Obamacare ruled unconstitutional

Obamacare is in legal trouble (Maverick2003)

In a welcome Christmas present to the majority of Americans who oppose President Obama’s health care reform law, a federal judge ruled the individual mandate to purchase health insurance unconstitutional this week.  US District Judge Henry Hudson declined to overturn the whole law, but said that requiring Americans to purchase health insurance “would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers” as part of his 42-page ruling.

This is the third time that the health care law has had its day in court.  In October, a federal judge in Michigan ruled that a decision not to purchase health insurance was an activity that could “substantially affect interstate commerce” and could be regulated under the Constitution’s commerce clause.  In November, another judge in Virginia similarly found that the mandate was constitutional on the grounds that “Far from ‘inactivity,’ by choosing to forgo insurance, Plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now, through the purchase of insurance.”  This meant that the commerce clause could be applied.

In contrast, Judge Hudson pointed out that the Democratic interpretation of the commerce clause was too broad.  “…  The same reasoning could apply to transportation, housing, or nutritional decisions.”  In other words, the government could solve the auto industry crisis by requiring everyone to buy a car, the homeless problem by requiring everyone to buy a house, and the obesity problem by requiring that everyone buy only healthy food.  If the government can force you to buy one product or service, there is no limit to what it can force you to do.

Additionally, Judge Hudson pointed out that requiring to Americans to engage in a private business transaction is unprecedented.  States require that drivers buy car insurance, but the health care mandate is different in several key points.  Auto insurance is not required for everyone; it is only required for people who want to operate vehicles on roads that are owned by the state.  Additionally, states are bound by their own constitutions and many of these do not have the same limitations of the US Constitution.

Judge Hudson also addressed the Administration’s claim that the individual mandate is constitutional under the government’s power to tax.  The mandate’s fine was clearly intended to be a punishment for not purchasing health insurance.  President Obama and other Democrats claimed before passage of the law that the fine was not a tax.  These claims were made in part because of President Obama’s promise not to raise taxes on middle and lower-income Americans.  Judge Hudson noted that the fine “lacks a bona fide intention to raise revenue” and therefore was not a tax.

There is yet another lawsuit winding its way through the courts as well.  In addition to Virginia’s suit, twenty states led by Florida are suing to overturn the law as well.  A federal judge in Florida had refused to throw out the case in October.  A hearing is scheduled for December 16.

Georgia is a party to the Florida lawsuit.  After (outgoing) Democratic Attorney-General Thurbert Baker refused to join the lawsuit, Republican Governor (also outgoing) Sonny Perdue was forced to appoint a Special AG to fight the law.

If the individual mandate is thrown out, then Obamacare will become unworkable.  The law’s mandates, such as not allowing insurance companies to turn away people who are already sick, would mean that health insurance would become either prohibitively expensive or unprofitable for insurance companies.  In the first case, people couldn’t afford it and there would be more uninsured.  In the second, there would soon be no insurance companies left to write policies.  Obamacare is already causing shortages of health insurance and rising health insurance premiums.  The government is already granting more and more exemptions from the health care law’s provisions.  It is becoming apparent that the law is an unpopular failure and a ruling against the mandate would speed its demise.

It is extremely likely that the case will eventually find its way to the Supreme Court.  A ruling there against Obamacare, while not assured, seems likely given the current makeup of the Court.  Interestingly, the recent rulings against Obamacare reflect a partisan bias by judges.  Both judges (George Steeh and Norman Moon) who upheld the law were appointed by President Clinton.  Both judges who ruled in favor of the challengers to the law were appointed by Republicans.  Roger Vinson was appointed by President Reagan and Judge Hudson was appointed by President George W. Bush.

This partisan divide underscores the key difference in judicial philosophy between Republicans and Democrats.  Democratic appointees typically favor activist judges who often rule the way they believe the law ought to be rather than how it is written.  In contrast, Republican appointees usually favor strict constructionists who rule based on actual wording of the law and the intent of Congress.  This means that Democratic appointees usually grant the government much more latitude to expand its control into American life.  It is yet another reason to consider party affiliation when voting.

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/obamacare-ruled-unconstitutional"> 

Wikiterror

Julian Assange, cyber terrorist (Espen Moe)

It is time to call Julian Assange and his hacker cohorts what they are:  cyber terrorists.  Assange used his website, Wikileaks, to post thousands of stolen classified documents online for the world to see.

Assange may not be a member of al Qaeda, but his goals are similar to those of Osama bin Laden.  Assange is anti-American and anti-business.  He wants to hurt the United States, specifically our efforts in the War on Terror, and anyone who gets in his way.

Why do people like Assange focus on the US and not the many other nations of the world that would be more credible targets for someone concerned about human rights?  In part, they have succumbed to leftist rhetoric about “illegal wars” as well as disproportionate coverage of problems like Abu Graibh.  In reality, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are justified and legal.  The majority of US and Coalition troops behave honorably.  Those did not have faced justice.  On the contrary, our enemy’s central tactic is killing and maiming innocent people.  

