April 1-6, 2010
Apr 01 21:53 What Constitution? Apr 01 02:02 Bachmann Rebuts Reality Check Apr 02 08:41 Here a Tax, There a Tax, Everywhere a Tax? Apr 04 23:10 Tom Emmer, Health Care & the Constitution Apr 05 01:53 Staying Away Won't Help Apr 05 10:59 You Can't Be Serious!!! Apr 06 03:41 AG Swanson Sides With Federal Government Apr 06 12:02 The Next Economy Killer? Apr 06 18:24 The Death Of Net Neutrality?
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
What Constitution?
Tuesday afternoon, Neil Cavuto interviewed Judge Andrew Napolitano about the constitutional challenges to the Democrats' health care legislation. Here's the transcript of that conversation:
CAVUTO: So the Supreme Court might rule in our favor on this?These aren't insignificant issues to be ignored. If the Supreme Court takes these cases and they rule in the federal government's favor, they'll be ruling that states don't have the right to create their own budgets. That type of federal meddling can't be tolerated because it would give the federal government the ability to essentially turn governors and state legislatures into automatons.
JUDGE NAPOLITANO: Well, there's a couple of areas that are so clearly contrary to the prevailing law & the rights that the Supreme Court has said we've had that it's hard to believe that the Court wouldn't interfere. For example, the imposition on states to spend more money on Medicare.
I was in Florida over the weekend giving a speech & speaking to some folks & one of them happened to be a Florida legislator who told me that Florida has to come up with one billion dollars more than they have. They can't borrow. They have to raise taxes & then they have to spend the billion the Congress told them. He looks at me & says "I thought we were a sovereign entity, an independent legislature." I said "You're right & the Supreme Court has ruled that the congress can't take away the discretion from state legislatures, make them raise taxes & spend money they've collected how they want." So that's one serious area, which is one-third of the bill.
Another serious area is the individual mandate. I'm gonna quote Gov. Haley Barbour because he said it in such a pithy way. He said "The federal government can't tell us to buy guns. How can they tell us to buy health insurance? They can't make us wear shoes even though everybody wants to wear shoes. How can they make us buy health insurance? There is simply no authority in the Constitution.
CAVUTO: So when the administration leading Democrats say that individual states can make you buy car insurance, you say it's night day?
NAPOLITANO: It's night & day because you don't have to own a car & you're on a state-owned highway. This legislation requires you to, just by your very existence, to buy insurance. Suppose you're in a hospice & about to die & you're hopeless, do you still have to buy health insurance. Do you still have to buy health insurance? The legislation doesn't say.
The third very offensive area is this one, Neil. The Supreme Court has ruled that our right to privacy when speaking with our physician is the most protected form of conversation we can have, more than to our spouse, more than to our lawyer, more than to a priest in a confessional. When you tell your doctor, now that this bill is passed, what your health problems are, he puts it or she puts it in a computer to which the federal government has access & then the federal bureaucrat tells the doctor which procedures are available for him or her to use on you. This is a violation of the highest-ranking right of privacy.
If you knock out the bureaucratic interference, if you knock out the individual mandate, it's dead. There's very little left.
The reason why I'm optimistic that the SCOTUS will overturn that offensive provision of the Democrats' health care law is because the Roberts Court understands history. They understand that the various states created the federal government, not vice versa.
Telling people that they must buy something is outlandish. The federal government can't tell us what to buy, whether it's health insurance, cars or guns. A point was made yesterday that SCOTUS ruled that it wasn't commandeering when the federal government ordered the states to raise the legal drinking age from 18 to 21.
The reason why that wasn't considered commandeering is because states that didn't follow the federal government's mandate lost 5 percent of their federal highway funds. That's a big difference. States that don't expand Medicaid according to the federal government's dictates would lose 100 percent of their Medicaid funding.
Finally, it's ironic that Democrats that howl about a woman's right to privacy in choosing an abortion now tell people that all of their medical records will be available to federal bureaucrats. It's all the more ironic considering the fact that SCOTUS has ruled that medical privacy is the highest form of privacy recognized by SCOTUS.
The Democrats that voted for this unconstitutional monstrosity will meet with an unpleasant fate this November. This won't be a pleasant experience for them. Thanks to their unconstitutional overreach and their repeated ignoring the will of We The People, I'm betting that alot of congressional Democrats will experience massive involuntary retirements this November.
Posted Thursday, April 1, 2010 10:00 PM
No comments.
Bachmann Rebuts Reality Check
WCCO-TV's Pat Kessler recently did a Reality Check on some of Michele Bachmann's statements about health care . Here's their original Reality Check:
Health care reform is complicated enough on its own, but Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., has made numerous claims that are at least misleading.It didn't take long for the Bachmann staff to respond:
On CBS' "Face the Nation" last Sunday, Bachmann claimed several times the federal government now controls most of America's economy.
