when did you become a Republican?", the reply was: Oh G-d forbid!" Many of my fellow Jews cannot even acknowledge that some of the positions that they hold are Republican positions. Even if they worked hard for everything they got in life, with no handouts, they do not believe others are capable of accomplishing the same things; whether it be a good education, a good job, or financial success. They believe the lie of the Left that every left-wing interest group is made up of "victims" of something or other, and only the government can right the perceived wrongs.
Ask them what President said: "This administration pledged itself...to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes" because "the accumulated evidence of the last five years is that our present tax system...exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; ...it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power;...it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment and risk taking." Okay, we know Obama would never say such a thing; but it was a democrat. JFK said it. Tell that to a liberal democrat today and then get back to me with all the excuses they make for the difference between then and now. You see, they do not even recognize how far to the left they, and their party, have moved. Kennedy was a "traditional" liberal democrat: low taxes, personal responsibility, and a strong military to defend the country. As I say near the top left of my postings when you access the site, I left the party, in part, because it left me.
*Let's hear it for the State of New Jersey! The state Attorney General determined that no laws were violated when the NYPD conducted surveillance of Muslim businesses, mosques and student groups within New Jersey, without giving advance notification to New Jersey authorities. Not surprisingly, Muslim leaders are upset, and are considering the filing of a federal civil rights action. You know what I'm upset by? Three thousand fellow Americans, including one with whom I attended all of public school, being murdered on 9/11. The NYPD's Intelligence Division has people assigned to Scotland Yard, as well as police headquarters in 10 other foreign cities. You see, the war on radical islam is far from being over; and the NYPD has done an incredible job in helping to stop numerous planned attacks.
*In a related story, the city of Leicester, England, with a Muslim population of 30-40,000, just elected their first Muslim mayor. According to a story in the 5/24/12 Jewish Press online, the most influential Muslim in Leicester is one Shayk Abu Yusuf Riyadh Ul-Haq. In one of his sermons, Ul-Haq said that having a friendship with a Christian or Jew makes "a mockery of Allah's religion." He also discussed the "evil influence" of Western culture. The article notes that "Leicester has been plagued by forced marriages, kidnappings, physical and mental abuse of women, and other honor-based crimes against those who have not, according to family and local community members, conformed to religious or cultural expectations." Well it's sure comforting to know that they have avoided the "evil influence" of Western culture.
Not surprisingly, Ul-Haq also gave a sermon on the Jews. He had this to say: "They're all the same...It doesn't matter whether they're in New York, Houston, St. Louis, London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester. They're all the same. They've monopolized everything: the Holocaust, G-d, money, interest, usury, the world economy, the media, political institutions...they monopolized tyranny and oppression as well. And injustice." I'm impressed; less than than two tenths of one percent of the world's population and we control the world economy, the media and all political institutions. Seriously, though, if these kinds of comments, along with the ongoing efforts to commit terror attacks on US soil, does not convince you of the need for the type of surveillance being conducted by the NYPD, then you probably need to spend a year in, say, Saudi Arabia. But good luck in finding a Church or Synagogue to attend.
Sunday, May 6, 2012
A Letter I Would Never Write
I have been a little frustrated of late. Talking to those who disagree with me does not bother me. But some people's inability to even listen to a contrary opinion, or even FACTS that are inconsistent with their tightly held worldview, can get a little discouraging. If you read this blog, you know that I leave personalities out (I know, on a few rare occasions I referred to some public figure as a moron), and I discuss the issues of the day in an intellectual manner, trying to cite my sources whenever possible. But every once in a while I am tempted to write a letter that I would never write.
"To my liberal friends,
What is the matter with you? How long will you keep blaming George Bush without recognizing what Obama has done to our economy? The percentage of people who want to work that are actually working is down to 63.6% as of April - the lowest since 1981! Shortly after Obama took office it was 65.7%. So while new jobs in April totaled 115,00, the labor force shrank by 342,000. And you think Obama is turning things around? Why? Because you read the LA or NY Times? Or watch CNN or MSNBC? Our "recovery" technically began in June, 2009. Yet, all other expansions post WWII had the labor force GROWING by MILLIONS at this point in the recovery. (Stats from 5/7/12 Investor's Business Daily.)