Second, Assange and those like him realize that if they went after the real human rights abusers in the world, countries like China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, they might become targets themselves.  Like Osama bin Laden before 9/11, they view the US as a “paper tiger.”  They can make a name for themselves by attacking us without fear of reprisal.  On the other hand, people who criticize true dictatorial governments tend to end up dead, often in horrible ways.

Australians rally in support of Wikileaks (Noodle Snacks)

After Assange was arrested on rape charges this week, his cohorts launched a wave of cyber attacks on companies and governments.  Many of the companies attacked, such as MasterCard, Visa, PayPal, and Amazon, have ended their dealings with Wikileaks over concerns about the legality of posting classified documents.  Other targets of “Operation Payback” include Swedish prosecutors involved in Assange’s rape cases, a Swiss bank, and Sarah Palin.

Cyber attacks on companies and the US government are nothing new.  Earlier this year, China was involved in cyber attacks against Google amid a dispute with the company over censorship of internet search results.  Over the past few years, the US military, as well as oil companies, have come under repeated cyber attack.  China is a prime suspect in many of the attacks.  Ironically, documents on Wikileaks include details on Chinese cyber attack plans.

A massive cyber attack could be viewed as a poor man’s EMP attack.  Cyber warfare could shut down large segments of the economy and government, or, as with Operation Payback, it could be narrowly targeted at certain companies, government agencies, or military bases.  Cyber warfare could most likely be repaired more quickly than an EMP attack, but if it were timed to coincide with other attacks, the damage could be multiplied.  In 2008, the Russian invasion of Georgia was preceded by a cyber attack on Georgian websites.

A sailor monitors network activity on the USS Reagan (DOD)

The US government, as well as corporations, should take cyber warfare seriously.  Cyber attacks should be given the same importance as conventional terror attacks.  Even though they do not rack up the body count of a car bomb or crashing airplane, they have the capability to inflict much more widespread damage on the country as a whole. 

It might be time to establish an interservice Cyber Warfare Command to coordinate computer defense.  Patriotic hackers could be recruited and trained by the military to defend the nation’s computer networks from attack.  Websites that are damaging to national security, such as Wikileaks, could be attacked if necessary.  In certain cases, Special Forces or CIA agents might be used to attack cyber attackers physically.

Computers and the internet are a vital part of the US economy.  We cannot stand idly by while they are attacked by other nations or cyberterrorist groups.  Neither should we stand idly by while classified documents that can endanger our soldiers and our allies are released to the world.

“[T]here is nothing covered up that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known. Accordingly, whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in the inner rooms will be proclaimed upon the housetops.”- Luke 12:2-3

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/wikiterror"> 

Georgia Dems split over tax compromise

Sanford Bishop

A political firestorm has erupted among Democrats since President Obama announced a deal with Republicans to extend the low Bush-era tax rates.  It seems possible that President Obama negotiated without the input of Democratic congressional leaders, expecting them to follow his lead.

Lame duck House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is unhappy with several provisions and has not committed to pushing the bill through the House.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the compromise was “something that's not done yet. We're going to have to do some more work.”  This indicates that left-wing Democrats may hold the compromise hostage (to use President Obama’s metaphor) to extract more concessions from the Republicans.

For some the rhetoric was even more heated.  Senator Mary Landrieu called the extension of tax cuts for the wealthy “morally corrupt” and “nonsensical.”  Senator Claire McCaskill said, “If they think it's okay to raise taxes for the embattled middle class because they're gonna pout if we don't give more money to millionaires, it really is time for the people of America to take up pitchforks.”  Apparently Senator McCaskill doesn’t realize that, after last month’s election, if the American people take up pitchforks, it will more than likely be to come after the Democrats.

Much of the Democratic opposition seems to stem from the perception that the deal is a new tax break for the rich or that taxes for the poor are subsidizing the wealthy.  Nothing could be further from the truth. 

In the real world, the current income tax rates, enacted during the Bush-era, are set to expire at the end of this year.  If that happens, taxes will increase for all US taxpayers.  On your first paycheck for 2011, you will take home less money than you did in 2010 because of increased withholding.  If the compromise passes, the rates will remain effective for another two years.  No one will pay a lower rate than they are already paying.

The estate (death) tax provision in the compromise is also giving many liberals heartburn.  The estate tax is set to jump to 55% from nothing this year.  The compromise would restore the estate tax at 35% for estates worth more than $5 million.  Apparently, this is not enough for many liberals.

As I pointed out yesterday, Democratic concerns about the cost of extending Bush’s tax rates are a hypocritical considering the spending spree that they have been on for the past 2-4 years.  Democratic calculations fail to incorporate Hauser’s Law, which points out that government revenue remain stable at 19% of GDP regardless of tax rates.  This is because the wealthy put their money into tax shelters when tax rates rise.  With more money removed from the economy (a higher percentage going to government and more real dollars sitting in shelters), the economy shrinks.  The higher tax rates actually bring in fewer real dollars than projected.  This means that the tax increases would bring in less revenue than projected and, conversely, that keeping rates low would cost less than projected.