"Now we have the federal government taking over ownership or control of 51 percent of the American economy," she said. "This is stunning. Prior to September of 2008, 100 percent of the private economy was private."
That's factually WRONG.
According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Congressional Budget Office and CBS News, the highest percentage of government spending compared to Gross Domestic Product was at the height of World War II, at 47.9 percent.
The lowest was at the start of the Great Depression, when it was 9 percent. In 2009 it was 20.6 percent. In all that time, the GDP has never been 100 percent private.
Bachmann also predicted "massive" job losses, based on what she said were calculations by the President's staff.
"President Obama's own numbers, his own economic advisor, Christina Romer, said that Obamacare could cost the economy 5.5 million jobs lost," Bachmann said
This is FALSE. It's a grossly inflated miscalculation by health care opponents.
Republican critics used 10 years of tax increases, and divided the number by one year of Gross Domestic Product, increasing job loss numbers by more than a factor of 10.
Economists estimate job losses will actually be between 150,000 and 300,000 over 10 years.
Bachmann also said health care reform will cost Minnesota companies.
"The health care law will cost 3M potentially $90 million in the first quarter," Bachmann said.
This starts with a kernel of truth, but is OUT OF CONTEXT.
Some companies will lose a 28 percent government subsidy they've been getting to keep retirees on their prescription drug plans. The companies were allowed to set up and depreciate those assets on their taxes. The change won't cost companies cash, but it could lower earnings and affect stock prices.
Citing a prominent medical journal, Bachmann said a large number of doctors are prepared to quit their jobs rather than submit to health care reform.
"'The New England Journal of Medicine' released a survey the week that President Obama signed Obamacare stating that over 30 percent of American physicians would leave the profession if the government took over health care. That's very serious going forward," Bachmann said.
This is NOT TRUE. "The New England Journal of Medicine" denies it conducted or published the survey. It's actually from a physician recruiting company, Medicus, promoting its services on the journal's Web site.
That's Reality Check.
A spokeswoman for Bachmann said the Congresswoman stands by her statements, and provided the following additional data to support her claims.I'm not about to badmouth Mr. Kessler. That he published Team Bachmann's response to his Reality Check is textbook on how to professionally handle differences.
Original Bachmann quote: "Now we have the federal government taking over ownership or control of 51 percent of the American economy. This is stunning. Prior to September of 2008, 100 percent of the private economy was private."
Response from Bachmann staff: When you add up the bailouts and take over of General Motors Corp, Chrysler LLC, two of the country largest banks- Citigroup and Bank of America, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and American International Group Inc. you get about one third of the economy, according to William Boyes, professor of economics at Arizona State University.
If you then add the 1/6th of the economy that is assumed under government control by the health care legislation, as cited by the NY Times , you end up with more than 50% of the once private economy directly now under government supervision.
Original Bachmann quote: "It will cost 3M potentially $90 million in the first quarter."
Response From Bachmann staff: On March 26th, Reuters reported the 3M numbers: "3M Co. will record a one-time non-cash charge of up to $90 million, or 12 cents a share, in the first quarter as a result of the U.S. health reform signed into law this week, the company said on Friday. The charge reflects lower tax deductions related to retiree drug benefits."
Original Bachmann quote: "President Obama's own numbers, his own economic advisor, Christina Romer, said that Obamacare could cost the economy 5.5 million jobs lost."
Response from Bachmann staff: From gop.gov : "Section 441 imposes additional job-killing taxes, in the form of a half-trillion dollar "surcharge," more than half of which will hit small businesses; according to a model developed by President Obama's senior economic advisor, such taxes could cost up to 5.5 million jobs."
Original Bachmann quote: "The New England Journal of Medicine released a survey the week that President Obama signed Obamacare stating that over 30 percent of American physicians would leave the profession if the government took over health care. That's very serious going forward."
Response from Bachmann staff: As far as the New England Journal of Medicine piece goes, they're doing what they can to distance themselves from the survey done by Medicus, but the fact of the matter is the New England Journal of Medicine has lent both its name and crest to the newsletter in which the survey was published. No where in their newsletter do they make the disclaimer that what's contained within it has nothing to do with the New England Journal of Medicine. In fact, quite the contrary seeing as how their name is all over it. The NEJM may not have conducted the research itself as they're stating now after the fact, but it's certainly misleading on their end to have their name all over a publication like the one that was released with the results and then distance themselves from everything contained within it afterwards. They can't have it both ways.
