Saturday, March 31, 2012

Re: Santorum speaks at Supreme Court about Obamacare

Santorum made a strong case yesterday at the steps of the Supreme Court that Romney cannot make the case against Obamacare in the general election since Romneycare was the blueprint for Obamacare. What a great move by Santorum on the first day that Obamacare is in the Supreme Court. I think for the first time his message that Romney is uniquely disqualified on this issue is getting heard by a much larger audience. Even with the bulls–t comment a couple of days ago, that was the argument he was making.


This one issue has now become his central issue, and it couldn’t be at a better time. Let’s hope people in Wisconsin are listening:


View the original article here

Daily Links – March 28, 2012

Today is March 28th. On this date in 1930, Constantinople and Angora were renamed Istanbul and Ankara. So, Istanbul was Constantinople. Now it’s Istanbul, not Constantinople. Also on this date, in 1976, the band Genesis began their first tour with Phil Collins as lead singer. He left the band on this date in 1996. As a result, the song “In The Air Tonight” is now stuck in your head. And finally, on this date in 1979, the nuclear reactor at Three Mile Island suffered a meltdown that was almost as severe as Jeffrey Toobin’s during the Obamacare hearing. Zing! Don’t forget to celebrate National Something On A Stick Day! (Preferably with food.) Consider this an Open Thread.


The war on Wisconsin | Michelle Malkin
“Fiscally conservative leaders in the Badger State are under coordinated siege from Big Labor, the White House, the liberal media and the judiciary. The yearlong campaign of union thuggery, family harassment and intimidation of Republican donors and businesses is about to escalate even further.”


Allen West Attacked by AstroTurf Leftist Organization | The Shark Tank
“Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi famously referred to the Tea Party as “Astroturf”- but how many Tea Partiers got their call to social action from some mysterious front group who solicited their protest activity for 10 bucks an hour through Craig’s List?”


Video: Democrat Thrown Off House Floor For Hoodie Meltdown | Breitbart TV
“Congressman Bobby Rush had a melt down on the house floor as he donned a hoodie and recited the Bible. He was removed from the house floor”


Spike Lee tweeted wrong address for Zimmerman; couple moves out | Twitchy
Original Story at Orlando Sentinel: “A school-cafeteria lunch lady and her husband have received hate mail, unwanted visits from reporters and fearful inquiries from neighbors — all because their Sanford-area address is being disseminated on Twitter as belonging to Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman, her son said late Tuesday.”


Today’s Word of the Day comes via Dictionary.com.
luxate (LUHK-seyt): verb To put out of joint; dislocate.


View the original article here

The Republican Party is playing a dangerous game

From the diaries.


There’s a lot to like about Paul Ryan’s budget proposal. It cuts some spending. It flattens the tax code down to just two individual marginal tax rates. It also includes some innovative policies designed to halt the unsustainable growth of health care entitlement spending. However, on balance, the budget is disappointing for fiscal conservatives for two main reasons: It waives the spending restraint that was agreed to in last year’s debt limit deal, and it doesn’t balance the budget until 2040. Broken promises and unbalanced budgets as far as the eye can see are neither good policy nor a good campaign rallying cry.


Last year, an agreement was reached in which Republicans gave President Obama a massive increase in the debt ceiling, in exchange for promised spending cuts that supposedly had “real teeth.” As part of the deal, Congressman Ryan and most Republicans voted to require an annual spending cap and $110 billion in automatic spending cuts for next year – otherwise known as “sequestration” – if the so-called “super-committee” failed to find $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction.


Since the predictable collapse of the super-committee, the House GOP should have been working toward a budget proposal that allows for the sequester to take place for the coming year. Such a budget would include the $110 billion in reductions. Ryan’s budget achieves vastly less. It contains $19 billion in discretionary savings and, at most, $53 billion in cuts to mandatory spending — $38 billion short. Thus, it leaves House Republicans breaking the terms of the deal they agreed to just seven months ago.


That debt ceiling agreement provided that half of those cuts would come from defense spending, and half from non-defense spending. Some conservatives object to that level of defense cuts. Fine. The key to the agreement was securing the total $110 billion reduction in spending, not which part of the budget was cut. If some want to rearrange the location of the cuts, that would be fine, as long as the overall magnitude of the spending restraint was sustained.

House leaders claim they are making more overall cuts. However, they are clearly short of the requirements for next year and are pushing the deepest cuts out into the future. We’ve seen this movie before. Lots of times. In other words, they are kicking the can down the road . . . again. No matter how you slice it, the Ryan budget breaks the promise of spending restraint that was agreed to in exchange for raising the debt limit. And make no mistake, we’re not just arguing over $38 billion. Now that this budget breaks that deal, both parties will work to unravel the entire $1.2 trillion in sequestered cuts. Don’t be surprised if the full unraveling happens later this year.


A group of fiscal conservatives in the House, the Republican Study Committee, has proposed a budget that balances in five years. It contains strong tax reform and spending restraint. In addition, the RSC deals with Social Security, an entitlement program left untouched by the Ryan budget. And just like the Ryan budget, the RSC plan shifts the burden of the sequester away from defense, but preserves, and in fact exceeds, the overall spending reduction level agreed to last year. That is the right way forward.


By waiving the sequester and refusing to balance the budget until 2040, the Ryan budget and the Republican Party are playing a dangerous game. It is hard to have confidence that our long-term fiscal challenges will be met responsibly when the same Congress that passed the August debt deal wants to ignore it less than one year later.


America does not have thirty years to balance the budget. We may not have ten. We hope that fiscal conservatives will take a harder look at the House GOP budget, and ask themselves if they can and should demand more.


Chris Chocola
President – Club for Growth


View the original article here

Morning Briefing for March 28, 2012

RedState Morning Briefing
March 28, 2012Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.

Yesterday the left descended into madness. The madness came early in the day. It happened shortly after 10 o’clock in the morning. Justice Anthony Kennedy opened his mouth and uttered his first question on the issue of the individual mandate. He asked, “Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?” The question, the second asked yesterday morning, bothered the left.


As the clock approached 11, Kennedy spoke again, sending shockwaves through the legal community. He stated matter of factly,


“[T]he reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don’t have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that’s generally the rule.


“And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.”


It was the quote heard round the world. It is what the tea party movement, libertarians, conservatives, and so many private citizens have been saying. It was an expression of what nearly every legal scholar on television has pooh-poohed as the troglodyte rhetoric of plebeians not educated enough to understand their own founding compact.


That Justice Kennedy expressed something so obvious to so many Americans that so many well educated legal analysts have mocked for two years as an outmoded view of the constitution put forward only by hicks, rubes, and the racist middle class tea partiers not cool enough to defecate on police cars like the Occupy Wall Street hipsters should deeply, deeply trouble every radio station, newspaper, and television news network along with the American people.


Just how out of touch are the people the news media relies on as legal experts used to help form both their and their audiences’ opinions? More so, is it not abundantly obvious that legal experts let their own partisanship shape their opinions?


All of this, however, overshadows a more important issue — how the hell did a constitutional, democratic republic come to depend on the whims of one man in a black robe who nobody ever elected to anything?


Please click here for the rest of the post.


Yesterday the Obama Administration effectively outlawed coal as a fuel source and it underscores the importance of Congress severely circumscribing the authority of regulatory agencies.


By outlawing new coal-fired electric generation plants and ignoring nuclear power, the Administration has set in motion a plan to make the nation dependent upon natural gas and a mishmash of politically correct but non-viable sources such as solar and wind as older plants are decommissioned. Essentially, Obama has done via regulatory means what it could not accomplish in Congress: to set the trajectory for exorbitant electricity prices in the service of reducing “greenhouse gasses.”


Please click here for the rest of the post.


Given the the administration’s recent moves on coal power, I couldn’t help but wonder how that might affect the President in swing states, should prices rise in coal-burning states.


A check I made this morning suggests that the answer is yes, if coal is an issue in this election, it could swing close states.


Here’s a simple chart of the closeness of a state’s 2008 Presidential election result vs the state’s coal use as a percentage. Source for coal use: the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, but they also cite their sources too if you’d like to dig in. Election margin source: the final column of the Wikipedia chart.


Please click here for the rest of the post.



View the original article here

Reviewing the Day in the Supreme Court #EERS

I’m on three hours tonight joined by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. We will review the Supreme Court oral arguments from today and what Anthony Kennedy said, what Jeffrey Toobin said, and what James Carville said to Wolf Blitzer and me.


You can listen live right here and call in at 1-800-WSB-TALK.


Consider this an open thread.


View the original article here

Friday, March 30, 2012

Coal policy could swing the election

Obama


Forgive me for venturing out from strict horserace poll analysis, but given the the administration’s recent moves on coal power, I couldn’t help but wonder how that might affect the President in swing states, should prices rise in coal-burning states.


A check I made this morning suggests that the answer is yes, if coal is an issue in this election, it could swing close states.


Here’s a simple chart of the closeness of a state’s 2008 Presidential election result vs the state’s coal use as a percentage. Source for coal use: the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, but they also cite their sources too if you’d like to dig in. Election margin source: the final column of the Wikipedia chart.

