The judiciary and free speech
By George F. Will
“The First Amendment does not permit laws that force speakers to retain a campaign finance attorney, conduct demographic marketing research, or seek declaratory rulings before discussing the most salient political issues of our day.”
— U.S. Supreme Court,
Citizens United (2010)
Brick by brick, judges are dismantling the wall of separation that legislators have built between political activity and the First Amendment’s protections of free speech and association. The latest examples, from Mississippi and Arizona, reflect the judiciary’s proper engagement in defending citizens from the regulation of political speech, a.k.a. “campaign finance reform.”
In 2011, a few like-minded friends and neighbors in Oxford, Miss., who had been meeting for a few years to discuss politics, decided to work together to support passage of an initiative amending Mississippi’s Constitution. The amendment, restricting the power of the state and local governments to take private property by eminent domain, was provoked by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2005 Kelo ruling that governments could, without violating the Fifth Amendment (“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”), take property for the “public use” of transferring it to persons who would pay more taxes to the government.
The Mississippi friends and neighbors wanted to pool their funds to purchase posters, fliers and local newspaper advertising. They discovered that if, as a group, they spent more than $200 to do these simple things, they would be required by the state’s campaign finance law to register as a “political committee.” And if, as individuals, any of them spent more than $200 supporting the initiative, they must report this political activity to the state.
Mississippi defines a political committee as any group of persons spending more than $200 to influence voters for or against candidates “or balloted measures.” Supposedly, regulation of political activity is to prevent corruption of a candidate or the appearance thereof. How does one corrupt a “balloted measure”?
Granted, there is some slight informational value in knowing where money supporting a voter initiative comes from. But surely not enough to burden ordinary citizens expending $200 with monthly reporting requirements, concerning which legal advice might be necessary because any violation of the campaign regulations “is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail” for up to a year. As the Supreme Court said in its excellent Citizens United ruling, “Prolix laws chill speech for the same reason that vague laws chill speech: People ‘of common intelligence must necessarily guess at [the law’s] meaning and differ as to its application.’ ”
So, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi held: “Where, as here, potential speakers might well require legal counsel to determine which regulations even apply, above and beyond how to comport with those requirements, the burdens imposed by the state’s regulations are simply too great to be borne by the state’s interest in groups raising or expending as little as $200.” And the same is true regarding “the state’s informational interest in individual speakers” expending $200.
When, in 2011, Dina Galassini of Fountain Hills, Ariz., wanted to oppose her city’s plan to augment its spending with a $29.6 million bond issue, she sent e-mails encouraging 23 friends and acquaintances to write letters of opposition to newspapers and to join her in a demonstration. Six days later, the town clerk sternly admonished her: “I would strongly encourage you to cease any campaign-related activities until the requirements of the law have been met.”
Arizona’s law says that whenever two or more people collaborate, using at least $250, to influence voters about anything, they instantly become a “political committee,” a magical transformation that triggers various requirements — registering with the government, filling out forms, and establishing a bank account for the “committee” even if it has no intention of raising money. All this must be done before members of the “committee” are permitted to speak. Galassini got no response when she wrote to the clerk to find out if she could have permission to e-mail the 23 persons to tell them the demonstrations were canceled.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona supported Galassini. It had to, given that Citizens United said laws requiring official permission to speak “function as the equivalent of prior restraint by giving the [government] power analogous to licensing laws implemented in 16th- and 17th-century England, laws and governmental practices of the sort that the First Amendment was drawn to prohibit.”
Liberals who love the regulatory state loathe Citizens United. You can understand why.
31 October, 2013
25 October, 2013
More legal trouble for Affordable Care Act
Critics of Obama's healthcare plan are suing over a part of the law that offers tax credits through state exchanges. If they win, the program falls apart in 36 states.
By David G. Savage
5:00 AM PDT, October 25, 2013
WASHINGTON— If computer glitches are not enough of a problem, President Obama's healthcare law also has a legal glitch that critics say could cause it to unravel in more than half the nation.
The Affordable Care Act proposes to make health insurance affordable to millions of low-income Americans by offering them tax credits to help cover the cost. To receive the credit, the law twice says they must buy insurance "through an exchange established by the state."
But 36 states have decided against opening exchanges for now. Although the law permits the federal government to open exchanges instead, it does not say tax credits may be given to those who buy insurance through a federally run exchange.
Apparently no one noticed this when the long and complicated bill worked its way through the House and Senate. Last year, however, the Internal Revenue Service tried to remedy it by putting out a regulation that redefined "exchange" to include a "federally facilitated exchange." This is "consistent with the language, purpose and structure … of the act as a whole," the Treasury Department said.
But critics of the law have seized on the glitch. They have filed four lawsuits that urge judges to rule the Obama administration must abide by the strict wording of the law, even if doing so dismantles it in nearly two-thirds of the states. And the Obama administration has no hope of repairing the glitch by legislation as long as the Republicans control the House.