By the way, it is interesting to note that the link contained in the Media Matters report cited by Mr. Riedel no longer links to the newsletter with the results of the survey as it did prior to Rep. Bachmann's Communications Director bringing the matter to CBS' attention. Our office called the NEJM on it, and they've since taken down the newsletter in question.
That said, I'm perfectly willing to call out the NEJM for their flimsy denial. Michele Bachmann simply said that the NEJM "released a survey" talking about health care professionals leaving their profession. I wrote about that survey here . In that post, I linked to the report . At the top of the page, the header reads "NEJM Career Center". The New England Journal of Medicine logo is in the upper left hand corner of the page. It isn't until the last 2 sentences that we read this disclaimer:
The opinions expressed in the article linked to above represent those of The Medicus Firm only. That article does not represent the opinions of the New England Journal of Medicine or the Massachusetts Medical Society.The NEJM can attempt to distance themselves all they want but this survey isn't inconsistent with articles published in the NEJM, with this article being particularly interesting:
As Americans debate health care reform, it is easy to forget that success may depend as much on the availability of primary care physicians for adults as on the specifics of the reforms themselves. Access to health insurance does not ensure access to timely medical care, particularly in places where doctors are in short supply, are not accepting new patients, or are not accepting patients with some types of insurance. Effective primary care can improve the quality of care and health outcomes and save money. But to the extent that easing the shortage of primary care physicians will require additional funds, the initial costs of reform will increase.Here's what's curiously positioned at the top left corner of the article:
Posted by NEJM June 25th, 2009I'd say that NEJM hasn't distanced themselves like the disclaimer attempts to do.
Kudos to Team Bachmann for their quick rebuttal of this Reality Check. I'm impressed with their research and their ability to point to the specific pieces of information that they relied on as the basis for their statements.
Posted Thursday, April 1, 2010 2:02 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 01-Apr-10 11:25 AM
Read it.
http://www.themedicusfirm.com/pages/survey
The firm has zippo to do with NEJM.
http://www.themedicusfirm.com/pages/medicus_who-we-are
Bullhorn Bachmann surely is bullhorning us all on this one.
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_hr8iaA4NHXQ/S6x7fl2tHFI/AAAAAAAAMs4/I5WI7Etm7hk/s800/tea%20party%20rally.jpeg
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 01-Apr-10 11:32 AM
It's impossible to say that Medicus doesn't have anything to do with NEJM since their report was published by NEJM & the NEJM has published articles that agree with Medicus' survey.
Thank God for Michele & other conservatives for speaking out loudly against this monstrosity. The Democrats' health care legislation is immoral & fatally flawed from the outset, not to mention unconstitutional on several levels.
Comment 2 by eric z at 01-Apr-10 06:07 PM
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2010/03/29/daily19.html
Inadequate and flawed, I would say.
About Bachmann and the legislation. Monstrosity, no, Bachmann's not that. Just very, very flawed.
Had the GOP participated, Gary, would it have been any better, or more watered down and favorable to the insurance-industrial complex?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 01-Apr-10 07:22 PM
Eric, Here's a news flash for you: I don't reflexively think of health insurance companies as being injurious to America's well-being. They supply an important COMMODITY.
As for the Democrats' health care legislation, it's unconstitutional. PERIOD. No level of government can compel people to buy a product, whether that product is health insurance, tennis shoes or handguns as a condition of a person's existence. By willfully ignoring that important principle, this Democratic majority broke their oath of office, which is to protect & defend the U.S. Constitution.
The GOP plan is constitutional because it relies on people making their own health care & health insurance decisions. Capitalism is nothing more than understanding human nature. The GOP's plan, which was written by Paul Ryan, tells the American people that they have the right to buy health insurance that's subject to genuine competition.
Conservative health care is based on the premise of first lowering the cost of health care & health insurance. Once that's achieved, more people will opt to purchase health insurance. Only after wringing out health care inflation is it possible to work towards covering more people.
Simply put, the Democrats' plan takes a bassackwards approach. It's always been that way & it always will be that way.
Here a Tax, There a Tax, Everywhere a Tax?
This Strib article talks about a "little-known piece of the health care bill" that people are calling the Vanity Tax :
Inside the tanning booth, freshman architecture student Garret Sletten was putting a little color in his cheeks before a formal fraternity party later this month.That's just one tax that will hit Minnesotans. Here's another :
Sletten, 20, was unaware that come July 1, those seven- to nine-minute bronzing zaps of ultraviolet rays are going to cost more. A little-known piece of the health care bill calls for a new 10 percent tax on tanning businesses, effective on that date.
Sletten said a price bump won't stop him from his occasional sessions at Darque Tan, near the University of Minnesota campus. "I only do it for special occasions; 10 percent isn't that big of a difference," he said.