Coal and the 2008 election

I asked OpenOffice to throw in the trend line. Additionally, the Pearson coefficient is -0.37. That means that the correlation is not small, and not strong, but medium, according to common Pearson interpretations.


Considering I’m not in any way predicting that coal use caused the 2008 gap, that’s an interesting finding. By chance, the closer a state was in 2008, the more coal it uses, on average. Of the states at 5% or less of a 2008 gap, only Florida doesn’t get a majority of its electricity from coal.


Again, I must stress the modesty of this find. I’m not predicting that the administration’s policies necessarily will cause shifts in coal energy prices soon enough or large enough to swing votes in coal-burning states. Nor am I predicting that the issue would necessarily be decisive of people’s votes.


I’m merely checking that if both of those things do happen, whether they would be happening in states where it would make a difference. The answer to that question is yes. Unluckily for the President as it may be.


Crossposted from Unlikely Voter


View the original article here

Toobin on Obamacare Supreme Court Arguments: ‘This Was a Train Wreck for the Obama Administration’

I’ll leave further commentary to our excellent lawyers, but here’s the video:


The CNN legal correspondent’s comments included the following:



This was a train wreck for the Obama administration. This law looks like it’s going to be struck down…All of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong.


…The only conservative justice who looked like he might uphold the law was Chief Justice Roberts who asked hard questions of both sides, all four liberal justices tried as hard as they could to make the arguments in favor of the law, but they were — they did not meet with their success with their colleagues.


View the original article here

Scapegoating Zimmerman

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

“Then he shall take the two goats, and set them before The Lord at the door of the tent of meeting; and Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats, one lot for The Lord and the other lot for Azazel. And Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for The Lord, and offer it as a sin offering; but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before The Lord to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel.” (Leviticus 16:7-10 RSV)

(www.keyway.ca)

George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin in the chest and killed him on 26 February. Mr. Zimmerman was not charged and his actions remain under investigation by local and now Federal authorities. This has led to an outpouring of anger and several demonstrations by those who believe the American justice system has a strong racial bias against African Americans. Not all of this protest has remained within the bounds of civility. The New Black Panther Party has put a $10,000 price on George Zimmerman.

The President has done nothing that would lead to calm or pacification. He informed us that if he had a son, the boy could look like Trayvon. His campaign has sought to monetize the tragic shooting by selling Obama Hoodies for campaign money. He reminds us to search our souls over this as we rummage in our pockets for the $40 tab for one of his hoodies. Even the Commander-In-Chief wants his take from the till on Justice For Trayvon™ (and I’m not just being snarky about the trademark).

Sadly and predictably, 75% of America wants George Zimmerman dragged forth and shot this afternoon. Just kidding, folks. They weren’t quite that forthcoming and honest. CNN polled on whether George Zimmerman should be arrested and75% of those asked agreed. Better that than get the Scarlet Letter R (RACIST!) tattooed on your forehead.

Arresting George Zimmerman may or may not be the legally sanctioned and appropriate course of action. If the people investigating find reasonable evidence that the shooting of Trayvon Martin was not a defensive action or that if George Zimmerman had no legitimate reason to feel he was in mortal danger, he needs to be booked for manslaughter at the very least. Let the system operate and do its job.

Scapegoating George Zimmerman to prove we’re all too big for bigotry accomplishes absolutely nothing. It proves absolutely nothing. Let’s say Repair_Man_Jack is so !RACIST! that he will only order White Pizza at the local Italian Restaurant (adding pesto or tomato sauce would make it Pizza of Color which would defile his highly attuned palate.) RMJ could fool you all be demanding that George Zimmerman be waterboarded for Trayvon. “Dunk ‘em for diversity,” RMJ always says!

The immediate tendency to demand “justice” despite an incomplete grasp of the facts can only lead to travesty. Googling “Duke Lacrosse, Mike Nifong” and then reading a few of the links tells you far more than I could by belaboring the point. Try “Sharpton, Brawley” if you still remain unconvinced.

I’ll make one more point out of respect for the dead. I find it irrelevant outside the setting of a trial whether or not Trayvon Martin was more likely to end up in Harvard University or Folsom Prison. His initial beatification was somewhat nauseating in a Crystal Mangum sort of a way. But as someone completely unassociated with George Zimmerman’s legal defense team, I really don’t care why Trayvon Martin wasn’t in school for ten days. People with no personal dog in this fight should allow the dead their peaceful sleep.

In conclusion, nobody will really fix American society by joining The New Black Panthers’ in their jihad against George Zimmerman. If you were racist beforehand, you’re still a bigot whether they arrest Mr. Zimmerman over this sordid affair or not. More to the point, you will not make anyone who believes you are a racist think better of you at all by demanding Zimmerman’s head on a platter. Display equipoise and let the investigators investigate. Scapegoats do not work any sort of biblical magic in the modern world.


View the original article here

Re: Santorum speaks at Supreme Court about Obamacare

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Santorum made a strong case yesterday at the steps of the Supreme Court that Romney cannot make the case against Obamacare in the general election since Romneycare was the blueprint for Obamacare. What a great move by Santorum on the first day that Obamacare is in the Supreme Court. I think for the first time his message that Romney is uniquely disqualified on this issue is getting heard by a much larger audience. Even with the bulls–t comment a couple of days ago, that was the argument he was making.

This one issue has now become his central issue, and it couldn’t be at a better time. Let’s hope people in Wisconsin are listening:


View the original article here

Here’s What The Court’s Going To Do On ObamaCare

It would be nice if the future of federalism did not rest on what Anthony Kennedy had for breakfast –- if Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell did not spend all of December, 2009, giving Harry Reid back-to-back votes on issues which allowed Reid to buy off swing senators.


But we are where we are. So…


THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS ONE ARGUMENT STANDING ON BEHALF OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF OBAMACARE: 116 BILLION.


That is the amount of cost-shifting Obama now claims occurs as a result of treating uninsured individuals.


Four problems:


First, 116 billion is nothing but a politicized magnification of the amount (43 billion) which the insurance companies claimed in cost-shifting from the uninsured to policy-holders during their ObamaCare lobbying campaign. (The 43 billion figure is where the $1,000-per-policy cost-shifting figure comes from.) But both the 116 billion and the 43 billion figures are fraudulent numbers which interested parties simply pulled out of the air.


Second, the administration understands the inherent bias in insurance company numbers when it suits its purposes. When Price-Waterhouse, in the eve of the passage of ObamaCare, estimated that it would increase the price of family policies to almost $25,000 a year by 2019, the Obama administration mercilessly attacked the number. 116 billion -– or 43 billion -– or $1,000 per policy — is no different. In their hearts, the administration understands it is lying to the court.


Third, whatever cost-shifting problems there are, over 68% of them are due, not the “young invincibles,” who are nothing but, once again, hapless “cash cows” who are being bled to fund a system which transfers their assets to those who, in some cases because of their own choices, are less healthy than they are. Rather, current cost-shifting problems, to the extent they exist, are as a result of the poor. But here’s the problem: Under ObamaCare, the poor (anyone with an income under 133% of the poverty level) would be put on Medicaid — AND TURNED FROM DE FACTO “FREE RIDERS” INTO STATUTORILY MANDATED “FREE RIDERS.”


Which leads to: Fourth, everyone understands that the reason for the mandate was not to address the “free rider” problem (which could have much more easily been done by modifying the 1986 treatment mandate in minor ways), but rather to bribe the insurance companies into not running Harry & Louise ads.


NOW FOR A LITTLE LEGAL REALISM


The justices are only human.


And conservatives have fallen down in failing to make a bigger issue over liberal attempts to threaten and intimidate the court -– first, in the New York Times, then in the Washington Post [“Will Conservatives save Obamacare?” by Robert Barnes, the Washington Post, March 18, 2012, page B1] -– and repeatedly by Bob Beckel and others on Fox.


All of the threats are thinly veiled (“Roberts is protective of the court’s reputation, however, and sensitive to the perception that its decisions are politicized.”), but they are nothing more or less than disguised threats to attack the court if it doesn’t do as liberals want.


Interestingly, speaking of politicized justice, both the New York Times and the Washington Post, in their court “vote-counting,” start with the proposition that the four liberals on the court will “jump” when told to by the Obama administration. This is hardly a ringing endorsement of the independence or the judicial integrity of Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.


True, Kennedy has shown, in Massachusetts v. EPA, that he is not oblivious to a firestorm of public opinion swirling around him. But, with Gallup showing that between 72% and 76% of the public believes ObamaCare is unconstitutional, and with other polls showing that 67% of Americans believe that either ObamaCare or the mandate is unconstitutional, liberals are making a threat which they can’t enforce.


And, lest anyone believe that liberals believe their vote-counting bravado, Friday, two Columbia Law professors [Abbe Gluck and Michael Graetz] published an op-ed in the New York Times arguing that, should the mandate be overturned by the court, the statute should nevertheless be severed. (More on this later, but what does that tell you about their assessment of the likelihood of success?)


They understand, as do most court-watchers, that there are legal realities which are never vocalized, but are true nonetheless:


WICKARD V. FILBURN DOESN’T REALLY GIVE YOU ANY CLUE ABOUT WHAT THE COURT WILL DO: This is the 1942 case where a farmer was penalized for growing wheat for his own consumption because, were everyone to do the same, it would impact commerce.