This week, U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman in Washington, a President Clinton appointee, refused the administration's request to dismiss the suit. Instead, he said the challengers had put forward a substantial claim, and he promised to issue a written ruling.
"This is a problem," said Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University. "This case could have legs," although "it was never the intent of Congress to establish federal exchanges that can't do anything. They were supposed to have exactly the same powers."
Michael Carvin, the Washington lawyer leading the challenge, says the wording of the law is what counts. "This is a question of whether you believe in the rule of law. And the language here is as clear as it could possibly be," he said.
Last year, Carvin went before the Supreme Court to argue that the law's mandate to buy insurance was unconstitutional. The high court handed down a split decision. By a 5-4 vote, the justices ruled the government may impose a tax penalty on those who can afford to buy insurance but decline to do so. But in a 7-2 decision, they said states had the option to expand their Medicaid coverage under the law, or to turn down extra federal money.
The states have now split evenly, as 25 of them have opted to take the extra money from Washington and expand their Medicaid coverage, and 25 have refused. As a result, the law's aim to provide free healthcare for those who are poor will go forward in only half of the nation.
The new suits take aim at the parts of the law that offer subsidies to those who are above the poverty level but still may struggle to pay for insurance. A single person with an income up to $45,960 can qualify for subsidies now, as can a family of four with an income up to $94,200. If the federal government cannot offer these subsidies in the 36 states without exchanges, it cannot enforce the mandate to have insurance, lawyers say.
"My jaw dropped when I first saw this," said Michael F. Cannon, a health policy expert at the Cato Institute and a fierce critic of the law. He and others credit former Justice Department attorney Tom Christina and Jonathan Adler, a Case Western Reserve University law professor, with first highlighting the glitch.
"This has the potential to sink Obamacare. It could make the current website problems seem minor by comparison," Cannon said.
Defenders of the law say the courts are being used as part of the political campaign against the law.
"This is definitely heating up. It is now the major focus of the Republican strategy for undoing the Affordable Care Act," said Simon Lazarus, a lawyer for the Constitutional Accountability Center. "The lawsuits should be seen as preposterous," he said, because they ask judges to give the law a "nonsensical" interpretation.
No judge has ruled directly on the claim that the IRS rule put forth by the administration is illegal and contradicted by the words of the law. Indiana Atty. Gen. Greg Zoeller filed one of four lawsuits this month. A federal judge in Oklahoma is considering a similar suit filed by that state's attorney general. A fourth suit is scheduled to be heard by a judge in Richmond, Va.
If any of the four judges agree with the challengers, they are likely to be asked to put the law on hold until the legal dispute is resolved. And that in turn could quickly send the issue to a U.S. appeals court and then to the Supreme Court.
"They are betting on getting five votes at the Supreme Court," Lazarus said. "I don't think it will happen."
By David G. Savage
5:00 AM PDT, October 25, 2013
WASHINGTON— If computer glitches are not enough of a problem, President Obama's healthcare law also has a legal glitch that critics say could cause it to unravel in more than half the nation.
The Affordable Care Act proposes to make health insurance affordable to millions of low-income Americans by offering them tax credits to help cover the cost. To receive the credit, the law twice says they must buy insurance "through an exchange established by the state."
But 36 states have decided against opening exchanges for now. Although the law permits the federal government to open exchanges instead, it does not say tax credits may be given to those who buy insurance through a federally run exchange.
Apparently no one noticed this when the long and complicated bill worked its way through the House and Senate. Last year, however, the Internal Revenue Service tried to remedy it by putting out a regulation that redefined "exchange" to include a "federally facilitated exchange." This is "consistent with the language, purpose and structure … of the act as a whole," the Treasury Department said.
But critics of the law have seized on the glitch. They have filed four lawsuits that urge judges to rule the Obama administration must abide by the strict wording of the law, even if doing so dismantles it in nearly two-thirds of the states. And the Obama administration has no hope of repairing the glitch by legislation as long as the Republicans control the House.
This week, U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman in Washington, a President Clinton appointee, refused the administration's request to dismiss the suit. Instead, he said the challengers had put forward a substantial claim, and he promised to issue a written ruling.
"This is a problem," said Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University. "This case could have legs," although "it was never the intent of Congress to establish federal exchanges that can't do anything. They were supposed to have exactly the same powers."
Michael Carvin, the Washington lawyer leading the challenge, says the wording of the law is what counts. "This is a question of whether you believe in the rule of law. And the language here is as clear as it could possibly be," he said.
Last year, Carvin went before the Supreme Court to argue that the law's mandate to buy insurance was unconstitutional. The high court handed down a split decision. By a 5-4 vote, the justices ruled the government may impose a tax penalty on those who can afford to buy insurance but decline to do so. But in a 7-2 decision, they said states had the option to expand their Medicaid coverage under the law, or to turn down extra federal money.
The states have now split evenly, as 25 of them have opted to take the extra money from Washington and expand their Medicaid coverage, and 25 have refused. As a result, the law's aim to provide free healthcare for those who are poor will go forward in only half of the nation.