Tanning salon owners, meanwhile are feeling burned.
"Our business will go down," said Don Nelson, who owns nine Totally Tan salons in the northern metro. "Some people just don't want to pay extra."
Nelson and others in the indoor tanning industry object to the way the tax got slipped into the Senate version of the bill. In 11th-hour negotiations, it replaced a proposed 5 percent tax on Botox and other elective cosmetic procedures (dubbed the "bo-tax"), after forceful lobbying from plastic surgeons and Botox-maker Allergan Inc.
Even before President Obama signed the bill on Tuesday, Caterpillar said it would cost the company at least $100 million more in the first year alone. Medical device maker Medtronic warned that new taxes on its products could force it to lay off a thousand workers.While Medtronic is considering laying off 1,000 workers, other medical device manufacturers are considering a harsher solution:
"This bill is a jobs killer," said Ernie Whiton, chief financial officer of Chelmsford's Zoll Medical Corp., which employs about 650 people in Massachusetts. Many of those employees work in Zoll's local manufacturing facility making heart defibrillators. "We could be forced to (move) manufacturing overseas if we can't pass along these costs to our customers," said Whiton.As destructive as those tax increases are, they pale in comparison to the tax increases that the Medicaid expansion mandate will trigger. Medicaid expansion will cost Minnesota north of $500,000,000 the next biennium, money it doesn't have. The federal goverment will essentially be telling Minnesota's next legislature and next governor that they must raise Minnesota's taxes and what they must spend that tax increase on.
That's called commandeering and it isn't constitutional.
The taxes included in the Democrats' health care legislation are destructive and, in the case of the Medicaid expansion, unconstitutional. Unfortunately, that's only part of the Democrats' legislation's problems.
The worst part other than the tax increases & the unconstitutionality of the law is that it doesn't fix the problem. Rather, it's making things worse. It doesn't do anything to cut costs. All it does is cut reimbursements, which isn't the same thing.
It's time that We The People told the federal government, through elections, that the various levels of government belong to We The People and no one else. According to our Founding Documents, We The People give power to the government in limited and temporary amounts. The Democrats, with this health care law, have said that they're stripping us of our power.
The Declaration says it isn't their's to take because we're granted those rights by "Nature's God", that these rights are self-evident and inalienable.
It's time that We The People started taking Minnesota and this nation back because We The People can't afford the Democrats' 'Here a tax, there a tax, everywhere a tax' ideology.
Originally posted Friday, April 2, 2010, revised 05-May 6:26 PM
No comments.
Staying Away Won't Help
This Washington Post article reports that the Democrats and President Obama have devised a campaign strategy for retaining control of Congress:
Facing a tough midterm election in which they could potentially lose their majorities in Congress, Democrats are privately debating where and how President Obama can help, or hurt.That's theoretically a smart strategy. In reality, though, I don't think it matters alot because Democrats aren't popular in many swing districts, especially if they voted for health care reform, the stimulus and Cap And Trade.
The president is unlikely to campaign in Arkansas and hasn't been to Illinois since last summer, even though both states have important Senate races.
Although many states won't hold primaries until next month, Obama has appeared at only one campaign rally this year, for Martha Coakley, who lost a special Senate election in Massachusetts. He has held no big events in any number of states, including Pennsylvania, Louisiana and Ohio, with competitive races.
The political calculations are driven in part by Obama's overall approval rating, which has stayed at 53 percent in Washington Post-ABC News polls for several months. And the nation remains divided over his signature domestic accomplishment, the new health-care law.
Obama made a campaign-style swing to Maine on Thursday to talk about health care and raised money for the Democratic National Committee in Boston on his way home. But he did not use the trip to campaign for any of the dozens of Democrats nationwide who are in trouble because of their health-care votes. White House officials scoffed at the notion that the president should actively campaign with midterms seven months away, saying that they are mapping out his campaign schedule over the next few weeks.
In the anti-establishment climate, some Democrats are saying that it's smart for Obama to keep his distance from candidates in difficult races, allowing them to run against Washington and avoid the downward pull of his approval ratings. Others say he should heed the lessons of last year's Democratic losses and begin campaigning early enough to make a difference with the Democratic base.
Democrats have been ignoring the will of the people since the start of Obama's administration. They've refused to read bills before voting on them. They've refused to tell their constituents what the bills they voted for contained. Another thing they've done is tell people that the bills they haven't read contain lots of wonderful things.
President Obama can stay away if he wants. It's irrelevant because Speaker Pelosi's minions have voted to implement President Obama's and Speaker Pelosi's radical agenda. That's why more people believe today that there's no such thing as a moderate Democrat or pro-life Democrat than there was during the Clinton administration.