Of Georgia’s six congressional Democrats, only Sanford Bishop has made a statement supporting the compromise.  A spokesman in John Lewis’ office states that Rep. Lewis is opposed to the deal, even though the favors the extension of unemployment compensation.

Two of the representatives (Hank Johnson and John Barrow) have not yet decided on an official position.  A spokesperson for Jim Marshall said that the congressman had not addressed the compromise, but supported extending the Bush tax rates.  A spokesman for David Scott refused to reveal Rep. Scott’s position on the issue.

Of the four uncommitted congressional Democrats, three (David Scott, John Barrow, and Jim Marshall) are members of the moderate Blue Dog Coalition.  John Barrow and Jim Marshall (as well as Sanford Bishop) joined forty-seven Democrats in signing a letter to Nancy Pelosi last September supporting an extension of the current tax rates.

It is likely that John Barrow and Jim Marshall will join Sanford Bishop in supporting the compromise.  It is equally likely that Hank Johnson (who gained fame for his belief that Guam might “tip over”) will join John Lewis in opposing it.  David Scott, who is a Blue Dog and represents several conservative counties, could go either way.  My prediction is that he will oppose the deal.

On the Republican side, only Senators Jim DeMint and George Voinovich have said that they will vote against the measure.  That may change in days to come as such notables as Sarah Palin and Rand Paul question the deficit spending in the deal.  Members of Georgia’s Republican delegation have not voiced opposition.

If the deal fails to pass, it is likely that the newly strengthened Republicans can engineer an extension to the current tax rates next year.  However, that would mean that people will be taking home less money in the first weeks of the new year.  It would also leave Democrats to explain to the American people why allowing taxpayers to keep their own money is considered a giveaway.

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/ga-dems-split-on-tax-cut-deal"> 

Details of the tax cut compromise

Ironically, the compromise may save Obama's presidency. (Steve Jurvetson)

For many observers, the fact that the Obama Administration and congressional Republicans reached a compromise on extending the Bush tax cuts was not a surprise.  The big surprise was how quickly the agreement came.

President Obama himself has accepted the fact that when tax rates drop, the government’s tax revenues actually increase.  On the other hand, as tax rates increase the government actually takes in less money.  President Obama’s response to these facts was that tax rates should be increased for “fairness.”  Realizing the effect of low tax rates, it is unsurprising that President Obama would temporarily avert a tax increase in order to help bring the economy out of the recession. 

In spite of President Obama’s realization of the power of low tax rates, congressional Democrats complain about the cost to the government of extending the low tax rates for the wealthy.  This is a hypocritical position on two points.  First and most obvious, the Democrats object to the cost of low taxes, but they have no objection to the cost of their pet programs.  Whether it is the extension of unemployment benefits in the compromise, which will cost $56 billion, or the stimulus package, which tipped the scales at $787 billion, cost is not an object unless it applies to tax cuts.

Second, most Democrats supported extending the low tax rates for the middle and lower class, but opposed extending the low tax rates for the wealthy.  The total cost of extending the current tax rates is $383 billion.  The cost of extending the high income tax rates is $75 billion.  This means that the cost of extending the rates for the lower and middle class, at $308 billion, is far more expensive that extending the upper income tax rates.  If they were truly worried about fiscal responsibility, the Democrats would object to the entire package.

The effect of the compromise, if it passes, will likely be to help lift the economy out of the doldrums (although the temporary nature of many aspects of the plan does limit the possibilities for long-term growth).  With the knowledge that paychecks will not shrink, at least in the short term, taxpayers will have more money to spend or invest than they would have otherwise.  There are also other aspects to the deal that will help the economy such as a temporary reduction in the Social Security tax, a temporary fix for the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), a compromise that would restore the estate tax at a lower rate, and extensions to several tax credits.

The one aspect of the plan that may actually damage the economy is the part that is most supported by Democrats.  Many economic studies show that extending unemployment benefits may actually be linked to higher unemployment rates.  While it seems compassionate to give money to the unemployed, it actually provides them with an incentive to not seek new jobs until their benefits are about to expire.  This concept is confirmed by the “funemployed,” laid off workers who enjoy a leisurely lifestyle financed by the taxpayers.

Similarly, generous and long lasting unemployment benefits discourage workers from taking lower paying jobs.  Some jobseekers are offered jobs, but because they are receiving generous benefits, can afford to turn them down and keep seeking jobs with pay and benefits commensurate with their old jobs.  Little do they realize that jobs with the compensation they are seeking no longer exist.

Most opposition to the deal seems to be coming from the Democrats who feel betrayed by Obama’s temporary abandonment of class warfare.  Nevertheless, many Democrats were on record as supporting an extension of the low Bush-era tax rates even before the compromise.  Georgia’s three Democratic congressmen, including lame duck Jim Marshall, support the compromise.  Georgia’ Republican delegation is unlikely to oppose the deal.

Ironically, the tax cut compromise may boost the economy to the point that Obama’s approval rating recovers and his chances of re-election improve.  It will be up to Republicans to remind voters that under the Democratic agenda the economy remained stagnant.

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/details-of-the-tax-cut-compromise">