The new suits take aim at the parts of the law that offer subsidies to those who are above the poverty level but still may struggle to pay for insurance. A single person with an income up to $45,960 can qualify for subsidies now, as can a family of four with an income up to $94,200. If the federal government cannot offer these subsidies in the 36 states without exchanges, it cannot enforce the mandate to have insurance, lawyers say.
"My jaw dropped when I first saw this," said Michael F. Cannon, a health policy expert at the Cato Institute and a fierce critic of the law. He and others credit former Justice Department attorney Tom Christina and Jonathan Adler, a Case Western Reserve University law professor, with first highlighting the glitch.
"This has the potential to sink Obamacare. It could make the current website problems seem minor by comparison," Cannon said.
Defenders of the law say the courts are being used as part of the political campaign against the law.
"This is definitely heating up. It is now the major focus of the Republican strategy for undoing the Affordable Care Act," said Simon Lazarus, a lawyer for the Constitutional Accountability Center. "The lawsuits should be seen as preposterous," he said, because they ask judges to give the law a "nonsensical" interpretation.
No judge has ruled directly on the claim that the IRS rule put forth by the administration is illegal and contradicted by the words of the law. Indiana Atty. Gen. Greg Zoeller filed one of four lawsuits this month. A federal judge in Oklahoma is considering a similar suit filed by that state's attorney general. A fourth suit is scheduled to be heard by a judge in Richmond, Va.
If any of the four judges agree with the challengers, they are likely to be asked to put the law on hold until the legal dispute is resolved. And that in turn could quickly send the issue to a U.S. appeals court and then to the Supreme Court.
"They are betting on getting five votes at the Supreme Court," Lazarus said. "I don't think it will happen."
23 October, 2013
How to NOT take Responsibility
Amazing. It is always someone else's fault. Why hasn't she been fired yet?
I love that those in charge continue to say that the healthcare website's problems are driven by larger than expected demand. This is surprising, since Democrats have been saying for years that millions of people are clamoring for this system. How can they then be surprised by the turnout (especially since this is the President's #1 agenda item, promoted constantly for 3+ years)? All that is a ruse anyway - the Secretary admits the site crashed during testing with only hundreds of people on it - can we please stop this charade that unexpected demand is to blame?
Also, the suggestion that now they have brought in the A team to fix the problems is amusing. Here's a quote from the article below:
"We (had) hoped that they had their 'A-Team' on the table" from the start, Sebelius said of the contractors and agencies responsible for the project.
She does realize she's in CHARGE of this project, right? The buck stops with her. Feel free to take responsibility at any point. And she says the President was not made aware of any shortcomings before the launch? That alone would get you fired in the private sector - bosses do not like their major projects blowing up on launch day when the project manager had advance warning and said nothing. And she says the President knew nothing about it as if that absolves him of responsibility. Being ignorant of the problems is not reassuring - so he's oblivious rather than incompetent? The evidence seems to suggest he (and Sebelius) are both.
Finally, a note to the media - STOP QUOTING APPLICATION TOTALS. I know we're desperate to find a silver lining here, but the number of people to opened an account or started the process is pretty meaningless at this point. Give me the number of people who have actually completed the process. Oh wait, the government won't release that information. I wonder why.
Sebelius: Obamacare website problems blindsided the President
By Greg Botelho and Holly Yan , CNN
updated 8:56 AM EDT, Wed October 23, 2013 CNN.com
(CNN) -- Before it even launched, red flags went up about the Obamacare website. Health insurance companies complained about it, and the site crashed during a test run. But nobody told the President of any of it, the nation's health chief told CNN.
Kathleen Sebelius said President Barack Obama didn't hear that there may be problems with the sign-up portal for his signature health care law until it went live on October 1. That's when the site nosedived into a technical abyss.
In an exclusive interview with CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta, the Health and Human Services secretary admitted that her department and the White House are displeased with the technically botched website's rollout.
"No one could be more frustrated than I am and the President," she said.
The site was supposed to make it simple for people to search and sign up for new health care policies, but instead it's been clunky and, at times, inoperable. And for Sebelius, that's disappointing.
"We're not at all satisfied with the workings of the website," she said. "We want it to be smooth and easy and let consumers compare plans."
A team of high-tech experts from within the government and from Silicon Valley is going to tackle the issues, Sebelius said. Jeff Zients, acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, will lead the team.
So why weren't they brought in before the website launched October 1?
"We (had) hoped that they had their 'A-Team' on the table" from the start, Sebelius said of the contractors and agencies responsible for the project.
But now, she said, "we want new eyes and ears. We want to make sure that we get all the questions on the table, that we get all the answers and accelerate the fix as quickly as possible."
The secretary attributed some problems to "extremely high" volume, saying nearly 20 million people came to the Obamacare website in the first three weeks after its launch. Yet only 500,000 people have created accounts on the website. And not all of them have necessarily enrolled in health care plans.