What the DCCC isn't talking about is that Speaker Pelosi is as unpopular as President Obama. It's true that neither have figured out that CREDIBILITY MATTERS.
I'm not what the dominant issue will be but I'm betting that ignoring the will of the people will work strongly against Democrats. I'm betting that their not reading the massive bills they've voted on won't play well, either. Both fit nicely into the out-of-touch/arrogant storyline that the Democrats have built one vote and one townhall meeting at a time.
Certainly, the economy will matter but this year, I'm betting that that really means government spending and debt more than it means economic growth, though job creation still rates high on voters' minds.
Finally, the lack of incentives to entice businesses to invest in their company will likely lead to the eye-popping job growth that we need to make a significant dent in the unemployment rate.
There's too many big issues that the Democrats aren't addressing. If they don't lower gas prices, they might get stuck with anemic job growthjust prior to the election.
That's hardly the script that Democrats are writing in DC.
UPDATE: The opening to Michael Barone's column is highly pertinent to this discussion:
Last summer, I wrote a column framed as a letter to a young Obama voter. It concluded: "You want policies that will enable you to choose your future. Obama backs policies that would let centralized authorities choose much of your future for you. Is this the hope and change you want?"In 2008, Democrats captured majorities of young voters, seniors and independents. Seniors and independents have abandoned the Democratic Party in droves. Meanwhile, the Pew Poll shows that young voters aren't supporting the Democrats like they did in 2008 and that the drop is significant.
It seems that some young Obama voters have decided it isn't. The Pew Research Center's poll of the millennial generation, which voted 66 percent to 32 percent for Obama in 2008, found that they identify with Democrats over Republicans by only a 54 to 40 percent margin this year.
Posted Monday, April 5, 2010 2:10 AM
No comments.
Tom Emmer, Health Care & the Constitution
FULL DISCLOSURE: I am part of Tom Emmer's steering committee.
Last Thursday, Tom Emmer issued a statement on the Democrats' health care law in general and whether it's constitutional. Here is Tom's statement:
We're told Attorney General Lori Swanson is busy reading the federal health care bill to determine whether Minnesota should join other states in a federal lawsuit as Governor Pawlenty and Republican legislators demanded last week. I can save her the time and effort ; the federal bill definitely violates the constitution, and in more than one way.I wholeheartedly agree with Tom's appraisal. I've been talking about the wrongeheadedness of the Democrats' health care legislation. I've quoted single-payer advocates saying that "Increased access to preventive care and the ability of government to purchase prescription medications in bulk would also help drive down health care costs" but that could lead to " a reduction in overall research and development , slowing down technological advancement."
From a state legislative standpoint, the Medicaid expansion in the Democrat health care legislation tells the Minnesota legislature they must spend money on a specific program of the federal government's choosing. The Minnesota Department of Human Services estimates the expanded Medicaid system will cost the state $479 million for the next biennium.
With Minnesota already facing a $5 billion deficit, spending an additional $479 million to expand Medicaid will force a major tax increase on Minnesotans at a time when we can't afford any tax increases. That means for the first time ever, the federal government will directly influence Minnesota's tax policy.
We must not sit idly by and let the federal government tell our state government what we can or can't do, especially after ignoring the will of the people in passing this legislation.
The Democrat health care legislation steps beyond their constitutional authority. The cornerstone of our constitution is that state legislatures and governors have the sole responsibility to put their state budgets together.
As your governor, I won't let an arrogant federal government tell Minnesotans what's best for Minnesota families.
Minnesota has been a leader in health care innovation for decades. With this legislation, the Democrats running the federal government are saying their bureaucrats know better than Minnesotans what's best for Minnesota health care.
I couldn't disagree more.
The Democrat health care legislation also overreaches by requiring every Minnesotan to buy health insurance. The Democrats say the Interstate Commerce Clause gives them the authority.
I couldn't disagree more.
The Interstate Commerce Clause does not empower Congress to force people to buy something. If Congress's power under the Commerce Clause is read to extend that far, we will have lost the central tenet of our constitutional order expressed in the Tenth Amendment ; that the federal government has limited, enumerated powers and that all other powers are reserved to the states and the people.
In addition, the purchase of health care and health insurance is generally not interstate commerce. Most health care is provided locally and involves a transaction purely between residents of a single state. And under current federal law, it is nearly impossible to purchase health insurance across state lines.
I was criticized last fall by our friends in the media when I raised these constitutional issues regarding states rights and health care. Today the list of states making the very same arguments through a federal lawsuit is at 15 and growing.
I hope when Attorney General Swanson is finished with her reading of the bill, Minnesota will join the fight to protect our constitutional freedoms.