Well, here's what the NY Times said in their lead editorial in the Sunday, 4/29/12 edition: "...President George W. Bush was responsible for nearly five times more of the current debt than President Obama." I guess if you are going to so blatantly LIE, it may as well be a whopper! In 8 years in office, Bush never spent more than $3 trillion a year. Obama spent $3.938 trillion in his first year alone. As a percentage of GDP, Bush never had a deficit above above 3.5%; Obama's record: 10.1%, 9.0%, 8.7% and estimated 8.5% for this year. (Deficit figures from White House OMB site. Other stats from a 3/09 paper from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.) I would suggest that you go online and check it out for yourself, but I know that you are more comfortable with your belief system than with facts. You ever ask yourself why that is?
Remember how upset you were with Bush when gas prices got to over $3.00/gallon? He had all those ties to the evil oil industry! Now, gas prices are over $4.00/gallon. Where are you? Where is your outrage? Either the LA or NY Times, both of whom lambasted Bush for his $3.00/gallon gas, not only did not blame Obama in one of their editorials. They actually said we should drive Priuses, ride bicycles, walk to work, or move closer to work. Yes, let's go back to the 19th century! You know, I trust, that your President's Energy Secretary said he would like to see the price of gas rise to what it is in Europe ($8.00 or $9.00/gallon)! Is that looking out for you? No. It hurts you; and it will make every product you buy more expensive, because most products are shipped by trucks, which use GASOLINE! But you will happily vote for Obama in November.
As someone who has always been interested in astronomy and the space program, I mentioned to a dear friend (please don't get mad at me) how upset I was that Obama has basically destroyed the program. He pooh-poohed my assertion. So I used my smart phone and typed in "Obama and the space program." Article after article about Obama's lack of interest in and lack of support for the space program. Yet, you can easily Google "the space program and scientific and medical advances" and you may be surprised by what comes up. Obama has added $5 trillion dollars to the debt, but cannot adequately fund the space program. Well, it doesn't have anything to do with redistributing wealth, hence his lack of interest. And yours, I guess.
Thank goodness the democrats are running Sacramento. They have controlled the legislature for, what, four decades now? They sure know how to tax and spend. Workers earning more than $48,000/year pay a top rate of 9.3%, higher than what millionaires pay in 47 states. But about 40% of California residents pay NO income taxes, with about 25% on Medi-Cal. (Stats from an article by Allysia Finley in an interview with demographer Joel Kotkin.) As Mr. Kotkin notes, it might not be that far-fetched for someone to propose a ballot measure taxing all income above $100,000. at 100%! Between 1992 and 2008, about 4.4 million people (tax filers) left California, while only 3.5 million moved in from other states. Those leaving had higher adjusted gross incomes, on average. And where do Californians move to? States with LOWER TAXES! Of the top nine states they go to, the average maximum income tax rate is 3.44% (versus California's top rate of 10.3%). (Last stats from an article by Arthur Laffer in the 4/17/12 IBD.) "Let them go," you say? Well, they not only take their higher incomes and higher tax payments with them. They take jobs. According to Mr. Kotkin,there are four "growth corridors," including the Gulf Coast, the Great Plains, the Intermountain West, and the Southeast. What do these areas have that California doesn't? Lower taxes, lower costs of living, less government regulation and natural resources. According to Mr. Kotkin: "Almost all of the major tech companies have moved stuff to Salt Lake City," including Twitter, Adobe, eBay, and Oracle. Apple is creating 3600 jobs in Austin, Texas. Facebook and eBay have or will add jobs there also. So, let them all go. That way, you and the remaining people and businesses can pay more in taxes! It's on the ballot, you know.
When those Republicans run things, they just care about saving money! Well, yes, they care about saving YOUR money. But maybe the dems and the public employee unions can get Scott Walker recalled as Governor of Wisconsin. He actually made public employees pay 5.8% of their salaries to their own pensions, and 12.6% to their health insurance premiums. (Of course, I pay 100% of my retirement and 100% of my health insurance. But I don't kick back millions of dollars to the democratic pols like the public employee unions do.) Under Walker, property taxes have actually declined for the first time since 1998. Shameful! Wisconsin has actually moved up the list 21 spots on the best places to do business, during Walker's term. (Per Chief Executive magazine, as quoted from the 5/4/12 WSJ. Other stats from same article.) And taxpayers - you know, the people - have saved $1 billion dollars under Walker. The result is that School Districts have been able to keep teachers' jobs and avoid mass lay-offs. But who cares about saving jobs? You know in your heart that Republicans are evil. You know voting for a Republican is just WRONG!