This is taught in law schools as a “can-you-believe-that?” case. It was the high water mark of politicized New Deal jurisprudence, and is now generally viewed by conservatives as the epitome of what was wrong with the Roosevelt court. And it would have to be extended even further to apply to someone who didn’t even grow wheat -– and, in fact, did nothing.


GONZALES V. RAICH DOESN’T REALLY GIVE YOU ANY CLUE ABOUT WHAT THE COURT WILL DO: This was the case about whether the federal government could preempt state laws on medical marijuana.


If you look at the way the court deals with “law-and-order” cases, it differs from its approach to other appeals. There was no way the court was going to, effectively, legalize all drugs in order to overturn Wickard. And the fact that it considered doing that tells you something.


THE FACT THAT THE COURT, IN THREE POLITICALLY DIFFICULT CASES, FAILED TO FIND A COMMERCE CLAUSE JUSTIFICATION FOR GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES, PARTS OF THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT, AND PARTS OF THE BRADY LAW DOES TELL YOU SOMETHING ABOUT THE COURT’S -– AND KENNEDY’S -– PREDISPOSITION ON ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, ISSUES.


THREE OBSERVATIONS ON SEVERABILITY


THE FACT THAT THE COURT SET ASIDE AN HOUR TO ARGUE SEVERABILITY, WHILE NOT DISPOSITIVE, IS MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN LIBERALS WOULD LIKE TO BELIEVE.


NOTWITHSTANDING EVERYTHING, I WOULD BET THE COURT WOULD REMAND THE CASE FOR AT LEAST SOME OF THE SEVERABILITY DELIBERATIONS.


WANT TO KNOW WHY THE SEVERABILITY CLAUSE IN EARLIER DRAFTS “MYSTERIOUSLY” DISAPPEARED? I have gone round-and-around with both House and Senate Legislative Counsel over this issue. And one or the other will regularly remove severability language from a draft because, while not irrelevant, it is not dispositive. It is a way that the Leg Counsel’s office asserts its authority against congressmen who “dare” to draft their own legislation.


Of course, as the mandate became more controversial at the end of the process, senators did begin to notice that the severability clause had disappeared.


Had Jim DeMint not objected to waiving the nine-day process necessary to send a bill to conference, the severability clause could have been easily reinserted in conference. But he did; and it wasn’t.


Finally, there was the opportunity to reopen the bill to further amendments, including an amendment on the severability clause, to assuage Democratic moderates like Ben Nelson, after the manager’s amendment had been presented. But, again, this would have required chopping apart the “tree” constructed to block DeMint, and that would have kept the Senate in session until well past Christmas. So that wasn’t done either.


But the point for the court to consider is that senators knew they had an opportunity to reinsert the severability clause, but with considerable pain, and chose not to.


by Michael E. Hammond, former General Counsel Senate Steering Committee 1978-89 and a Dunbarton, New Hampshire resident.


View the original article here

Obama in South Korea is no Reagan in Reykjavik

One the arguments Mitt Romney’s opponents have against him was defined by Romney’s own campaign’s “etch-a-sketch” comment. No one seems to know what Mitt Romney really stands for and the etch-a-sketch comment gave a visual image, created by Romney’s own campaign, to drive home the lack of trust in Mitt Romney.


With an open microphone, Barack Obama has now done the same to himself. One of the arguments Barack Obama’s opponents make is that after this next election, Obama will not have to worry about public support for his actions. Without having to worry about losing an election, the President who has already gone to war against religious groups, dragged his feet on oil drilling expansion, and sought to destroy private health care for American citizens will be even more emboldened to bring his European style socialist vision for America to reality.


Speaking before a live mic to Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, President Obama explained to him that he and the Russians could find common ground, but Vladimir Putin would have to give President Obama “space” until after the election. Medvedev questions what President Obama meant about “space.” President Obama responded, “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”


Just as Romney’s words reinforce people’s fears that he will say or do anything to get elected, President Obama’s words reinforce people’s fears that should he win re-election, he will say and do whatever the hell he wants since the voters won’t be able to toss him out of office.


More than that though, contrast Barack Obama dealing with the latest iteration of Russian thugocracy to Ronald Reagan dealing with the communists. In Reykjavik, Reagan was willing to walk away from the table to preserve his promises. In Seoul, Barack Obama just wants to appear to walk away from the table until after re-election. Reagan stood against the communists in Russia. Barack Obama is perfectly willing to stand with the Russian thugocracy, but they need to give him space until after the election.


If Republicans need a defining theme of who Barack Obama really is, that theme is increasingly clear. He is a man who wants it both ways on every issue, which ultimately makes the nation a loser.


View the original article here

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Obama’s first lose-lose Obamacare-related argument today.

The first round of the US Supreme Court’s attempts to settle the problem that is Obamacare takes place today, and from the Obama administration’s purely partisan (and particularly puerile) perspective, there’s no winning scenario available. Essentially, what’s happening today is the courts are hearing arguments about whether or not Obamacare’s individual mandate qualifies as a tax. If it does qualify as a tax, then under the provisions of the Tax Anti-Injunction Act (TAIA) the mandate cannot actually be challenged in courts until it’s actually been collected; more plainly, you can’t sue for relief from an onerous tax before they take it from you.


The merits of the case are one thing – the above link from Heritage goes into the whole issue, in some detail – but the partisan implications are another. There’s no good result for the Obama administration: if the Supreme Court decides that the individual mandate is not a tax then a large portion of the administration’s existing arguments goes away, thus increasing the likelihood of a humiliating disposal (at least in part) of the one thing that Obama has managed to do domestically in four years. But if the mandate is a tax, then Obama gets to face a plethora of attack ads in the fall which will be (accurately) portraying him as a shameless serial liar who used the looming Obamacare legislation to sneak in a stealth tax on the American middle class.


:shrug: I can work with either scenario.


Moe Lane (crosspost)


PS: There is nothing deeply, deeply ironic about the fact that the President opposed the mandate as a candidate. Or, as American Majority put it:


Contrary to popular belief, a fundamental inability to live up to the job is neither particularly ironic nor particularly not ironic. It simply is.


PPS: If you’re wondering why either side got involved in this argument in the first place, well… neither one brought it up in the first place (the states don’t want to wait to destroy Obamacare, obviously). The court had to assign somebody to argue that TAIA applied in this case.


View the original article here

And Now for a Postal Bailout

It’s another week in Washington, and it’s yet another bailout.  This time, taxpayers will be tapped for another $41 billion to subsidize the healthcare retirement benefits of postal workers – benefits that are quite scarce in the private sector.


Democrats have a serious problem with creative destruction and advancements in technology.  For self-described progressives, they are quite regressive when it comes to efficiency in markets and use of technology.  They exhibit nostalgia for 14th century energy technology and 20th century banking technology.  Hence, they don’t care too much for market progression.  In concerted drives to hold back the tide of technology, they are quick to offer a helping hand to a dying industry.  One such industry is the mail delivery.


It’s no secret that the United States Postal Service is on its way out.  The transition to electronic communication, in conjunction with the success of private mail carriers, has dramatically reduced the demand for their service.  Consequently, they no longer generate enough revenue to function as a self-sufficient entity, particularly when it comes to paying employee retirement benefits.  In recent years, the USPS has patched the annual losses with borrowed money from the Treasury.  However, it is now in such dire straits that it’s expected to hit the $15 billion borrowing cap later this year.  It needs extra taxpayer cash to fill in the gaps.


If the USPS were a private entity, it would trim its workforce and operations to the amount of revenue they can produce until they are eventually forced to go out of business.  That’s how creative destruction and supply and demand work in the real world.  That is not how it works in Washington.


In order to continue operating at a limited capacity, which is what the free-market would dictate in this circumstance, there is a plan to end Saturday delivery, cut the workforce by about 220,000 employees, and close 3,700 local post offices and 252 processing centers. Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe even asked Congress for the flexibility to act more like a business and use innovation to restructure and cut costs.  But Democrat nostalgia for the past is too potent to overcome.  They are completely averse to gradually winding down the Postal Service.  Claire McCaskill has even suggested that people write more letters so that the USPS will have more work.


Once again, a bipartisan group of senators plan to bail out a failing government entity with taxpayer dollars, allowing them to operate, more or less, at current capacity for much longer.  S. 1789, which has 2 Republican cosponsors, will grant a $41 billion bailout to the postal service for the purpose of managing the payments of healthcare benefits for its retirees.  Harry Reid is planning a cloture vote late Monday afternoon, following a vote to raise taxes on oil companies and hand the proceeds to green energy companies.


As part of the proposal, sponsored by Joe Lieberman, the USPS would be entitled to recoup $11 billion in so-called overpayments that it gave to the Treasury for employees’ retirement benefits held in the Civil Service Retirement System.  The problem is that there are no overpayments.  Last year, the GAO ruled that the Postal Service was wrong in their assertion that they paid too much money to the Treasury to fund employee retirement benefits.  As such, any money recouped from the Treasury would engender more taxpayer funding.   Don’t let them fool you with language pertaining to “transfers” and “overpayments.”  This is a pure bailout.