I've argued that the federal government doesn't have the authority to tell state governments what they must spend their money on. The federal government doesn't have the authority to dictate the raising of state taxes, either. That's the state governments' exclusive domain.
Predictably, Democrats are hanging their hat on the Interstate Commerce Clause. I've said before what I'll repeat here: that the ICC isn't relevant because federal law prohibits the selling of insurance across state lines.
Only recently have people started talking about the Medicaid expansion in terms of constitutionality. Prior to that, most people, myself included, talked about the Medicaid expansion as the biggest underfunded mandate in United States history.
Posted Sunday, April 4, 2010 11:10 PM
No comments.
You Can't Be Serious!!!
In his post about Betsy Markey , Jim Geraghty says that he's tempted to unleash "a John McEnroe-esque 'You can not be serious!' tantrum." Since he didn't, I will. Here's what Rep. Markey said that triggered Mr. Geraghty's reaction:
Markey, 53, said she does not think the vote [for health care] puts her in any greater jeopardy and said the issue could fade by November.If I was covering her on the campaign trail, the first thing I'd ask on WHY she thinks that is whether she thinks people will ignore the fact that she voted against the will of the people or whether she thinks people will adjust nicely to the impending layoffs and the higher taxes.
Democrats have told their members that the furor will subside as people find out more about the bill. That's clearly not happening. In fact, medical device manufacturers are thinking about laying people off or moving out of the country :
Even before President Obama signed the bill on Tuesday, Caterpillar said it would cost the company at least $100 million more in the first year alone. Medical device maker Medtronic warned that new taxes on its products could force it to lay off a thousand workers.Democrats talk alot about corporate lobbyists but few words are written about pro-government lobbyists. Alot has been written about Andy Stern but how much gets written about SEIU's members? Here's what SEIU says about itself :
"This bill is a jobs killer," said Ernie Whiton, chief financial officer of Chelmsford's Zoll Medical Corp., which employs about 650 people in Massachusetts. Many of those employees work in Zoll's local manufacturing facility making heart defibrillators. "We could be forced to (move) manufacturing overseas if we can't pass along these costs to our customers," said Whiton.
SEIU is the fastest-growing union in North America. Focused on uniting workers in three sectors to improve their lives and the services they provide, SEIU is:I'd love hearing journalists ask union leadership if they really aren't the Democrats' pro-government lobbying group. They certainly have immediate access to Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats' leadership team. Based on this information, they've got sufficient motivation to unionize America's health care industry. Based on this information, they've got sufficient motivation to grow government, too.
- The largest healthcare union, with more than 1.1 million members in the field, including nurses, LPNs, doctors, lab technicians, nursing home workers, and home care workers;
- The largest property services union, with 225,000 members in the building cleaning and security industries, including janitors, security officers, superintendents, maintenance workers, window cleaners, and doormen and women;
- The second largest public services union, with more than 1 million local and state government workers, public school employees, bus drivers, and child care providers.
I'm betting that we'll hear more comments like Rep. Markey's in the months ahead as they see private polling showing that the American people passionately disagree with Rep. Markey and other vulnerable Democrats.
Posted Monday, April 5, 2010 11:05 AM
Comment 1 by Brent Metzler at 05-Apr-10 04:21 PM
I would guess she's more right then not.
Personally, I'm one of those people who probably should be opposed to the health care reform bill. I started out ready to be opposed to it but the funny thing is that the more time that I actually spent learning what the bill did instead of listening to talking points and bloggers opposed to the bill, the more I became convinced how good the health care reform bill was for America.
Yes, people are afraid of change regardless of whether it is good or bad change and react that way as expected at first. But I think that when people get over the initial knee-jerk reaction to it being a change, and they learn what the health care reform bill does for Americans, I think that well see people's response change accordingly.
I don't know if Rep Markey will win reelection or not this year. But I do think that she's right that her vote on the health care bill probably won't be an issue by November once people learn more about the bill.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 05-Apr-10 04:30 PM
So you think it's ok for the federal government to tell state legislatures & governors how they'll spend their money? Or is it that you think it's ok for the federal government to cut off funding to Medicaid if they don't raise taxes to support a huge Medicaid expansion?
These aren't talking points, Mr. Metzler. They're things that affect real people's lives & livelihoods. I don't consider that to be a trivial matter. Why do you?
Comment 2 by Brent Metzler at 05-Apr-10 04:50 PM
This isn't the first time that the federal government has given money to the states in exchange for the states doing something. I realize that you may have always had a problem with that arrangement but it seems like most Americans have always been ok with it. I don't really see how increased Medicaid funding will shake out any differently.