Here's some good news. The Socialist candidate for President of France has won in today's run-off election! Sarkozy is OUT. Austerity measures are OUT. The winner, Francois Hollande, wants to raise taxes for income over 1 million Euro to 75%, and over 450,000 Euro to 45%. (From the 4/20/12 WSJ.) Think that will help France's miserable employment rate of 62.8%? (Germany's rate - 76.5%, and Switzerland's - 82.9%.) (From an article by Bret Stephens in the 4/24/12 WSJ.) Who cares about jobs? It's time to make those rich bastards pay more taxes. You know, the 1%. I wonder where most of those one-percenters come from? Hmmm. Bill Gates? Steve Jobs? Humble beginnings. Many millionaire entertainers? Started out as waiters and waitresses in New York or LA, but with a dream and a desire. But Obama says it's time to punish them for their success, so that's what the country has to do. The government can make better use of their money. Didn't the government create the desktop computer, smartphones, iTunes, iPads Skype, Facebook, Twitter, Google and on and on it goes? No? Well, the government needs that money anyway. It's just unfair to have wealthy people.
So, my friends, go out there and do all you can to get Obama re-elected. He'll raise your taxes, put us further into debt to the point where your children and grandchildren will never get out from under. He'll continue to limit supply so your gas prices will keep going up. The medical advances from our space program will be no more. But under Obamacare we won't be able to pay for all that treatment anyway. And just to make sure of that, Obama created the Independent Payment Advisory Board that gets to decide just how much the government will spend for your particular medical treatment. And it has the bonus of NO CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT! That was written into the law. With a socialist victory in France, it's looking better for a socialist victory again here. So go out and work hard for a November victory and then celebrate.
Your friend,
The Truth-Uncensored.
P.S. "Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone..." (Thanks to Joni Mitchell.)"
"To my liberal friends,
What is the matter with you? How long will you keep blaming George Bush without recognizing what Obama has done to our economy? The percentage of people who want to work that are actually working is down to 63.6% as of April - the lowest since 1981! Shortly after Obama took office it was 65.7%. So while new jobs in April totaled 115,00, the labor force shrank by 342,000. And you think Obama is turning things around? Why? Because you read the LA or NY Times? Or watch CNN or MSNBC? Our "recovery" technically began in June, 2009. Yet, all other expansions post WWII had the labor force GROWING by MILLIONS at this point in the recovery. (Stats from 5/7/12 Investor's Business Daily.)
Well, here's what the NY Times said in their lead editorial in the Sunday, 4/29/12 edition: "...President George W. Bush was responsible for nearly five times more of the current debt than President Obama." I guess if you are going to so blatantly LIE, it may as well be a whopper! In 8 years in office, Bush never spent more than $3 trillion a year. Obama spent $3.938 trillion in his first year alone. As a percentage of GDP, Bush never had a deficit above above 3.5%; Obama's record: 10.1%, 9.0%, 8.7% and estimated 8.5% for this year. (Deficit figures from White House OMB site. Other stats from a 3/09 paper from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.) I would suggest that you go online and check it out for yourself, but I know that you are more comfortable with your belief system than with facts. You ever ask yourself why that is?
Remember how upset you were with Bush when gas prices got to over $3.00/gallon? He had all those ties to the evil oil industry! Now, gas prices are over $4.00/gallon. Where are you? Where is your outrage? Either the LA or NY Times, both of whom lambasted Bush for his $3.00/gallon gas, not only did not blame Obama in one of their editorials. They actually said we should drive Priuses, ride bicycles, walk to work, or move closer to work. Yes, let's go back to the 19th century! You know, I trust, that your President's Energy Secretary said he would like to see the price of gas rise to what it is in Europe ($8.00 or $9.00/gallon)! Is that looking out for you? No. It hurts you; and it will make every product you buy more expensive, because most products are shipped by trucks, which use GASOLINE! But you will happily vote for Obama in November.