It's not like no one saw this coming. When the website crashed during a test run, just a few hundred users were on it.
But the Obama administration went ahead with the launch. Waiting was not an option, Sebelius said.
"There are people in this country who have waited for decades for affordable health coverage for themselves and their families," she said.
Sebelius' comments struck some Republicans as surprising and even odd.
"At this point, she has a lot of questions to answer, and we look forward to her testimony in the House next week," said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner.
A Senate GOP leadership aide called the situation "odd."
"Everyone was surprised by her statement that the President was unaware of the website's failures until a few days into it," the aide told CNN.
"They had been claiming that the Obamacare rollout was his top priority and that he was receiving regular updates, which was inaccurate. And he gave remarks on October 1 about how great it was and that people should go sign up," the aide said. "Assuming that he didn't know that the website didn't work, why did they let him make that speech when they knew it had crashed in testing? Did really no one recommend a delay to the President? It just seems odd."
Before the website's launch, Republicans made targeting the program a centerpiece of their agenda. Many insisted they wouldn't vote to fund the entire government unless Obamacare was defunded or delayed.
They said that the website's woes show that the Obama administration and the federal government generally aren't capable of executing what the GOP says was an ill-advised program from the get-go.
"God only knows how much money they've spent, and it's a failure," Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, said Sunday on CBS. "The government isn't going to be able to get this job done correctly."
On the other side, Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire sent a letter to Obama asking that the open enrollment period be extended past March 31, 2014. She also asked that he consider delaying assessment of a penalty to those who don't sign up for any health insurance before the so-called individual mandate kicks in.
Even Obama has been critical, insisting Monday that there's "no excuse for the problems." But he also said the problems should not amount to a blanket condemnation of the Affordable Care Act.
"Nobody's madder than me about the website not working as well as it should," Obama said, "which means it's going to get fixed."
Several top Republicans -- including 2012 vice presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan -- have called on Sebelius to step down due to the program's problems. The secretary skirted questions Tuesday about whether she'd step down, saying only that she works "at the pleasure of the President" and is committed to her job.
"I think my job is to get this fully implemented and to get the website working right," she told Gupta.
Billionaire investor Warren Buffett stood up for Sebelius in an interview with CNN's Piers Morgan on Tuesday night.
"I am a friend of Kathleen's, and I'm a friend of her when she's in trouble," he said. "I like Kathleen. I feel sorry for her in the position she's in. Obviously, it's a huge screw-up, but it will get worked out."
Sebelius refused to give a timetable Tuesday as to when the website will be fully operational, but she insisted it's improving every day.
"More people are having an easier time," she said, "and we intend to stay at this until we open the doors wide open."
Rubio calls for delay of Obamacare sign-up deadline
And it's too early to call the rollout a failure, the health secretary said. There's still a long time for people to take advantage in person, by calling or by using the website during the open enrollment period.
When that six-month stretch is over, Sebelius said, people can better decide whether this part of Obamacare is a success or a failure.
I love that those in charge continue to say that the healthcare website's problems are driven by larger than expected demand. This is surprising, since Democrats have been saying for years that millions of people are clamoring for this system. How can they then be surprised by the turnout (especially since this is the President's #1 agenda item, promoted constantly for 3+ years)? All that is a ruse anyway - the Secretary admits the site crashed during testing with only hundreds of people on it - can we please stop this charade that unexpected demand is to blame?
Also, the suggestion that now they have brought in the A team to fix the problems is amusing. Here's a quote from the article below:
"We (had) hoped that they had their 'A-Team' on the table" from the start, Sebelius said of the contractors and agencies responsible for the project.
She does realize she's in CHARGE of this project, right? The buck stops with her. Feel free to take responsibility at any point. And she says the President was not made aware of any shortcomings before the launch? That alone would get you fired in the private sector - bosses do not like their major projects blowing up on launch day when the project manager had advance warning and said nothing. And she says the President knew nothing about it as if that absolves him of responsibility. Being ignorant of the problems is not reassuring - so he's oblivious rather than incompetent? The evidence seems to suggest he (and Sebelius) are both.
Finally, a note to the media - STOP QUOTING APPLICATION TOTALS. I know we're desperate to find a silver lining here, but the number of people to opened an account or started the process is pretty meaningless at this point. Give me the number of people who have actually completed the process. Oh wait, the government won't release that information. I wonder why.
Sebelius: Obamacare website problems blindsided the President
By Greg Botelho and Holly Yan , CNN
updated 8:56 AM EDT, Wed October 23, 2013 CNN.com
(CNN) -- Before it even launched, red flags went up about the Obamacare website. Health insurance companies complained about it, and the site crashed during a test run. But nobody told the President of any of it, the nation's health chief told CNN.
Kathleen Sebelius said President Barack Obama didn't hear that there may be problems with the sign-up portal for his signature health care law until it went live on October 1. That's when the site nosedived into a technical abyss.