If the people in a state don't want the federal government to tell them how to spend their money in exchange for federal money, they can just opt out of Medicaid. Seems like that would be more productive then the silly lawsuits the states are pursuing now, but I'm sure just like every other federal funding program the states will just align their budgets accordingly, accept the new funding and life will go on.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 05-Apr-10 09:18 PM
If the people in a state don't want the federal government to tell them how to spend their money in exchange for federal money, they can just opt out of Medicaid.That's where your argument disappears. You can't opt out of Medicaid. It's mandated. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION. The federal government requires Medicaid to be administered by each state. It isn't like NCLB, where the Education Dept. puts rules on the money if you opt into the NCLB program. It isn't like when the Dept. of Transportation would cut off 5% of the federal highway funds if a state refused to increase the legal drinking age to 21.
AG Swanson Sides With Federal Government
I wish I could say that I'm shocked but I'm just not. This afternoon, Minnesota AG Lori Swanson said she wouldn't file a lawsuit to question the constitutionality of the Democrats' health care bill . I wish I could say that I'm shocked but this is totally predictable. In fact, I predictted it in this post . This link takes you to Gen. Swanson's letter to Gov. Pawlenty.
Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson has rejected a request from Gov. Tim Pawlenty to sue over the new federal health care law. Instead, Swanson said Monday she will file a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the federal government in a lawsuit filed by 13 state attorneys general.That's the Democrats' storyline and they's sticking with it. The ICC has been perverted. It was put into the Constitution to prevent states from imposing tariffs against each other. Its purpose was to keep commerce flowing.
The Democratic attorney general sent the Republican governor a letter saying a lawsuit isn't warranted because health care fits squarely within the federal government's authority to regulate interstate commerce.
The Democrats' health care bill isn't about keeping interstate commerce flowing. It's about giving the government greater control of a major portion of the economy.
Sen. Julianne Ortman issued this statement on Swanson's decision:
"I am surprised and disappointed by the letter submitted to the Governor today by Attorney General Lori Swanson.What Gen. Swanson is left arguing is that the federal government can use all the powers at its avail to compel people to buy products that the people don't want to buy just as a condition of their existence. Sen. Ortman is right in saying that the Commerce Clause has limits. Without limits, the Tenth Amendment is meaningless.
First, it is very unusual that when we asked her to be our counsel and represent the State of Minnesota in a Tenth Amendment case against the United States, that she decided to take a position in the action and argue against her own client.
Second, the Attorney General has relied upon a flawed legal analysis of Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1(2005), upholding the Controlled Substances Act. In Gonzales, the Court said the Commerce Clause power extended to Congress' ban on growing marijuana for medicinal use. The correct analysis of Gonzales is that the Commerce Clause empowered Congress to prohibit people from growing marijuana; there was nothing in that case that even remotely suggested that Congress could compel individuals to grow or buy medicinal marijuana or any other service or product.
Attorney General Swanson either misunderstands the Court's decision, or she misunderstands the plan that the federal government has adopted.
I am disappointed that the Attorney General's political agenda has gotten in the way of her legal analysis. The Constitution should not be partisan."
Lori Swanson hasn't shown an interest in limiting the federal government's reach. It's apparent that she thinks the federal government should be able to do whatever they want to do. How anyone can read the Constitution, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and still think that the federal government can do anything it wants isn't in position to complain that the legal fight is a partisan fight:
Swanson said the legal fight over passage of the health care law was "unfortunately dividing along partisan lines."I'd love hearing Ms. Swanson explain what function the 9th and 10th Amendments have if they aren't relevant in this dispute.
Frankly, I'm questioning whether Ms. Swanson bothered reading the bill. Gov. Pawlenty asked her about filing suit on March 22. The bill is 2,700+ pages. According to this post , Swanson wasn't in a hurry since the bill hadn't been signed into law:
But Swanson's office said it's in no hurry to explore legal action, since the bill isn't technically law yet.Let's find out who in the AG's office actually read the 2,700 page bill. I'm not willing to accept as fact that AG Swanson read the bill because of this golden oldie :
"The legislation in question still has to be signed by the President and reconciliation has yet to be passed by the Senate," said Swanson spokesman Ben Wogsland. "The individual mandate does not go into effect until 2014. Our Office has not yet read and analyzed the 2,400 page bill that passed the House yesterday. The Attorney General's Office operates in the legal arena and we are not going to make any legal comments until we have had the opportunity to review the 2,400 page bill."