As someone who has always been interested in astronomy and the space program, I mentioned to a dear friend (please don't get mad at me) how upset I was that Obama has basically destroyed the program. He pooh-poohed my assertion. So I used my smart phone and typed in "Obama and the space program." Article after article about Obama's lack of interest in and lack of support for the space program. Yet, you can easily Google "the space program and scientific and medical advances" and you may be surprised by what comes up. Obama has added $5 trillion dollars to the debt, but cannot adequately fund the space program. Well, it doesn't have anything to do with redistributing wealth, hence his lack of interest. And yours, I guess.
Thank goodness the democrats are running Sacramento. They have controlled the legislature for, what, four decades now? They sure know how to tax and spend. Workers earning more than $48,000/year pay a top rate of 9.3%, higher than what millionaires pay in 47 states. But about 40% of California residents pay NO income taxes, with about 25% on Medi-Cal. (Stats from an article by Allysia Finley in an interview with demographer Joel Kotkin.) As Mr. Kotkin notes, it might not be that far-fetched for someone to propose a ballot measure taxing all income above $100,000. at 100%! Between 1992 and 2008, about 4.4 million people (tax filers) left California, while only 3.5 million moved in from other states. Those leaving had higher adjusted gross incomes, on average. And where do Californians move to? States with LOWER TAXES! Of the top nine states they go to, the average maximum income tax rate is 3.44% (versus California's top rate of 10.3%). (Last stats from an article by Arthur Laffer in the 4/17/12 IBD.) "Let them go," you say? Well, they not only take their higher incomes and higher tax payments with them. They take jobs. According to Mr. Kotkin,there are four "growth corridors," including the Gulf Coast, the Great Plains, the Intermountain West, and the Southeast. What do these areas have that California doesn't? Lower taxes, lower costs of living, less government regulation and natural resources. According to Mr. Kotkin: "Almost all of the major tech companies have moved stuff to Salt Lake City," including Twitter, Adobe, eBay, and Oracle. Apple is creating 3600 jobs in Austin, Texas. Facebook and eBay have or will add jobs there also. So, let them all go. That way, you and the remaining people and businesses can pay more in taxes! It's on the ballot, you know.
When those Republicans run things, they just care about saving money! Well, yes, they care about saving YOUR money. But maybe the dems and the public employee unions can get Scott Walker recalled as Governor of Wisconsin. He actually made public employees pay 5.8% of their salaries to their own pensions, and 12.6% to their health insurance premiums. (Of course, I pay 100% of my retirement and 100% of my health insurance. But I don't kick back millions of dollars to the democratic pols like the public employee unions do.) Under Walker, property taxes have actually declined for the first time since 1998. Shameful! Wisconsin has actually moved up the list 21 spots on the best places to do business, during Walker's term. (Per Chief Executive magazine, as quoted from the 5/4/12 WSJ. Other stats from same article.) And taxpayers - you know, the people - have saved $1 billion dollars under Walker. The result is that School Districts have been able to keep teachers' jobs and avoid mass lay-offs. But who cares about saving jobs? You know in your heart that Republicans are evil. You know voting for a Republican is just WRONG!
Here's some good news. The Socialist candidate for President of France has won in today's run-off election! Sarkozy is OUT. Austerity measures are OUT. The winner, Francois Hollande, wants to raise taxes for income over 1 million Euro to 75%, and over 450,000 Euro to 45%. (From the 4/20/12 WSJ.) Think that will help France's miserable employment rate of 62.8%? (Germany's rate - 76.5%, and Switzerland's - 82.9%.) (From an article by Bret Stephens in the 4/24/12 WSJ.) Who cares about jobs? It's time to make those rich bastards pay more taxes. You know, the 1%. I wonder where most of those one-percenters come from? Hmmm. Bill Gates? Steve Jobs? Humble beginnings. Many millionaire entertainers? Started out as waiters and waitresses in New York or LA, but with a dream and a desire. But Obama says it's time to punish them for their success, so that's what the country has to do. The government can make better use of their money. Didn't the government create the desktop computer, smartphones, iTunes, iPads Skype, Facebook, Twitter, Google and on and on it goes? No? Well, the government needs that money anyway. It's just unfair to have wealthy people.