It’s time to let the wheels of economic progress spin.  Let’s do to the Postal Service what should have been done with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  It’s time to attempt to privatize it or wind it down.  Either way, taxpayers should not be exposed to more bailouts.


Cross-posted from The Madison Project


View the original article here

The Obama Administration Outlaws New Coal-Fired Powerplants

Law of the land. Kinda cool.

Yesterday the Obama Administration effectively outlawed coal as a fuel source and it underscores the importance of Congress severely circumscribing the authority of regulatory agencies.



The Environmental Protection Agency will issue the first limits on greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants as early as Tuesday, according to several people briefed on the proposal. The move could end the construction of conventional coal-fired facilities in the United States.


The proposed rule — years in the making and approved by the White House after months of review — will require any new power plant to emit no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity produced. The average U.S. natural gas plant, which emits 800 to 850 pounds of CO2 per megawatt, meets that standard; coal plants emit an average of 1,768 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt.


By outlawing new coal-fired electric generation plants and ignoring nuclear power, the Administration has set in motion a plan to make the nation dependent upon natural gas and a mishmash of politically correct but non-viable sources such as solar and wind as older plants are decommissioned. Essentially, Obama has done via regulatory means what it could not accomplish in Congress: to set the trajectory for exorbitant electricity prices in the service of reducing “greenhouse gasses.”


This is not a new problem. Indeed, last year Speaker Boehner wrote to Obama to complain that the Administration was not being forthcoming in disclosing its regulatory agenda and, as far as I can discern, was roundly ignored.


Whether it be in the form of directing you to purchase a product you don’t wish to buy, telling religious organizations what they have to allow, or making electricity unaffordable, the cancerous growth of regulations presents the greatest danger to our liberty. Until the Congress decides to man up and take back the power that it has relinquished we are on a death spiral as a free people.


As the


View the original article here

This Week in Washington — March 26, 2012

Shall the federal government be allowed unfettered power over citizens?  That is the ultimate question for nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court this week.  The three days of Supreme Court oral arguments on ObamaCare may be the most important constitutional discussions of our lifetime.


This week in Washington is going to be dominated by a national discussion the constitutionality of ObamaCare, yet Congress plods on.  The House of Representatives is expected to take up a short term extension of a highway bill and the Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) budget plan for Fiscal Year 2013.  The Senate is expected to take votes on an energy tax bill and legislation dealing with the U.S. Postal Service.


This is a very important week for American freedom in the federal courts.  The Supremes will be engaging a debate on whether there is any limit to federal power residing in the executive and legislative branches of the federal government.  Will Americans be allowed to make very personal decisions about health care or will that power be handed to the federal government in perpetuity?  We shall engage in the national debate this week and the Supreme Court will hand down a decision later this year.


The House has five relatively non-controversial votes on the Suspension Calendar today.  The last Suspension vote scheduled is on H.R. 4239, a short term extension of a highway bill.  If this were to pass the Senate, then the House and Senate would engage in a fight on competing highway bills over the next few months.


The House and the Senate are intent on passing different versions of a highway bill.  The House leadership wants to pass a five-year $260 billion bill and the Senate has already passed a two-year $109 billion bill that was opposed by 22 Senate Republicans.  Conservatives don’t like either the House or Senate approach because they don’t give enough power to the states and they spend too much.  The generational theft of spending today and passing the bill on to America’s kids is immoral and should cease immediately.


On Tuesday the House will debate the “JOBS Act,” H.R. 3606, a bill to make it easier for small businesses to raise money and make stock offerings.  The House will also take up an Federal Communications Commission reform bill.  Then the House will spend two days on the Rep. Ryan budget.


The Ryan budget will commence a national debate on entitlement reform, spending and taxes.  Ryan’s spending plan for next year will slow the growth of government.  He calls it the “Pathway to Prosperity.”  Ryan’s approach includes entitlement reforms, pro-growth tax reform and some spending cuts.  The Ryan plan is in start contrast to the Obama budget that will tax, spend and borrow us into the poor house.  If President Obama’s budget were to be adopted by the Congress, America would creep toward the European style welfare state that has sucked the life out of so many European entrepreneurs.  Some conservatives worry that the Ryan plan is incremental change at a time when America needs a radical approach to cutting the size and scope of the federal government. 


The Senate will spend a week on Class Warfare and another bailout.  The Senate will consider S.2204, the so called “Repeal Big Oil Subsidy Act.”  This bill extends preferential tax treatment for electric cars, car plug in stations, biofuel plant property and other green lobbyist special interest tax provisions.  Taxes are hiked on oil, natural gas, drilling and wells in the name of class warfare against evil “Big Oil.”  Lefties in Congress want to hike taxes on oil and gas production so that they can force Americans into tiny expensive fuel efficient cars.  The Senate will also have a vote on a so called “Postal Reform” bill that is expected to be a magnet for another massive federal bailout.


The Supreme Court will start down the road of determining if a law shall stand that allows the federal government to force Catholic institutions to fund sin.  Furthermore, the Court will determine if the feds have the power to coerce states, by threatening to withhold Medicaid monies, in order to force them to comply with mandates coming from Uncle Sam.


This week freedom will be debated in the Supreme Court and conservatives hope that at least five justices take the side of freedom over the side of big government with no limits. No matter what nine justices say, the federal government would violate the natural rights of all Americans to be free from intrusive government, if the Supreme Court rubber stamps an intolerable act that forces Americans to buy government approved products.


View the original article here

RomneyCare Inspires ObamaCare, But Not America

Two years ago, President Obama signed into law ObamaCare, his signature piece of  legislation.  As a direct result of that law’s unpopularity, Congressional Democrats suffered devastating defeats in the midterm election of 2010, losing more than sixty seats in the House.  It would be an understatement to say the President’s healthcare overhaul law is merely “unpopular.”  According to several recent polls, Americans still overwhelmingly oppose ObamaCare by a two-to-one margin.  Americans understand that not only is this the wrong solution to our healthcare needs and challenges, it is also an affront to freedom that makes our families’ health and country’s fiscal health more fragile.


The 2012 election should be an opportunity for Americans to elect a President committed to ObamaCare’s repeal and replacement with sound free-market competition.  But that is where this 2012 election has an unusual aspect.  The original architect of the Democrats’ unpopular healthcare law is himself also running for president on the GOP ticket.  Mitt Romney, one of the candidates in the race for the GOP nomination, authored and championed his own version of ObamaCare less than six years ago.


Over the past two years, Americans have learned more about ObamaCare and about the true impact of this law.  By the Democrats’ own stated objectives, the law has been an utter failure.  Democrats in Congress and President Obama made several claims about ObamaCare; they promised Americans that the law would bend the healthcare cost downward.  They also promised that it would be “budget neutral,” that it would achieve “universal coverage,” and that families would immediately see their health insurance costs decrease.  On each and every account, the law has failed.  Instead, public sector and private sector  health care costs are rising.  The Democrats’ “budget neutral” bill is, in reality, going to cost trillions of dollars more for American families, small businesses, and taxpayers.  And rather than reducing families’  health insurance costs, most Americans have  already seen their health insurance premiums rise. (And unions, businesses, and states alike are rushing to plead with the Obama Administration for waivers from the disastrous and partisan law.)


All of these side effects of ObamaCare were entirely foreseeable.  Anyone who has studied Massachusetts under RomneyCare could have predicted each of these problems.


Mitt Romney has been on the defensive for the past several weeks, trying to explain to GOP primary voters how his government takeover of health care in Massachusetts was somehow different than ObamaCare.  The task has proven incredibly difficult because the laws are, in numerous ways, identical.   Romney’s challenge to draw distinctions has been made even more difficult now that White House senior advisor David Plouff last week called Mitt Romney the “godfather” of ObamaCare.


It’s worth noting that the White House knows just how unpopular the health care law is, and they’re looking to share the blame with someone else.  After all, if Mitt Romney becomes the GOP nominee, the Obama Administration will have effectively neutralized the ObamaCare issue.


Mitt Romney, confronted by the reality that ObamaCare remains unpopular, has tried to manufacture distinctions between his healthcare law and the President’s.  Unfortunately, all of the major flaws of ObamaCare can be found in RomneyCare.


There are several key objections that conservatives have about ObamaCare.  And those objections equally apply to RomneyCare.  For limited-government conservatives, one of the most offensive aspects of ObamaCare is the “individual mandate.”  Conservatives. The National Federation of Businesses, and twenty-seven states rightly point out in their legal challenge considered this week by the Supreme Court that our government simply does not have the authority to require anyone to purchase something – whether it is health insurance or an American-made car, or anything else.  The Constitution grants very specific and clearly defined powers to Congress.  The authority to dictate particular purchases, thankfully, is not one of those powers.