In an exclusive interview with CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta, the Health and Human Services secretary admitted that her department and the White House are displeased with the technically botched website's rollout.
"No one could be more frustrated than I am and the President," she said.
The site was supposed to make it simple for people to search and sign up for new health care policies, but instead it's been clunky and, at times, inoperable. And for Sebelius, that's disappointing.
"We're not at all satisfied with the workings of the website," she said. "We want it to be smooth and easy and let consumers compare plans."
A team of high-tech experts from within the government and from Silicon Valley is going to tackle the issues, Sebelius said. Jeff Zients, acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, will lead the team.
So why weren't they brought in before the website launched October 1?
"We (had) hoped that they had their 'A-Team' on the table" from the start, Sebelius said of the contractors and agencies responsible for the project.
But now, she said, "we want new eyes and ears. We want to make sure that we get all the questions on the table, that we get all the answers and accelerate the fix as quickly as possible."
The secretary attributed some problems to "extremely high" volume, saying nearly 20 million people came to the Obamacare website in the first three weeks after its launch. Yet only 500,000 people have created accounts on the website. And not all of them have necessarily enrolled in health care plans.
It's not like no one saw this coming. When the website crashed during a test run, just a few hundred users were on it.
But the Obama administration went ahead with the launch. Waiting was not an option, Sebelius said.
"There are people in this country who have waited for decades for affordable health coverage for themselves and their families," she said.
Sebelius' comments struck some Republicans as surprising and even odd.
"At this point, she has a lot of questions to answer, and we look forward to her testimony in the House next week," said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner.
A Senate GOP leadership aide called the situation "odd."
"Everyone was surprised by her statement that the President was unaware of the website's failures until a few days into it," the aide told CNN.
"They had been claiming that the Obamacare rollout was his top priority and that he was receiving regular updates, which was inaccurate. And he gave remarks on October 1 about how great it was and that people should go sign up," the aide said. "Assuming that he didn't know that the website didn't work, why did they let him make that speech when they knew it had crashed in testing? Did really no one recommend a delay to the President? It just seems odd."
Before the website's launch, Republicans made targeting the program a centerpiece of their agenda. Many insisted they wouldn't vote to fund the entire government unless Obamacare was defunded or delayed.
They said that the website's woes show that the Obama administration and the federal government generally aren't capable of executing what the GOP says was an ill-advised program from the get-go.
"God only knows how much money they've spent, and it's a failure," Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, said Sunday on CBS. "The government isn't going to be able to get this job done correctly."
On the other side, Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire sent a letter to Obama asking that the open enrollment period be extended past March 31, 2014. She also asked that he consider delaying assessment of a penalty to those who don't sign up for any health insurance before the so-called individual mandate kicks in.
Even Obama has been critical, insisting Monday that there's "no excuse for the problems." But he also said the problems should not amount to a blanket condemnation of the Affordable Care Act.
"Nobody's madder than me about the website not working as well as it should," Obama said, "which means it's going to get fixed."
Several top Republicans -- including 2012 vice presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan -- have called on Sebelius to step down due to the program's problems. The secretary skirted questions Tuesday about whether she'd step down, saying only that she works "at the pleasure of the President" and is committed to her job.
"I think my job is to get this fully implemented and to get the website working right," she told Gupta.
Billionaire investor Warren Buffett stood up for Sebelius in an interview with CNN's Piers Morgan on Tuesday night.
"I am a friend of Kathleen's, and I'm a friend of her when she's in trouble," he said. "I like Kathleen. I feel sorry for her in the position she's in. Obviously, it's a huge screw-up, but it will get worked out."
Sebelius refused to give a timetable Tuesday as to when the website will be fully operational, but she insisted it's improving every day.
"More people are having an easier time," she said, "and we intend to stay at this until we open the doors wide open."
Rubio calls for delay of Obamacare sign-up deadline
And it's too early to call the rollout a failure, the health secretary said. There's still a long time for people to take advantage in person, by calling or by using the website during the open enrollment period.
When that six-month stretch is over, Sebelius said, people can better decide whether this part of Obamacare is a success or a failure.
11 October, 2013
Our government wants you to play a role in the slimdown -- it's your job to panic
Our government wants you to play a role in the slimdown -- it's your job to panic
By John Stossel
Published October 09, 2013 /
A fence surrounds the U.S. Department of Commerce in Washington October 5, 2013. (Reuters)
Government wants you to play a role in the slimdown or “shutdown” of the federal government. Your role is to panic.
Republicans and Democrats both assume that shutting some government is a terrible thing. The press concurs. “Shutdown threatens fragile economy,” warns Politico. “Federal workers turn to prayer,” laments The Washington Post.
If the public starts noticing that life goes on as usual without all 3.4 million federal workers, we might get dangerous ideas, like doing without so much government. Politicians don’t want that.
They’d rather have us worry about how America will cope.
President Obama gave a speech where he actually said we need to keep government open for the sake of people like the person working for the Department of Agriculture “out there helping some farmers make sure that they’re making some modest profit,” and the Department of Housing and Urban Development “helping somebody buy a house for the first time.”