So, my friends, go out there and do all you can to get Obama re-elected. He'll raise your taxes, put us further into debt to the point where your children and grandchildren will never get out from under. He'll continue to limit supply so your gas prices will keep going up. The medical advances from our space program will be no more. But under Obamacare we won't be able to pay for all that treatment anyway. And just to make sure of that, Obama created the Independent Payment Advisory Board that gets to decide just how much the government will spend for your particular medical treatment. And it has the bonus of NO CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT! That was written into the law. With a socialist victory in France, it's looking better for a socialist victory again here. So go out and work hard for a November victory and then celebrate.
Your friend,
The Truth-Uncensored.
P.S. "Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone..." (Thanks to Joni Mitchell.)"
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Obamacare at the Supreme Court.
* There were some memorable lines from the Supreme Court hearings on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. (The law will neither protect patients nor make health care affordable, but that is another matter.) Justice Kennedy had what may be the best line, indicating that the mandate "changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way." Indeed, for the first time the feds would be ordering everyone to purchase a product from a private company or state run exchange. Yes, I know the States require the purchase of various things: car insurance, motorcycle helmets, and on and on. But if you do not drive a car or motorcycle, you need not make those purchases. And it goes to the very nature of our republic as to whether or not the constitution limits the federal government to enumerated powers, with plenary power reserved to the states; and whether the power of the states and the rights of the individual are superseded by an all powerful central government.
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr.: "Virtually everybody in society is in this market," explaining why ordering people to buy insurance is different than other products. But there were so many assumptions made in these hearings. Even if virtually everyone does enter the market at some point in their lives, there are studies that have suggested that about 20% of the population uses about 80% of the healthcare services. If so, should this unequal distribution be a factor in assessing costs?
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: "The people who don't participate in this market are making it much more expensive for the people who do...and the result is that everybody else's premiums get raised." Even if she is right, do we confer constitutionality on a statute just because it might control costs? Can Congress pass laws limiting what any product can cost, or order the purchase of products by all, to keep the prices down? And is the Justice right, or is it just another assumption? Mark Levin a couple of weeks ago was discussing how government interference in the healthcare market is what is keeping prices high. States, and now the feds with Obamacare, have had certain requirements of what every health insurance policy must provide, regardless of whether the purchaser wants or will ever use that service. The insurance companies then pass along the costs of those services. And what about Medicaid (Medi-Cal in California) and Medicare? Doctors and hospitals are limited in what they are paid by those two programs, regardless of the doctor's or hospital's actual cost. So the rest of us get to make up the difference in higher prices.
Justice Antonin Scalia: "Everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli." Maybe, maybe not. But does anyone have any doubt that once the door is opened to the feds to allow them to order you to buy one thing, it is now wide open for whatever a future Congress and President see fit to order you to purchase or to do? And why not broccoli, if it can be shown that the beneficial health effects help cut down on the use of healthcare services?
* The LA Times. In their 3/26/12 editorial they say that the mandate "is a key piece of a broad effort to fix a healthcare system that is too expensive, inefficient and inaccessible to too many Americans." For this reason, they say, the mandate should be upheld. This does not address the constitutionality issue at all. Rather, it reflects typical leftist thinking that the ends justify the means. They believe Obamacare is a good idea and therefore it should be upheld. They do argue that government orders the purchase of car insurance and motorcylce helmets - but see the discussion in the first paragraph explaining the nature of our Republic, which the Times does not seem to get.
* The New York Times. In their 4/1/12 editorial they say, in reference to the Roberts Court: "There has been no court less restrained in signaling its willingness to replace law made by Congress with law made by justices." Except they don't really mean it - it's a lie. They would be fine with the court overturning The Defense of Marriage Act, as well as numerous other laws passed by Congress. And they would not call it "replacing law made by Congress with law made by justices." Rather, they would be lauding the justices for their "courage." In any event, their basic supposition about the Roberts Court is a lie. Roe vs. Wade found a right to abortion based on a right to privacy. Except that the Constitution mentions neither privacy nor abortion. Was the court deciding Roe engaging in "law made by justices?" Did the Roe court feel itself constrained by laws duly made by legislative bodies?