But Mitt Romney’s views differ from those of most conservatives in this country.  He does believe that government – both at the state and at the federal level – possesses the right to dictate to individuals what they must purchase.  RomneyCare includes an individual mandate that functions exactly like ObamaCare’s individual mandate.  And, beyond that, Mitt Romney penned an Op-Ed in 2009 for USA Today, in which he encouraged President Obama to adopt his state’s individual mandate.  He boasted that the individual mandate is an effective way to encourage people to take responsibility for their own health care.  He never expressed any concerns about what an abuse of power it is for the federal government to take that action.  Classically for Mitt, his Op-Ed this past week in USA Today failed to mention that his Ted Kennedy embraced affront to freedom in Massachusetts punished businesses and families with fines that failed to comply with his big-government prescribed solution to the healthcare needs of citizens and pushed more people into taxpayer-financed Medicaid rolls.


While for both ObamaCare and RomneyCare, the central policy healthcare prescription is government coercion, rather than market-based incentives and choice, both ObamaCare and Romneycare failed to address the number one challenge for healthcare in America – rising costs.  Not only did they not address it, they exacerbated it for families, businesses, and taxpayers.  This is failed leadership.  It should not surprise us that a policy prescription for such an important issue produced such outcomes when driven primarily by Governor Romney and Democrats in Massachusetts and entirely by Barack Obama and Democrats in partisan fashion in Washington, D.C.  Massachusetts under Governor Romney had the highest healthcare premiums in the country and the growing burden of healthcare costs for our nation remains the primary long-term threat to our economic and fiscal future.


The 2012 election is about one central philosophic point: How big of a federal government do we want and is that where the solutions lie to the challenges that face America?  Do we share the Obama-Romney view that government possesses vast and broad powers to dictate anything it pleases?  Or do we prefer the view of our founding fathers and the authors of the Constitution?   Do we embrace the status quo, which is good for the establishment, but not good for America?  Or do we once again, correct our course, and embrace the inalienable rights endowed by our creator of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the pursuit of a better America?


A primary reason that I chose to run this election cycle is that I believe ObamaCare is an assault on America’s system of limited government.  I believe in American solutions to America’s challenges.  This is how we renew our economy and our prosperity.  Our founding fathers wisely designed a Constitution that protects individual liberty by limiting the scope and size of government.  Pretending that one will only be big government at the state level and not at the federal level, if given the opportunity, doesn’t pass the commonsense test for most Americans.  Unlike on Wall Street, in government, past performance does indicate future performance.  It’s also the best thing that voters have to go on.


The authors of the Constitution correctly understood that there is an inverse relationship between the size of government and individual liberty. ObamaCare is a dramatic departure from our tradition of limited government and needs to be stopped.   And, unfortunately, Mitt Romney does not offer a satisfying or credible alternative to the Democrats’ view of an ever-expansive government.  Unlike Governor Romney, I have successfully led on free-market solutions for our healthcare needs and challenges like health savings accounts and choice and competition in Medicare.  I have led the charge to end and reform entitlements, not to add to them.


President Obama would love for the Republican voters to neutralize this central issue in the 2012 debate about our vision for America and her future.  Let’s embrace freedom instead.


Rick Santorum, a former representative and senator from Pennsylvania, is a candidate for the Republican nomination for president. 


View the original article here

Barack Obama asks for ‘flexibility’ from Medvedev on missile defense.

Alternative title: “Barack Obama begs Russia for more time to arrange capitulation on missile defense.” There’s an election coming up, you see – and if the President gets re-elected then he will be in a position where he won’t have to worry about those pesky voters, and their provincial dislike for having nuclear weapons pointed at their heads. Hence, the need for more time:



President Obama assured Russian President Dmitry Medvedev Monday that he’d have “more flexibility” after the November election, during a conversation that appeared to focus on the touchy issue of missile defense.


Flexibility.


Flexibility.


Ye gods and little fishes.


There is no flexibility, here. The missile defense system was proposed for a reason, and the reason is that nobody particularly trusts the Russian ‘Republic’ – which is actually a kingdom whose ruler remembers fondly the days where it was the center of an empire and one of the two poles of the world. More to the point, that kingdom still has the nuclear weapons that made it one of those poles*. Nukes + an aggressive foreign policy designed to stoke domestic pride + systematic domestic problems = worrisome neighbors. Which is why countries like Poland were happy to host the missile defense platforms: after all, they’re well aware that Russians have difficulty admitting that the concept of “Poland” should exist in the first place.


I should not have to explain any of this to an American President. Then again, as we all know killing missile defense has long been on the progressive Left’s wish list for some time. Certainly Barack Obama knows:


(‘Unproven.’ Amazing how badly this guy guesses the future, huh?)


That’s from 2008, and Barack Obama’s apparently decided to see if he can keep his views quiet just long enough to get reelected in 2012. Great news if you’re an antiwar progressive; not so great if you happen to have relatives in Warsaw, Riga, Kiev, and/or Budapest. Or just don’t want to see Eastern Europe under outside imperial control again…


Moe Lane (crosspost)


PS: Let me make this clear. Missile defense is a shield, not a sword. That an effective missile shield will marginalize Russia on the European stage should not be the problem of the United States of America. It should instead be an impetus for the Russians to become better neighbors. And, hey, possibly a functioning representative democracy, too? – Crazy notion, but God knows they’ve gone through all possible variations of autocracy by now; the Russians might as well try something radical.


*Well, it’s not like the Soviet Union was ever a world power because of its economic policy. Or technological prowess. Or grasp of basic agricultural principles.


View the original article here

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Morning Briefing for March 27, 2012

RedState Morning Briefing
March 27, 2012Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.

One the arguments Mitt Romney’s opponents have against him was defined by Romney’s own campaign’s “etch-a-sketch” comment. No one seems to know what Mitt Romney really stands for and the etch-a-sketch comment gave a visual image, created by Romney’s own campaign, to drive home the lack of trust in Mitt Romney.


With an open microphone, Barack Obama has now done the same to himself. One of the arguments Barack Obama’s opponents make is that after this next election, Obama will not have to worry about public support for his actions. Without having to worry about losing an election, the President who has already gone to war against religious groups, dragged his feet on oil drilling expansion, and sought to destroy private health care for American citizens will be even more emboldened to bring his European style socialist vision for America to reality.


Speaking before a live mic to Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, President Obama explained to him that he and the Russians could find common ground, but Vladimir Putin would have to give President Obama “space” until after the election. Medvedev questions what President Obama meant about “space.” President Obama responded, “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”


Just as Romney’s words reinforce people’s fears that he will say or do anything to get elected, President Obama’s words reinforce people’s fears that should he win re-election, he will say and do whatever the hell he wants since the voters won’t be able to toss him out of office.


Please click here for the rest of the post.


Supreme Court oral arguments on the Affordable Care Act began Monday. We can expect a decision either in June or October. I predict June. What will it be? I’ll go out on a limb and predict Unconstitutional by 5-4. My confidence level is under 60%. I would not be surprised at Unconstitutional, 6-3, but the odds are less than 1%. Constitutional at 6-3 has odds, in my opinion, at 30%.


The Court faces five main arguments.


Please click here for the rest of the post.


Two years ago, President Obama signed into law ObamaCare, his signature piece of legislation. As a direct result of that law’s unpopularity, Congressional Democrats suffered devastating defeats in the midterm election of 2010, losing more than sixty seats in the House. It would be an understatement to say the President’s healthcare overhaul law is merely “unpopular.” According to several recent polls, Americans still overwhelmingly oppose ObamaCare by a two-to-one margin. Americans understand that not only is this the wrong solution to our healthcare needs and challenges, it is also an affront to freedom that makes our families’ health and country’s fiscal health more fragile.


The 2012 election should be an opportunity for Americans to elect a President committed to ObamaCare’s repeal and replacement with sound free-market competition. But that is where this 2012 election has an unusual aspect. The original architect of the Democrats’ unpopular healthcare law is himself also running for president on the GOP ticket. Mitt Romney, one of the candidates in the race for the GOP nomination, authored and championed his own version of ObamaCare less than six years ago.


Please click here for the rest of the post.


View the original article here

Handicapping Health Care

[from the diaries]


Supreme Court oral arguments on the Affordable Care Act begin Monday.  We can expect a decision either in June or October.  I predict June.  What will it be?  I’ll go out on a limb and predict Unconstitutional by 5-4.  My confidence level is under 60%.  I would not be surprised at Unconstitutional, 6-3, but the odds are less than 1%.  Constitutional at 6-3 has odds, in my opinion, at 30%.


The Court faces five main arguments:


The case is premature: either no one has standing or the Anti-injunction Act (AIA) precludes it.The Mandate violates the Commerce Clause (CC).The Act violates the 10th Amendment in general or through Medicaid issues.The Penalty violates the taxing power.The Penalty enforcement facially denies due process.

The latter two are issues I briefed to the Court.  My brief is here.


Contrary to what most people believe, the government must prevail on all five issues.  See my discussion here.  Opponents must prevail on issue number 1 and at least one other.  My predictions and short analysis follow:


1. Standing/AIA: odds of this being the decision basis: less than 5%.  It would mean we have no decision, at least to the extent the AIA or lack of standing claim applied. Clearly individual plaintiffs can show current injury and thus standing; however, they have a problem with the AIA.  The Court can overcome the AIA in four ways.