Give me a break. Farmers don’t need bureaucrats to teach them how to make a profit, and Americans can buy first homes without HUD helping a chosen few. Americans would make more profit and afford better homes if they didn’t have to spend a third of national income on federal taxes.
Bureaucrats, acting like bullies, protest the partial closures by doing things like cutting off access to public parks -- even privately funded ones.
Federal cops block access to outdoor war memorials and much of Mt. Rushmore.
They block access to motels and order people out of private homes that happen to sit on federal land.
The Washington Free Beacon reports, “The closure of a Virginia park that sits on federal land, even though the government provides no resources for its maintenance or operation.”
This is shutdown theater.
It’s similar to the fake “austerity measures” in other countries. We’re told that Europe’s slow economic growth is a result of “austerity” embraced by European governments.
But there hasn’t really been any austerity. England, where a “conservative” government is in charge, increased government spending by 4 percent.
“Austerity” in Greece -- supposedly so drastic that the public has little choice but to riot in protest -- meant changes like reducing mandatory severance pay to one entire year (instead of two!).
In the U.S., Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif..) told CNN the federal government has cut so much spending that there’s just nothing left to cut: “The cupboard is bare! There’s no more cuts to make!”
What? The federal government spends almost 4 trillion dollars! The government cupboard overflows! We fund entire cabinet departments that are worse than useless.
The Labor Department interferes with actual labor. Commerce would flow more smoothly without Commerce Department bureaucrats channeling money to their cronies.
The government hasn’t cut spending -- it never does. After the last shutdowns, politicians even voted to award retroactive pay to government workers who didn’t work. Bet they do it again this time. The federal government remains the biggest employer in the country. President Obama says so with pride.
Compare this to what happens in the private sector in tough times: AT&T cut 40,000 workers. Sears cut 50,000. IBM: 60,000. They weren’t easy decisions, but they enabled the companies to stay profitable. With fewer workers, leaner companies found more efficient ways to get things done.
And the rest of us barely noticed. We expect change and adaptation in free-market institutions. But it doesn’t happen in government. Government just grows.
Maybe the ugliest part of this story is that the city that whines most about suffering through the shutdown, Washington, D.C., is now the richest geographic area in America. Washington got richer while the rest of America didn’t. Over the past 12 years, median income in the U.S. dropped about 6.5 percent -- but not in D.C.! There, it rose 23 percent. Four of the five richest counties now surround Washington, D.C.
No wonder politicians and bureaucrats are convinced big government is essential to keep the economy going -- it is essential to keep them going.
By John Stossel
Published October 09, 2013 /
A fence surrounds the U.S. Department of Commerce in Washington October 5, 2013. (Reuters)
Government wants you to play a role in the slimdown or “shutdown” of the federal government. Your role is to panic.
Republicans and Democrats both assume that shutting some government is a terrible thing. The press concurs. “Shutdown threatens fragile economy,” warns Politico. “Federal workers turn to prayer,” laments The Washington Post.
If the public starts noticing that life goes on as usual without all 3.4 million federal workers, we might get dangerous ideas, like doing without so much government. Politicians don’t want that.
They’d rather have us worry about how America will cope.
President Obama gave a speech where he actually said we need to keep government open for the sake of people like the person working for the Department of Agriculture “out there helping some farmers make sure that they’re making some modest profit,” and the Department of Housing and Urban Development “helping somebody buy a house for the first time.”
Give me a break. Farmers don’t need bureaucrats to teach them how to make a profit, and Americans can buy first homes without HUD helping a chosen few. Americans would make more profit and afford better homes if they didn’t have to spend a third of national income on federal taxes.
Bureaucrats, acting like bullies, protest the partial closures by doing things like cutting off access to public parks -- even privately funded ones.
Federal cops block access to outdoor war memorials and much of Mt. Rushmore.
They block access to motels and order people out of private homes that happen to sit on federal land.
The Washington Free Beacon reports, “The closure of a Virginia park that sits on federal land, even though the government provides no resources for its maintenance or operation.”
This is shutdown theater.
It’s similar to the fake “austerity measures” in other countries. We’re told that Europe’s slow economic growth is a result of “austerity” embraced by European governments.
But there hasn’t really been any austerity. England, where a “conservative” government is in charge, increased government spending by 4 percent.
“Austerity” in Greece -- supposedly so drastic that the public has little choice but to riot in protest -- meant changes like reducing mandatory severance pay to one entire year (instead of two!).
In the U.S., Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif..) told CNN the federal government has cut so much spending that there’s just nothing left to cut: “The cupboard is bare! There’s no more cuts to make!”
What? The federal government spends almost 4 trillion dollars! The government cupboard overflows! We fund entire cabinet departments that are worse than useless.
The Labor Department interferes with actual labor. Commerce would flow more smoothly without Commerce Department bureaucrats channeling money to their cronies.