* The Investor's Business Daily. In their 3/28/12 editorial, the IBD notes that Obama ridiculed Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primaries when she argued for a healthcare "mandate." Said candidate Obama, if a mandate was a solution then "we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody buy a house..." Except, the mandate became imperative for him a year later, so which time was he lying? The IBD cites a report by two professors concluding that Obamacare's "combination of high taxes, large subsidies and extensive mandatory contractual terms seems likely to eventually drive most private insurance plans out of business." I always thought that the goal of Obamacare was to destroy the private health insurance market, thereby making it mandatory for Congress to put in a "public option." Only by then, it would not be an option - it would be the only coverage available.
* The Investor's Business Daily. In their 4/3/12 editorial, the paper discusses the costs of Obamacare. Originally, it was projected to cost $940 billion dollars in its first ten years. Except, the first two years had virtually no costs; so the CBO now projects costs for the next ten years to be $1.76 trillion dollars. Almost double. There's a shocker - a government program that costs far more than original projections. Are your insurance rates up? Obama originally said that families would save $2500. per year. But a Kaiser Family Foundation study has found that average costs are already up $2200. per year. Notes the IBD: "Increased health insurance coverage is not the same as better health, nor does wider coverage guarantee lower medical costs."
* President Obama. "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." Wow. Not bad - Obama managed two lies in one sentence. Congress barely passed Obamacare; 219 to 212 in the House, with quite a few democrats voting against it. It passed in the Senate when Harry Reid bribed certain senators in order to get their vote. Not a single Republican in either house voted for it. So, no, it did not pass by a "strong majority." And "an unprecedented, extraordinary step" if the Court overturns the law? Not only incorrect, but as Obama taught constitutional law, he knew full well it was an untruth. For 209 years, since Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Marbury vs. Madison, the Court has the inherent power of "judicial review." Were it otherwise, then any Congress could pass any law contrary to the Constitution and that law would stand, effectively negating the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The Constitution would just be the first "law" passed, and could be superseded any time Congress passed a contrary law. No need for Amendments.
* My take. Sadly missing from much commentary favoring Obamacare, even by lawyers and law professors, is whether or not the use of the Commerce Clause to justify this legislation is good for the country. Those on the left point to the use of the Commerce Clause for at least seven decades (if not ten or more) to justify expansion of federal power. In 1942 the case of Wickard vs. Filburn came before the U.S. Supreme Court. Filburn was a farmer in Ohio who grew wheat for himself and his family and his farm animals. But the Department of Agriculture fined him for growing more wheat than he was allowed by the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. Congress said the act was authorized by their power under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court upheld the fine saying that Filburn's use of his own wheat meant he did not have to purchase wheat in commerce - thereby affecting commerce. Also, he "might" decide to sell the wheat in commerce. This was an awful decision. The Court was allowing the feds to fine a citizen for growing wheat on his own farm. It was a sad day for the rights of property owners, and for individual liberty. So without questioning whether or not this was a wise decision, the left uses this as a basis for arguing for almost any expansion of federal power under the Commerce Clause.
And the left is right in that regard. If the Court believes Filburn was rightly decided, they could easily then uphold Obamacare. After all, healthcare affects interstate commerce. And not buying insurance can affect the market like not buying wheat (because Filburn grew his own). If Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional, it will be by a 5-4 vote, as the four liberal justices believe as the LA Times (see above) and those on the left often do - that the ends justify the means. If Obamacare is upheld, it could by a 5-4 vote (with Kennedy being the swing vote either way), but it could also be a 6-3 vote. The Chief Justice votes last. If he sees that Kennedy is siding with the four liberals he could decide to go with the majority. The reason would be that when the Chief Justice is in the majority he can assign the writing of the majority opinion to whomever he wants to, including himself. Therefore, the decision can be as broad or as limited as the Chief wants.