First, per Bob Jones, the AIA does not bar persons who show irreparable harm and certainty of success.  Although I made this point to one Circuit, and while I believe it should prevail, I also believe it will not.  If it does, it means the opponents have won.Second, the penalty is a penalty and not a tax and thus the AIA is irrelevant.  This is plausible, even though I disagree because I see the penalty as a tax.Third, the AIA bars injunctions, but this is a declaration.  One District Court followed this reasoning and it has some merit.Fourth, States have no AIA problem because States are not persons and the AIA only bars persons; however, they have serious standing issues, at least regarding the Commerce Clause attack.  States have no standing issue regarding the taxing power or 10th Amendment because those issues belong to the States.  Despite the 4th Circuit opinion, I believe the odds of this being the deciding basis to postpone a decision in toto are 1%; hence, I believe we will see a decision on the merits.

2. Commerce Clause: odds of this being the deciding basis: 85%.  Odds unconstitutional: 55%.  This is the most dangerous area.  Striking the Act on CC grounds would be groundbreaking and could foretell overruling Wickard, which would be a good thing.  Upholding the Act on CC grounds, unless it is very narrowly tailored, would be very damaging to federalism.  It would grant unlimited power to the federal government, checked only by the political system.  I have no doubt the Mandate violates the CC: it forces commerce that does not otherwise exist.  Potential commerce is not commerce.  Then again, potential commerce clearly has a substantial impact on interstate commerce; hence, the government’s position is not without merit, assuming one agrees with the Court’s precedents and agrees they should be expanded.


3. 10th Amendment: odds of this being the reason to strike the Act: 1%.  I support the argument; however, I suspect it will have no more than 4 votes.  Admittedly, it is not my area of expertise.  If the Court focuses on this in the opinion, it means the opponents win; however, I doubt we will see much of this.


4. Taxing Power: odds of this being the reason to strike the Act: 2%.  If this forms the opinion basis, odds of opponents’ success are 98% and odds of a 9-0 opinion striking the Penalty are 75% or more.  This is the argument I’ve written about extensively, (here, here, and here) and which formed the bulk of my brief (here) to the Court, as well as to three Circuits.  One small group briefed it on the other side and their argument was unpersuasive.


The Court is not going to find the penalty to be a duty or impost.  Odds of finding it a here-to-fore undiscovered type of tax are less than one in a billion.  Odds of finding it to be a uniform excise are very slim: perhaps one in ten thousand.  Excises must apply to actions or transactions or uses of property or exercises of privileges.  This is not an excise.  Viewed with the Mandate, it is not uniform because together they are a function of state and regional markets.  Thus, if the penalty and Mandate together are an excise (and they do, in fact, appear in the Excise subtitle of the Internal Revenue Code), they are not uniform, as required by the Constitution.


Odds of the Court upholding the penalty as a 16th Amendment income tax are also slim – much less than one in a hundred.  The Court would be subject to ridicule with such a decision, despite what a few academics claim.  I predict it will not happen.  An increased tax on one’s income because he lacks insurance is no more an income tax than an increased tax on one’s income because he owns land.  The latter would undeniably be a Direct Tax and the former is a Capitation/Direct Tax.  The Court is very unlikely to rule otherwise.


That leaves direct taxes.  The penalty/tax is not apportioned and no one claims it to be.  Odds of the Court finding the penalty to be a direct tax but also that the apportionment requirement is no longer binding are close to zero, again despite what many (if not most academics) argue.  They claim the 14th Amendment effectively repealed the apportionment requirement.  I answer that here. The argument is absurd and Supreme Court justices rarely want to make absurd claims on tax issues, which they tend not to like to rule on.  Also, many academics claim apportionment applies only when it is possible.  Again, the argument is absurd and rests on out-of-context quotations from an 18th Century minority opinion.  Sanctions against those who make such a frivolous argument are more likely than the Court agreeing with the argument.  Thus, that argument will not prevail.


Hence, I see a 1.5 to 2% chance of the Court agreeing with me and striking the tax/penalty as an un-apportioned direct tax.  If it does so, the Mandate becomes the suggestion and necessarily fails.  Not great odds; however, also not unthinkable.  I’m not a gambler; however, with those odds, I’d be buying lots of lottery tickets.


5. Due Process:  odds of this being the reason to strike the Act: less than 1%.  Ultimate chance of success for this argument: 75%.  However, I suspect the Court will determine the argument should be deferred to an as applied rather than facial challenge.  In layman’s terms, it is arguably premature.  I disagree, but I believe that will be the consensus and thus it is unlikely to even reach the opinion, except perhaps in a dissent or concurrence (and a slim chance at that).  Essentially, the “collection” procedures presume the taxpayer “guilty,” allow the government to take his money, and then force him to seek and ultimately to sue for a refund, with the burden of proof being on him.  The Act (together with existing statutes) provides no realistic opportunity for pre-collection judicial review on the merits.  Taxpayers also have virtually no chance for pre-collection judicial review of the sufficiency of administrative review.  That surely violates due process.


If the Court approves the Act, the due process problems create what I see as the most frightening aspect of a very disturbing law.  I make the argument here and in an upcoming American Journal of Law and Medicine symposium (not available for at least another week in final version and in print, not for several weeks).  However, until the due process denial happens to an individual, the Court is unlikely to entertain the argument.  Arguably, the government may never attempt to enforce the Act; or, it may seek enforcement only through a civil suit or a criminal penalty for those who fail to pay the civil penalty. [Yes, despite everything you’ve heard, criminal penalties are possible, if not likely.  See here].  If the government proceeds with civil suits and criminal penalties, it will necessarily grant due process in those matters.  While I believe the civil collection scenario being the sole collection method  is highly unrealistic, it is arguably sufficiently possible so as to defer a decision on due process.


We will know a little more after we hear the questions and arguments this week – especially the questions.  But it will likely be very little more, as judges and Justices often do not tip their hands.  That they ask a question does not indicate they agree with the most likely answer, so be careful reading much into the oral argument and questioning.  Unless, of course, the Justices ask about direct taxes, which would be very telling.


View the original article here

There Is A Lot At Stake In Sanford, Florida

When someone (or a group) can publicly do this, and no one (President, Attorney General, Governor, Sheriff) condemns it or brings charges as a result, we need no more proof that we are losing our country.


Anybody else think this would have happened in Texas? Perry would have the Texas Rangers rounding those thugs up, like within hours of such an announcement. Governor Scott should demand that the bounty be rescinded or someone is going to jail.


And if any of the GOP candidates expressed outrage (are you listening, Mitt?) over this, I suspect his base would finally get energized.


Meanwhile, the great, silent majority is sitting on its collective hands, while these fringe minorities get more and more outrageous in their actions.


The barbarians are truly at the gate.


View the original article here

Brazilian Government Pouting About Need for Transparency in Procurement Process

When I first wrote about Hawker-Beechcraft losing the U.S. Airforce light aircraft contract to Brazilian company Embraer, I didn’t expect it to be as controversial as it ended up being. I even had one person on twitter tell me it was downright birther-like to think there was something fishy going on.


Turns out people above my pay grade concurred as the US Air Force has suspended the contract pending an internal investigation:



While we pursue perfection, we sometimes fall short, and when we do we will take corrective action,” says Air Force Secretary Michael Donley in a statement. Citing the ongoing litigation, he adds, “I can only say Air Force Senior Acquisition Executive David Van Buren is not satisfied with the quality of the documentation supporting the award decision.” (emphasis mine)


As Rep. Mike Pompeo alluded to when it happened, this is not something that the Air Force would do simply to bow to political pressure:



The action is highly unusual, Rep. Mike Pompeo said in a conference call.


“That’s no small undertaking,” Pompeo said. “It’s a contractual process. They have now undone that contract. The Air Force does not do that lightly.”


I’ve said from the beginning of the saga that the reasons for Hawker-Beechcraft’s bid disqualification could be perfectly legitimate. But normally when someone is disqualified (as opposed to simply losing the bid) they are given a reason. Hawker was not and for me that raised an eyebrow. That eyebrow continued to be raised as I looked into Embraer and its cozy relationship (as in ownership stake) with the Brazilian government and the Brazilian government’s cozy relationship (as in, nuclear assistance) with that bastion of peace and understanding, Iran.


Well, Embraer won’t be taking the USAF’s desire to be more transparent lying down and, in diplomatic terms has made clear that this could cause them to take their ball and go home.



The Brazilian government has warned Washington that the abrupt cancellation by the US Air Force of an order of warplanes from Embraer, the country’s aircraft manufacturer, could damage military relations.


[...]


“The Brazilian government learnt with surprise of the suspension of the bid process to purchase A-29 Super Tucano aircraft by the United States Air Force, in particular due to its manner and timing,” the foreign affairs ministry said, referring to Embraer’s light attack aircraft.


“This development is not considered conducive to strengthening relations between the two countries on defence affairs.”


Rep. Pompeo agrees that there should be more transparency around the process:


Normally a contract dispute wouldn’t interest me so much but Embraer’s connections with some of the worst people on the planet had me concerned. Call me crazy, but I find connections to Iran disturbing in a weapons contract. But believing that the DoD would make such a huge error in awarding contracts is downright conspiratorial right? They’d never do anything like that! I mean, are there any other examples of …



U.S. Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) today led a bipartisan letter to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta calling for an end to the U.S. Governments relationship with the Russian state-controlled arms export firm Rosoboronexport, who until just three years ago had been the subject of U.S. sanctions for assisting Iran, and has for years been arming the Assad regime as they continue to commit atrocities against the Syrian people…


Oh…maybe not so conspiratorial after all?