The government hasn’t cut spending -- it never does. After the last shutdowns, politicians even voted to award retroactive pay to government workers who didn’t work. Bet they do it again this time. The federal government remains the biggest employer in the country. President Obama says so with pride.
Compare this to what happens in the private sector in tough times: AT&T cut 40,000 workers. Sears cut 50,000. IBM: 60,000. They weren’t easy decisions, but they enabled the companies to stay profitable. With fewer workers, leaner companies found more efficient ways to get things done.
And the rest of us barely noticed. We expect change and adaptation in free-market institutions. But it doesn’t happen in government. Government just grows.
Maybe the ugliest part of this story is that the city that whines most about suffering through the shutdown, Washington, D.C., is now the richest geographic area in America. Washington got richer while the rest of America didn’t. Over the past 12 years, median income in the U.S. dropped about 6.5 percent -- but not in D.C.! There, it rose 23 percent. Four of the five richest counties now surround Washington, D.C.
No wonder politicians and bureaucrats are convinced big government is essential to keep the economy going -- it is essential to keep them going.
04 October, 2013
Who shut down Yellowstone?
Who shut down Yellowstone?
By Charles Krauthammer, Published: October 3
The Obamacare/shutdown battle has spawned myriad myths. The most egregious concern the substance of the fight, the identity of the perpetrators and the origins of the current eruption.
(1) Substance
President Obama indignantly insists that GOP attempts to abolish or amend Obamacare are unseemly because it is “settled” law, having passed both houses of Congress, obtained his signature and passed muster with the Supreme Court.
Yes, settledness makes for a strong argument — except from a president whose administration has unilaterally changed Obamacare five times after its passage, including, most brazenly, a year-long suspension of the employer mandate.
Article I of the Constitution grants the legislative power entirely to Congress. Under what constitutional principle has Obama unilaterally amended the law? Yet when the House of Representatives undertakes a constitutionally correct, i.e., legislative, procedure for suspending the other mandate — the individual mandate — this is portrayed as some extra-constitutional sabotage of the rule of law. Why is tying that amendment to a generalized spending bill an outrage, while unilateral amendment by the executive (with a Valerie Jarrett blog item for spin) is perfectly fine?
(2) Perpetrators
The mainstream media have been fairly unanimous in blaming the government shutdown on the GOP. Accordingly, House Republicans presented three bills to restore funding to national parks, veterans and the District of Columbia government. Democrats voted down all three. (For procedural reasons, the measures required a two-thirds majority.)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won’t even consider these refunding measures. And the White House has promised a presidential veto.
The reason is obvious: to prolong the pain and thus add to the political advantage gained from a shutdown blamed on the GOP. They are confident the media will do a “GOP makes little Johnny weep at the closed gates of Yellowstone, film at 11” despite Republicans having just offered legislation to open them.
And besides, whence comes the sanctity of the “clean CR,” the single bill (continuing resolution) that funds all of government? The Democrats have declared it inviolable — and piecemeal funding, as proposed by the Republicans, unacceptable on principle. On what grounds? After all, the regular appropriations process consists of 12 separate appropriation bills. The insistence on the “clean CR” is just a fancy way to suggest some principle behind the president’s refusal to compromise or even negotiate.
(3) Origins
The most ubiquitous conventional wisdom is that the ultimate cause of these troubles is out-of-control tea party anarchists.
But is this really where the causal chain ends? The tea party was created by Obama’s first-term overreach, most specifically Obamacare. Today’s frantic fight against it is the echoing result of the way it was originally enacted.
From Social Security to civil rights to Medicaid to Medicare, never in the modern history of the country has major social legislation been enacted on a straight party-line vote. Never. In every case, there was significant reaching across the aisle, enhancing the law’s legitimacy and endurance. Yet Obamacare — which revolutionizes one-sixth of the economy, regulates every aspect of medical practice and intimately affects just about every citizen — passed without a single GOP vote.
The Democrats insist they welcomed contributing ideas from Republicans. Rubbish. Republicans proposed that insurance be purchasable across state lines. They got nothing. They sought serious tort reform. They got nothing. Why? Because, admitted Howard Dean, Democrats didn’t want to offend the trial lawyers.
Moreover, the administration was clearly warned. Republican Scott Brown ran in the most inhospitable of states, Massachusetts, on the explicit promise to cast the deciding vote blocking Obamacare. It was January 2010, the height of the debate. He won. Reid ignored this unmistakable message of popular opposition and conjured a parliamentary maneuver — reconciliation — to get around Brown.
Nothing illegal about that. Nothing illegal about ramming it through without a single opposition vote. Just totally contrary to the modern American tradition — and the constitutional decency — of undertaking major social revolutions with only bipartisan majorities. Having stuffed Obamacare down the throats of the GOP and the country, Democrats are now paying the price.