So what's with Obama? How could he make such a bold statement about the Court's power that was so wrong? He taught constitutional law, after all. Lots of excuses and explanations were made by the White House and Obama's supporters in the mainstream media. Of course, all the explanations were nonsensical because, again, Obama taught constitutional law. The criticisms from the right mostly suggested that Obama was trying to bully the Court into upholding the law. But missing from the analysis is a simple explanation: as someone on the left Obama believes that the ends justify the means. Looked at from this perspective it explains why it would be a non-issue for Obama to so blatantly lie about the size of the majority vote, and the Court's power to overturn the law. It explains why, in my opinion, Obama lies far more often than other Presidents have, and feels comfortable doing it. Even when the lies are so obviously and transparently wrong, he "knows" he is defending a "just" cause. That is why he can go out there and say what he does with a straight face, and undoubtedly sound convincing to the uninformed. And given that the mainstream media will never call him on any of his lies (remember "Bush lied, people died") Obama knows he is safe in continuing with his intellectual dishonesty.
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr.: "Virtually everybody in society is in this market," explaining why ordering people to buy insurance is different than other products. But there were so many assumptions made in these hearings. Even if virtually everyone does enter the market at some point in their lives, there are studies that have suggested that about 20% of the population uses about 80% of the healthcare services. If so, should this unequal distribution be a factor in assessing costs?
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: "The people who don't participate in this market are making it much more expensive for the people who do...and the result is that everybody else's premiums get raised." Even if she is right, do we confer constitutionality on a statute just because it might control costs? Can Congress pass laws limiting what any product can cost, or order the purchase of products by all, to keep the prices down? And is the Justice right, or is it just another assumption? Mark Levin a couple of weeks ago was discussing how government interference in the healthcare market is what is keeping prices high. States, and now the feds with Obamacare, have had certain requirements of what every health insurance policy must provide, regardless of whether the purchaser wants or will ever use that service. The insurance companies then pass along the costs of those services. And what about Medicaid (Medi-Cal in California) and Medicare? Doctors and hospitals are limited in what they are paid by those two programs, regardless of the doctor's or hospital's actual cost. So the rest of us get to make up the difference in higher prices.
Justice Antonin Scalia: "Everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli." Maybe, maybe not. But does anyone have any doubt that once the door is opened to the feds to allow them to order you to buy one thing, it is now wide open for whatever a future Congress and President see fit to order you to purchase or to do? And why not broccoli, if it can be shown that the beneficial health effects help cut down on the use of healthcare services?
* The LA Times. In their 3/26/12 editorial they say that the mandate "is a key piece of a broad effort to fix a healthcare system that is too expensive, inefficient and inaccessible to too many Americans." For this reason, they say, the mandate should be upheld. This does not address the constitutionality issue at all. Rather, it reflects typical leftist thinking that the ends justify the means. They believe Obamacare is a good idea and therefore it should be upheld. They do argue that government orders the purchase of car insurance and motorcylce helmets - but see the discussion in the first paragraph explaining the nature of our Republic, which the Times does not seem to get.
* The New York Times. In their 4/1/12 editorial they say, in reference to the Roberts Court: "There has been no court less restrained in signaling its willingness to replace law made by Congress with law made by justices." Except they don't really mean it - it's a lie. They would be fine with the court overturning The Defense of Marriage Act, as well as numerous other laws passed by Congress. And they would not call it "replacing law made by Congress with law made by justices." Rather, they would be lauding the justices for their "courage." In any event, their basic supposition about the Roberts Court is a lie. Roe vs. Wade found a right to abortion based on a right to privacy. Except that the Constitution mentions neither privacy nor abortion. Was the court deciding Roe engaging in "law made by justices?" Did the Roe court feel itself constrained by laws duly made by legislative bodies?
* The Investor's Business Daily. In their 3/28/12 editorial, the IBD notes that Obama ridiculed Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primaries when she argued for a healthcare "mandate." Said candidate Obama, if a mandate was a solution then "we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody buy a house..." Except, the mandate became imperative for him a year later, so which time was he lying? The IBD cites a report by two professors concluding that Obamacare's "combination of high taxes, large subsidies and extensive mandatory contractual terms seems likely to eventually drive most private insurance plans out of business." I always thought that the goal of Obamacare was to destroy the private health insurance market, thereby making it mandatory for Congress to put in a "public option." Only by then, it would not be an option - it would be the only coverage available.