Follow @Ben_Howe


View the original article here

Tech at Night: FTC makes a move, FCC still trouble, NAM backs SECURE IT

Tech at Night


So we already had the coming FCC battle over Verizon’s attempts to acquire the spectrum it needs, the Senate fight over ‘cybersecurity,’ and a possible Congressional fight over Internet sales taxation. But now there’s a new issue to keep track of: the FTC is taking it upon itself to regulate the Internet on the grounds of protecting privacy. Jim Harper seems thinks it’s nothing new, but under the Obama administration, I’m more concerned. Still Adam Thierer also says it could have been worse, though, but also mentions those dirty words ‘personal responsibility.’ Can’t have that.


Democrats are eager to empower the Obama administration, of course. That’s why we need a Republican Senate to go with a Republican House.


They’re not calling it Net Neutrality now that it’s all about restricting choice and empowering government to regulate the Internet, but the George Soros-funded Public Knowledge is called for Net Neut action against Comcast. On the Open Internet, your choices of Internet service are closed to what government decides you are allowed to have.


More FCC: the push continues for the FCC to continue to be a spectrum roadblock against Verizon, contrary to every goal of universal access it claims to have. That’s because universal access is supposed to be code for subsidies, not actual pro-growth, pro-investment policies that allow market signals to guide spectrum to the more efficient uses.


Naturally the White House opposes FCC reform which would return power back to legislators, not regulators. Can’t have that. Too much respect for the Constitution, which is over 100 years old.


I’ve actually been reading up on export controls lately, so when I see this seemingly-harmless plan to control export of censorship technology to unfree countries, I question whether it’s a good idea. We already have many cabinet-level departments doing export controls, plus a new directorate Obama created in 2010 which complicated the situation further. We might need simplification before we add more complication.


Apple and its publisher allies are probably about to get smacked hard as the agency pricing scandal comes out, where Amazon was pressured into taking the deal Apple wrote.


Support for the broad-based GOP alternative cybersecurity bill, SECURE IP, grows with NAM praising the proposal. SECURE IT’s light touch, and information sharing approach is much better than the massive power grab of the Lieberman-Collins bill.


View the original article here

Evan Feinberg in Pennsylvania

The Republican Primary in Pennsylvania is one month away. I have documented just how terrible Congressman Tim Murphy is.


I’d like to encourage you to support his opponent, Evan Feinberg. Evan is endorsed by Senators Tom Coburn and Rand Paul. He is a solid conservative and a great fit for Tim Murphy’s district. Conservatives lost a primary with Don Manzullo’s defeat last week. What conservatives are seeing is conservative activists not opening their checkbooks. I realize people don’t have a lot of money to give these days, but the cruel reality is that conservatives need money to get elected and our opponents are opening their checkbooks up while we are not.


So do what you can for Evan Feinberg. We need him in Congress.


View the original article here

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

RSC Budget: Cut, Cap, and Balance is Back – And Here to Stay

Last year, we were proud to be one of the first websites to publicly promote the Republican Study Committee’s Cut, Cap and Balance (CCB) plan.  What started out as an idea hatched by a few principled conservatives grew into a unifying rallying cry for the entire conservative movement.  Sadly, GOP leadership jettisoned the universally-heralded CCB plan in favor of the Budget [Out of] Control Act, which gave Obama another $2.1 trillion in debt authority, while cutting nothing significantly except for defense.


Now, thanks to the indefatigable work of Reps. Jim Jordan, Scott Garrett, Mick Mulvaney, Tom McClintock, and Tim Huelskamp, CCB is back in the form of the annual RSC budget – and it’s here to stay.  The RSC budget – Cut, Cap, and Balance – immediately cuts discretionary spending in FY 2013 by $112 billion from last year’s spending levels, caps future spending at 18-18.7% of GDP, and balances the budget in just 5 years!  Overall, the RSC budget will cut $7.6 trillion relative to Obama’s budget and even $2.3 trillion more than the Ryan budget.


The amazing thing is that the balanced budget is achieved without accounting for the reforms to the biggest drivers of the deficits; Social Security and Medicare.  The budget proposal includes Paul Ryan’s Medicare premium support plan, and even adds Social Security reform (unlike the Ryan budget).  However, those changes don’t begin until after the 10-year budget frame.  As such, none of the savings are included in the budget.


While it is clear that those two leviathans must be reformed in order to maintain a balanced budget in the long-run, this budget illustrates something unique in budget land.  It is the first proposal that shows how to balance the budget in 5 years, even without reforming SS and Medicare immediately.  This does not diminish the importance of reforming those programs; rather it shows how much dead wood is lodged into the rest of the budget – an observation that is often overlooked.


Here is a detailed breakdown of the budget proposal:



Discretionary Spending: This budget sets the FY 2013 discretionary spending cap at $931 billion,roughly equal to 2008 levels.  That’s hardly too much to ask for.  It takes the $1.028 trillion level established in the Ryan budget and bakes in the $97 billion of impending sequester cuts (slated to begin on January 2) into the budget from the beginning of the year.  Specifically, it parries away the cuts from defense spending and directs it to the harmful, wasteful, and unconstitutional government programs and agencies.  The list of programs that will be terminated includes the National Labor Relations Board, Trade Adjustment Assistance, the Presidential Campaign Fund, the Legal Services Corporation, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Universal Service Fund, the Economic Development Agency, and the National Endowment for the Arts.


Here is the key point: All discretionary spending is frozen at the $931 billion level until the budget balances in FY 2017.  From FY 2018-2022, growth of discretionary spending is capped to inflation.  Moreover, in order to keep total discretionary spending at this level, while simultaneously providing for our national security needs, the sub-category of defense spending is allowed to rise gradually (the same levels as the Ryan budget), as non-defense discretionary spending actually declines every year until FY 2018.  Overall, the RSC budget saves about $750 billion more in discretionary spending than the Ryan budget.


Medicaid and Welfare: The paramount entitlement reform of the budget is Medicaid reform.  The proposal incorporates the recently-introduced State Health Flexibility Act (H.R. 4160), which combines Medicaid and SCHIP into one block grant to the states, allowing them to do with it whatever they deem prudent.  Unlike the Ryan plan, this proposal would freeze the block grant at FY 2012 levels (in nominal dollars) for ten years. Overall, the RSC budget saves $760 billion more than the Ryan budget from Medicaid/CHIP proposal and over $2 trillion from the current baseline.


For other mandatory programs, the budget incorporates the RSC’s Welfare Reform Act of 2011 (H.R. 1167).  Once unemployment dips below 6.5%, this bill would freeze all spending on the 77 means-tested programs at 2007 levels (pre-recession welfare payments), rising only with inflation.  It would also place some budget constraints on these “mandatory” programs, and subject the Food Stamp program to the same work requirements that were placed on TANF under the 1996 welfare reform bill.  Total savings from welfare reform will be $260 billion over 10 years.


Other reforms include:

Requiring current federal workers to contribute more to their pensions and health benefits, while limiting the rate of growth of federal pensions to the “Chained-CPI.”Cutting agriculture subsidies by abolishing the Direct Payment farm subsidy, the Foreign Market Development Program, and the Market Access Program.Privatizing Freddie and FannieEliminating all mandatory spending for Pell Grants, subjecting 100% of price tag to the annual budget process.

Taxes:  In addition to balancing the budget in 5 years, the RSC plan would also enact pro-growth tax reform, “The Jobs Through Growth Act,” aiming for the same revenue baseline as the Ryan budget.  It would offer an optional transition to a new, flatter system that contains just two rates: 15% (first $50,000 taxable income for single filers, $100,000 for joint filers) and 25% (taxable income above that).  In order to ensure that there is no increased burden on middle-income families with several children; couples would get a $25,000 standard deduction and an additional $12,500 deduction for each dependent.  After this generous pro-family deduction, all other credits and deductions are eliminated, thereby putting an end to market distortions through the tax system.


The bill further calls for abolishing the death tax and AMT.  The corporate tax would be lowered to 25% and transformed to a territorial system.  Capital Gains taxes would be capped at 15% and indexed for inflation, so only the amount of gains beyond the level of inflation would be taxed.  Some other tax proposals offer slightly bolder plans for the capgains and corporate taxes, but the beauty of this plan is that it facilitates a balanced budget, even working with the inaccurate static scoring of the CBO.


In conclusion, this budget offers the broad contours for any serious plan to balance the budget, and more importantly, shrink the size of government.  On Thursday, the Cut, Cap, and Balance budget will be proposed as a floor amendment (H. Con. Res. 113) to the Ryan budget.  This will be one of those votes that shows who is willing to substantiate their commitments to spending cuts and limited government with real action.  It will also grant those who voted to kill CCB last year a second chance to right the ship.


Long live Cut Cap and Balance!


View the original article here

Morning Briefing for March 26, 2012

RedState Morning Briefing  March 26, 2012Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.