I don’t agree with current Republican tactics. I thought the defunding demand impossible and, therefore, foolish. I thought that if, nonetheless, the GOP insisted on making a stand, it should not be on shutting down the government, which voters oppose 5-to-1, but on the debt ceiling, which Americans favor 2-to-1 as a vehicle for restraining government.
Tactics are one thing, but substance is another. It’s the Democrats who have mocked the very notion of settled law. It’s the Democrats who voted down the reopening of substantial parts of the government. It’s the Democrats who gave life to a spontaneous, authentic, small-government opposition — a.k.a. the tea party — with their unilateral imposition of a transformational agenda during the brief interval when they held a monopoly of power.
That interval is over. The current unrest is the residue of that hubris.
By Charles Krauthammer, Published: October 3
The Obamacare/shutdown battle has spawned myriad myths. The most egregious concern the substance of the fight, the identity of the perpetrators and the origins of the current eruption.
(1) Substance
President Obama indignantly insists that GOP attempts to abolish or amend Obamacare are unseemly because it is “settled” law, having passed both houses of Congress, obtained his signature and passed muster with the Supreme Court.
Yes, settledness makes for a strong argument — except from a president whose administration has unilaterally changed Obamacare five times after its passage, including, most brazenly, a year-long suspension of the employer mandate.
Article I of the Constitution grants the legislative power entirely to Congress. Under what constitutional principle has Obama unilaterally amended the law? Yet when the House of Representatives undertakes a constitutionally correct, i.e., legislative, procedure for suspending the other mandate — the individual mandate — this is portrayed as some extra-constitutional sabotage of the rule of law. Why is tying that amendment to a generalized spending bill an outrage, while unilateral amendment by the executive (with a Valerie Jarrett blog item for spin) is perfectly fine?
(2) Perpetrators
The mainstream media have been fairly unanimous in blaming the government shutdown on the GOP. Accordingly, House Republicans presented three bills to restore funding to national parks, veterans and the District of Columbia government. Democrats voted down all three. (For procedural reasons, the measures required a two-thirds majority.)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won’t even consider these refunding measures. And the White House has promised a presidential veto.
The reason is obvious: to prolong the pain and thus add to the political advantage gained from a shutdown blamed on the GOP. They are confident the media will do a “GOP makes little Johnny weep at the closed gates of Yellowstone, film at 11” despite Republicans having just offered legislation to open them.
And besides, whence comes the sanctity of the “clean CR,” the single bill (continuing resolution) that funds all of government? The Democrats have declared it inviolable — and piecemeal funding, as proposed by the Republicans, unacceptable on principle. On what grounds? After all, the regular appropriations process consists of 12 separate appropriation bills. The insistence on the “clean CR” is just a fancy way to suggest some principle behind the president’s refusal to compromise or even negotiate.
(3) Origins
The most ubiquitous conventional wisdom is that the ultimate cause of these troubles is out-of-control tea party anarchists.
But is this really where the causal chain ends? The tea party was created by Obama’s first-term overreach, most specifically Obamacare. Today’s frantic fight against it is the echoing result of the way it was originally enacted.
From Social Security to civil rights to Medicaid to Medicare, never in the modern history of the country has major social legislation been enacted on a straight party-line vote. Never. In every case, there was significant reaching across the aisle, enhancing the law’s legitimacy and endurance. Yet Obamacare — which revolutionizes one-sixth of the economy, regulates every aspect of medical practice and intimately affects just about every citizen — passed without a single GOP vote.
The Democrats insist they welcomed contributing ideas from Republicans. Rubbish. Republicans proposed that insurance be purchasable across state lines. They got nothing. They sought serious tort reform. They got nothing. Why? Because, admitted Howard Dean, Democrats didn’t want to offend the trial lawyers.
Moreover, the administration was clearly warned. Republican Scott Brown ran in the most inhospitable of states, Massachusetts, on the explicit promise to cast the deciding vote blocking Obamacare. It was January 2010, the height of the debate. He won. Reid ignored this unmistakable message of popular opposition and conjured a parliamentary maneuver — reconciliation — to get around Brown.
Nothing illegal about that. Nothing illegal about ramming it through without a single opposition vote. Just totally contrary to the modern American tradition — and the constitutional decency — of undertaking major social revolutions with only bipartisan majorities. Having stuffed Obamacare down the throats of the GOP and the country, Democrats are now paying the price.
I don’t agree with current Republican tactics. I thought the defunding demand impossible and, therefore, foolish. I thought that if, nonetheless, the GOP insisted on making a stand, it should not be on shutting down the government, which voters oppose 5-to-1, but on the debt ceiling, which Americans favor 2-to-1 as a vehicle for restraining government.
Tactics are one thing, but substance is another. It’s the Democrats who have mocked the very notion of settled law. It’s the Democrats who voted down the reopening of substantial parts of the government. It’s the Democrats who gave life to a spontaneous, authentic, small-government opposition — a.k.a. the tea party — with their unilateral imposition of a transformational agenda during the brief interval when they held a monopoly of power.
That interval is over. The current unrest is the residue of that hubris.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)