* The Investor's Business Daily. In their 4/3/12 editorial, the paper discusses the costs of Obamacare. Originally, it was projected to cost $940 billion dollars in its first ten years. Except, the first two years had virtually no costs; so the CBO now projects costs for the next ten years to be $1.76 trillion dollars. Almost double. There's a shocker - a government program that costs far more than original projections. Are your insurance rates up? Obama originally said that families would save $2500. per year. But a Kaiser Family Foundation study has found that average costs are already up $2200. per year. Notes the IBD: "Increased health insurance coverage is not the same as better health, nor does wider coverage guarantee lower medical costs."
* President Obama. "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." Wow. Not bad - Obama managed two lies in one sentence. Congress barely passed Obamacare; 219 to 212 in the House, with quite a few democrats voting against it. It passed in the Senate when Harry Reid bribed certain senators in order to get their vote. Not a single Republican in either house voted for it. So, no, it did not pass by a "strong majority." And "an unprecedented, extraordinary step" if the Court overturns the law? Not only incorrect, but as Obama taught constitutional law, he knew full well it was an untruth. For 209 years, since Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Marbury vs. Madison, the Court has the inherent power of "judicial review." Were it otherwise, then any Congress could pass any law contrary to the Constitution and that law would stand, effectively negating the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The Constitution would just be the first "law" passed, and could be superseded any time Congress passed a contrary law. No need for Amendments.
* My take. Sadly missing from much commentary favoring Obamacare, even by lawyers and law professors, is whether or not the use of the Commerce Clause to justify this legislation is good for the country. Those on the left point to the use of the Commerce Clause for at least seven decades (if not ten or more) to justify expansion of federal power. In 1942 the case of Wickard vs. Filburn came before the U.S. Supreme Court. Filburn was a farmer in Ohio who grew wheat for himself and his family and his farm animals. But the Department of Agriculture fined him for growing more wheat than he was allowed by the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. Congress said the act was authorized by their power under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court upheld the fine saying that Filburn's use of his own wheat meant he did not have to purchase wheat in commerce - thereby affecting commerce. Also, he "might" decide to sell the wheat in commerce. This was an awful decision. The Court was allowing the feds to fine a citizen for growing wheat on his own farm. It was a sad day for the rights of property owners, and for individual liberty. So without questioning whether or not this was a wise decision, the left uses this as a basis for arguing for almost any expansion of federal power under the Commerce Clause.
And the left is right in that regard. If the Court believes Filburn was rightly decided, they could easily then uphold Obamacare. After all, healthcare affects interstate commerce. And not buying insurance can affect the market like not buying wheat (because Filburn grew his own). If Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional, it will be by a 5-4 vote, as the four liberal justices believe as the LA Times (see above) and those on the left often do - that the ends justify the means. If Obamacare is upheld, it could by a 5-4 vote (with Kennedy being the swing vote either way), but it could also be a 6-3 vote. The Chief Justice votes last. If he sees that Kennedy is siding with the four liberals he could decide to go with the majority. The reason would be that when the Chief Justice is in the majority he can assign the writing of the majority opinion to whomever he wants to, including himself. Therefore, the decision can be as broad or as limited as the Chief wants.
So what's with Obama? How could he make such a bold statement about the Court's power that was so wrong? He taught constitutional law, after all. Lots of excuses and explanations were made by the White House and Obama's supporters in the mainstream media. Of course, all the explanations were nonsensical because, again, Obama taught constitutional law. The criticisms from the right mostly suggested that Obama was trying to bully the Court into upholding the law. But missing from the analysis is a simple explanation: as someone on the left Obama believes that the ends justify the means. Looked at from this perspective it explains why it would be a non-issue for Obama to so blatantly lie about the size of the majority vote, and the Court's power to overturn the law. It explains why, in my opinion, Obama lies far more often than other Presidents have, and feels comfortable doing it. Even when the lies are so obviously and transparently wrong, he "knows" he is defending a "just" cause. That is why he can go out there and say what he does with a straight face, and undoubtedly sound convincing to the uninformed. And given that the mainstream media will never call him on any of his lies (remember "Bush lied, people died") Obama knows he is safe in continuing with his intellectual dishonesty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)