Workforce Fairness is releasing a series of videos chronicling left-wing intimidation, including showing up at people’s houses to harass them and their families. We’re pleased to debut the first of the videos here at RedState. The videos document a growing trend in American civic discourse — the use of intimidation against private citizens to punish dissent.


Listen to Media Matters For America and other outlets on the left and they claim they are outraged at Rush Limbaugh for using the word “slut.”


They’re OK with it when the left does it. Routinely, conservative activists are targeted for harassment, subject to degrading comments, etc. from the left and they are okay with that. Bill Maher gets invited to keynote Democratic dinners.


Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia, in a Lenten Letter to his pastoral flock, said that evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant and then tries to silence good. The secular left, having preached tolerance for years, is proving the Archbishop true with their new found intolerance for opposing views. Witness opponents to Proposition 8 in California actively targeting for harassment supporters of Proposition 8. Witness union goons showing up on the doorsteps of private citizens to scare them into submission. Witness Media Matters For America targeting American supporters of Israel and attacking them as “Israel Firsters,” questioning their loyalty to the United States.


The left is trying to shut down the opposition. When they were out of power, dissent was patriotic. Now that they are in power, they want to use both the state and intimidate in the public square to shut down opposing views. It goes beyond boycotts to financially intimate those who disagree with them. Now, the left is showing up at the private homes of American citizens they disagree with to intimidate them, threaten them, harass them, and make them pay for daring to have a different view.


The only time anyone wants to shut down opposing views is when the opposing views are winning. And that is the left’s problem. Rush Limbaugh, the free market, the right to work states, etc. are all winning. And it is not just that the right is winning, the left is losing.


Please click here for the rest of the post.


Trayvon Martin’s death in Florida is a terrible tragedy made even worse by a police department that seemingly bungled the investigation. There are multiple eyewitnesses, some who saw the shooter, George Zimmerman, yelling for help. Others saw Trayvon Martin yelling for help.


It shouldn’t be a partisan issue.


But MSNBC decided to make it one. According to Karen Finney on MSNBC, the Koch Brothers, NRA, and other conservatives are responsible for Trayvon Martin’s death.


Please click here for the rest of the post.


As a mother of four, the first of which entered public school last year, keeping up with my children’s education is extremely important to me. I’ve heard the stories of children fearing the end of the world due to global warming and seen the history books that exclude any Republican or Conservative from the important events that have shaped our country. My husband and I moved to a small town in South Carolina due in part to the notoriety of the schools. I immediately joined the PTA, looking forward to communicating and working with other parents to help our children achieve the high standards to which we hold them accountable.


Unfortunately, as is so often the case, this PTA had an agenda and used its access to my email address to push that agenda.


Please click here for the rest of the post.


It’s another week in Washington, and it’s yet another bailout. This time, taxpayers will be tapped for another $41 billion to subsidize the healthcare retirement benefits of postal workers – benefits that are quite scarce in the private sector.


Democrats have a serious problem with creative destruction and advancements in technology. For self-described progressives, they are quite regressive when it comes to efficiency in markets and use of technology. They exhibit nostalgia for 14th century energy technology and 20th century banking technology. Hence, they don’t care too much for market progression. In concerted drives to hold back the tide of technology, they are quick to offer a helping hand to a dying industry. One such industry is the mail delivery.


It’s no secret that the United States Postal Service is on its way out. The transition to electronic communication, in conjunction with the success of private mail carriers, has dramatically reduced the demand for their service. Consequently, they no longer generate enough revenue to function as a self-sufficient entity, particularly when it comes to paying employee retirement benefits. In recent years, the USPS has patched the annual losses with borrowed money from the Treasury. However, it is now in such dire straits that it’s expected to hit the $15 billion borrowing cap later this year. It needs extra taxpayer cash to fill in the gaps.


Please click here for the rest of the post.


The Republican Primary in Pennsylvania is one month away. I have documented just how terrible Congressman Tim Murphy is.


I’d like to encourage you to support his opponent, Evan Feinberg. Evan is endorsed by Senators Tom Coburn and Rand Paul. He is a solid conservative and a great fit for Tim Murphy’s district. Conservatives lost a primary with Don Manzullo’s defeat last week. What conservatives are seeing is conservative activists not opening their checkbooks. I realize people don’t have a lot of money to give these days, but the cruel reality is that conservatives need money to get elected and our opponents are opening their checkbooks up while we are not.


So do what you can for Evan Feinberg. We need him in Congress.


Please click here for the rest of the post.


View the original article here

Daily Links – March 26, 2012

Today is March 26th. On this date, in 1827, classical composer Ludwig van Beethoven died in Vienna, Austria. He was, of course, one of history’s greatest composers. (I think my personal Beethoven favorite is probably Moonlight Sonata.) If he were alive today, he would probably say “Hi, I’m Gary Oldman.” Also on this date, in 2000, Vladimir Putin was elected President of Russia, thereby laying the groundwork for the earth-shaking Tumblr that is Uncomfortable Moments With Putin. On the same day in 2000, the Seattle Kingdome was imploded, resulting in this awesome video. As a conservative, I just want to say that explosions, or in this case, implosions, rule. And finally, today is Make Your Own Holiday Day, which is why I’m declaring today International Celebrate Bloggers Day. So pour a bowl of cereal, take off your pants, and go watch some cat videos! Consider this an Open Thread.


Obama to Russia: ‘After My Election I Have More Flexibility’ | Weekly Standard
“President Obama got caught in private conversation with a hot mic today in Seoul, South Korea”


Judges discarded impartiality by signing recall petitions, say journalists who signed recall petitions | Daily Caller
“A Gannett Media executive was red-faced this weekend after nine of her employees were caught doing exactly what their paper had exposed 29 circuit judges for doing: trying to bring down Republican Gov. Scott Walker.”


Deficits do matter | Human Events
“The fact of the matter is that the estimated $15.6 trillion in debt is a hidden tax on future generations. It needs to be attacked.”


House Democrats’ New Spokesman: 9/11 Truther Martin Sheen | Weasel Zippers
“You’d think after the Van Jones fiasco the Dems would think twice about joining forces with a truther, and you’d be wrong.”


Today’s Word of the Day comes via Merriam-Webster.
hebdomadal (heb-DAH-muh-dul): adjective occurring, appearing, or done every week : weekly


View the original article here

The Left No Longer Finds Dissent Patriotic

Workforce Fairness is releasing a series of videos chronicling left-wing intimidation, including showing up at people’s houses to harass them and their families. We’re pleased to debut the first of the videos here at RedState. The videos document a growing trend in American civic discourse — the use of intimidation against private citizens to punish dissent.


Listen to Media Matters For America and other outlets on the left and they claim they are outraged at Rush Limbaugh for using the word “slut.”


They’re OK with it when the left does it. Routinely, conservative activists are targeted for harassment, subject to degrading comments, etc. from the left and they are okay with that. Bill Maher gets invited to keynote Democratic dinners.


Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia, in a Lenten Letter to his pastoral flock, said that evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant and then tries to silence good. The secular left, having preached tolerance for years, is proving the Archbishop true with their new found intolerance for opposing views. Witness opponents to Proposition 8 in California actively targeting for harassment supporters of Proposition 8. Witness union goons showing up on the doorsteps of private citizens to scare them into submission. Witness Media Matters For America targeting American supporters of Israel and attacking them as “Israel Firsters,” questioning their loyalty to the United States.


The left is trying to shut down the opposition. When they were out of power, dissent was patriotic. Now that they are in power, they want to use both the state and intimidation in the public square to shut down opposing views. It goes beyond boycotts to financially intimidate those who disagree with them. Now, the left is showing up at the private homes of American citizens they disagree with to intimidate them, threaten them, harass them, and make them pay for daring to have a different view.


The only time anyone wants to shut down opposing views is when the opposing views are winning. And that is the left’s problem. Rush Limbaugh, the free market, the right to work states, etc. are all winning. And it is not just that the right is winning, the left is losing.


David Brock of Media Matters, for example, took the desperate act of spending $850,000.00 to buy his ex-boyfriend’s silence about Media Matters. He only spent $100,000.00 to try to silence Rush Limbaugh, by comparison. Media Matters has been subjected to two months of revelations that raise questions about their tax exempt status and coordination with the Democratic Party.


But it is not just Media Matters. It is unions too.


Like Media Matters, the unions are threatening and bullying businesses. They are threatening private citizens. Threatening the livelihood of businesses and individuals, unions, Media Matters, and the left are intending to shut down the opposition through fear of a loss of livelihood.


What is most appalling to me, however, is how the right has failed to counter this bullying with an aggressive adverttising campaign showing what is happening — showing the gay rights protestors in California targeting donors to the Proposition 8 campaign, showing Media Matters targeting businesses that support free speech, showing unions targeting small businesses that won’t give in to union demands, showing union thugs showing up at the private residences of individuals to silence and intimidate them, etc.


That may be changing. Workforce Fairness is releasing a series of videos chronicling left-wing intimidation, including showing up at people’s houses to harass them and their families. We’re pleased to debut the first of the videos here at RedState.


View the original article here