She had lost the art of conversation, but not,unfortunately, the power of speech.
George Bernard Shaw
11th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules 2-1
Health Care Insurance Mandate Unconstitutional:
THUMBS UP!
One of the interesting little soap operas going on among the Presidential candidates is Mitt Romney's puzzling defense of Massachusetts' individual mandate. He points out that a number of well-to-do citizens were electing not to insure and were freeloading off the system. He needs to provide more of an explanation. It's not obvious to me how someone with available resources is able to freeload off the season unless there's dysfunctional public policy against providers being able to recover costs over time. For example, if bankruptcy law is being abused to shed medical debt, we could reform bankruptcy law (e.g., allowing providers to recover up to the equivalent of extrapolated insurance premium payments post-settlement). If the argument is that governments have to subsidize deadbeats, we can provide reforms such as wage garnishment, minimum co-pays, penalties for inappropriate access (e.g., to emergency clinics), and/or spreading the cost across the system, e.g., through a consumption tax. We could also exercise cost controls over patients receiving government subsidies, e.g., directing patients to lower-cost centers of excellence for specific conditions.
Let us also note, when we look at government subsidies, we have to take into account the opportunity costs of government exempting income/compensation from taxation, which is an implicit subsidy for purchasing insurance: a subsidy not available for those having to buy insurance directly. There's a simple equal protection argument here as well.
A three-judge panel, two of them Clinton appointees, ruled that the health insurance mandate constitutes an unconstitutional slippery slope overreach of unbridled federal power. Indeed, this is crony capitalism run amok. Whereas progressives like to keep score by how many progressive courts of appeal rubberstamp progressive district court decisions, this one is particularly telling because this case involves nearly half the states in the US joining in the lawsuit.
The Iowa GOP Debate and Related Notes: Some Comments
I will likely write a second segment on last night's debate over the weekend because I have a number of comments to make.
- Bachmann's "Submissive" Question: This is an interesting twist on the Protestant smear against JFK back in the 1960 campaign, claiming that electing a Catholic President would effectively put the Pope in charge of American federal policy. Today this argument is all but forgotten; a simple majority of Supreme Court justices is Catholic, we have a Catholic Vice President, and we've had Catholic Speakers of the House. Byron York posed a similar question that put Bachmann on the hotseat with respect to politically correct feminism. Part of Bachmann's political base is evangelical conservatives, just like George W. Bush and Mike Huckabee. During the 2006 campaign when Bachmann won her first term, Bachmann claimed it really wasn't her idea but rather her husband's for her to earn a tax law degree, something she then explained as her duty as a submissive wife, now she proudly cites as part of her resume. York then simply poses the question of whether Michele Bachmann would be submissive as President to her unelected husband? The pro-Bachmann crowd booed the question, while Michele Bachmann had a genuine "deer in the headlights" moment as she tried to figure out how to respond. After all, she had been trying to play the Hillary Clinton/"female victim to male/bullies" card. She then gave a preposterous evasive response, trying to explain "submissive" means "respect". (Apparently Mr. Bachmann had "respected" Michele by suggesting she get a degree in a discipline she didn't prefer...) Where does she draw the line--if she spent a year or two earning a degree she never wanted in the first place? Let's point out that this was an unforced error, just like McCain's admission a few years back that he needed to be educated about economics. There are different approaches to responding to this question. For example, she could have explained that she consulted with her husband on marital matters, major life decisions, like whether to run for President. When it comes to political decisions, her commitment as a Congresswoman or Presidential candidate is not to her husband but to her constituents and her publicly announced political positions, and she has presented a consistent political viewpoint on the issues to her constituents.
- Bachmann v. Pawlenty: There are multiple items here. First, Pawlenty is arguing that Bachmann has a thin resume with no substantive accomplishments or executive experience. This is a matter of fact; the only way Bachmann can counter this point is to argue she has more experience in dealing with federal policies and she holds an important House GOP leadership position. Pawlenty never quite gets to the point of saying this is very similar to Obama, except for political ideology. Many apologists have sought to dismiss the issue by noting that Bachmann's first 2 terms were under a Democratic-controlled House. I think this is a very weak argument; for example, one could point out the Bachmann's more strident positions make bipartisan compromise, necessary to pass through a Democratic-controlled Senate, impossible. Second, Bachmann has had a hard time holding on to consistent Tea Party support, e.g., on the Patriot Act, the debt ceiling compromise, and the Gulf region wars. A second flashpoint was over a Minnesota budget deal, where Pawlenty approved a cigarette tax increase bundled with a pro-life policy. Personally, I don't like using a regressive tax on cigarettes to close general budget deficits. The point Pawlenty is making is for fiscal conservatives to attack him for agreeing to a compromise with the cigarette tax increase means, as a matter of fairness, that they should also do the same for Bachmann, whom voted for the compromise. Bachmann argued her pro-life position trumped her general distaste for tax increases. You see, she is being perfectly consistent: it's fine for her to vote for a compromise with tax increases, but it was wrong for Governor Pawlenty to make a compromise with tax increases. Of course, if she was governor, she would have been able to close the deficit with the majority Democrat legislature without touching tax policy. She must have a Nixonian "secret plan", based on her expertise as a tax attorney, to end the budget wars; you just have to elect her to see what's in it, in Pelosian splendor. [No doubt those wily Congressional Democrats see an opening here: we'll agree to "no-abortion Tuesday's" to win our class warfare tax hikes.] You see, that devious Governor Pawlenty, who earned one of 4 governor A's from the Cato Institute on fiscal discipline, really wanted tax increases from the get-go and threw the pro-life thing in there just to win majority support. My point as a Tea Party supporter is to point out that a lot of us see Bachmann as co-opting Tea Party principles of limited government with other (e.g., social or military) conservative stands which imply some Big Government is "more equal" than other Big Government (e.g., Big Defense and the Patriot Act).
"President Obama took campaign volunteers out for burgers yesterday and apparently left a 35 percent tip. Oh man, that guy is so generous — with China’s money." - Jimmy Fallon
[The volunteers argued at his income level, President Obama should have left a 39.6% tip.]
Buddy Holly Tribute
I first heard a snippet of this song while listening to a Dennis Miller podcast with performer John Mueller. Buddy Holly had some of the most iconic hits of the early rock era, including "That'll Be the Day" and "Peggy Sue". His tragic death in a plane crash, "the day the music died", is the subject under one of the greatest rock songs ever from the early 1970's, Don McLean's "American Pie", which I embed after Mueller's tribute.
My Favorite Groups
The Eagles, "Get Over It". One of the first Eagles' hits in almost 15 years since 1980. Perhaps Obama would be better off by listening to this song, instead of his constant bitching over Bush handing off the aftermath of an economic crisis that a Democratic-controlled Congress didn't know how to handle. What did he think the Presidency was going to be like? Listening 24 hours a day to "Hail to the Chief", shirking responsibility and giving vapid speeches?