The attorney general informed me that she had read newspaper articles about attorneys general in other states filing lawsuits against mortgage foreclosure consultants. She handed me those articles and told me to find some defendants and file a similar lawsuit the following week. Your March 10 letter placing me on leave falsely states that at that time, Attorney General Swanson also provided me with copies of consumer complaints and complaints by other attorneys general. This is simply untrue. In fact, at the time of the meeting, no one in the room knew of any consumer complaints on the issue. I was instructed at the time to procure copies of the other states' complaints on my own. During the meeting, I asked you and the attorney general about how a case could be built so quickly, and you brushed aside my concerns, telling me simply "Don't worry, we'll make it survive a Rule 11." Rule 11, as you know, is the rule of civil procedure allowing for sanctions against attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits. It seemed clear to me from your comment that you understood that it might be difficult to ethically file lawsuits within the proscribed amount of time, and that it was questionable to decide to file a lawsuit before even locating a defendant, but were determined to file it nonetheless.Remember Amy Lawler's complaint? The statement I'm including was taken from pg. 4 of Ms. Lawler's statement .
Let's cut to the chase. If Ms. Lawler's allegations are verified, then it's likely that she's proven that Ms. Swanson is willing to cut corners. Why shouldn't we think it possible that she didn't read the health care bill?
It isn't like alot of Democrats read the bill before voting on it. Ms. Swanson wouldn't be the only Denmocrat to not read it.
This is what happens when you're as unethical as Ms. Swanson appears to be.
Posted Tuesday, April 6, 2010 3:41 AM
Comment 1 by Holger Awakens at 06-Apr-10 06:31 PM
I guess it really is too much to ask for the Attorney General of the State to understand what the U.S. Constitution says. I'm guessing she had to go online to read it for the first time this past week and her response citing the "Commerce clause" probably was suggested to her by one of the Dem Congressmen of ours who have been using it for years.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 06-Apr-10 06:34 PM
HA, I disagree with your statement. Librulz are taught the ICC their first day in law school. I'm betting that that's the only part of the Constitution that they can recite verbatim.
Comment 3 by eric z. at 07-Apr-10 06:06 AM
Swanson will be proven correct once the effort of the minority of state attorneys general are finished and a judicial ruling issues.
Gary, I will bet you a six pack of Goose Island India Pale Ale on that outcome.
Put up a comment, accepting or declining. You might say the courts get it wrong, you get it right, but the bet would be on the ultimate judicial resolution -- presuming Goose Island's brewery is still in business that far into the future.
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 07-Apr-10 09:33 AM
Eric:
This is the same attorney general who has filed lawsuits against payday lenders because they charge high interest rates.
So when you have both sides in theory entering into a voluntarily contract that is a bad thing and needs legal relief according to her, but if the government forces you to buy a product you don't want and it forces you to select options on the product you don't want that doesn't need legal relief.
Cukoo! Cukoo! Cukoo!!!
I guess we now which side of the argument you're on.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 5 by Brent Metzler at 08-Apr-10 04:57 PM
I would side with eric z on this bet. It is extremely unlikely that the case against the government will be successful.
Lori Swanson undoubtedly made the correct decision here.
Comment 6 by walter hanson at 09-Apr-10 08:36 AM
Brent, there are legal people who line up and have said that this case has excellent grounds. Of course if we're lucky Sally won't be around on January 2011 to be enforcing her stupid decision.
But since you're the legal expert, explain why the government can force me to buy a product that I don't want. And keep in mind part of the product I don't want is that I'm forced to buy options I might not want. At least with car insurance you can tailor the coverage to fit things you don't need.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
The Next Economy Killer?
In 2008, gas prices reached $4.00+ a gallon. Speaker Pelosi tried passing gimmick drilling bills then just like President Obama is playing gimmicks now. CNBC's Rick Santelli is again forecasting high gas prices :
"We have the cyclical side; we're going to have $4 gas this summer probably anyway," Santelli explained. "It's a great trade. Maria. You know, we've been to $150 before and I don't see why it couldn't happen again."If President Obama thinks that people won't notice that his exploration announcement is a gimmick, he's making a major miscalculation. Gimmicks don't work when gas is $4 a gallon. If gas hits $150/bbl, people will demand solutions. They won't settle for the Democrats' gimmicks.
Their heating bills will skyrocket, as will their groceries. It isn't a stretch to think that companies will lay people off to offset their increased energy costs.
Republicans will be able to highlight the Obama administration's and Speaker Pelosi's refusal to drill, baby, drill. They'll start asking why there isn't a robust plan to harvest the oil and natural gas on the OCS and in ANWR. Democrats will be in a pickle if they don't propose that type of plan.
Conversely, Republicans can highlight their all-of-the-above plan:
Republicans should have graphics made to highlight the bill's balanced approach to energy reform :
To increase the supply American-made energy in environmentally sound ways, the legislation will:
- Open our deep water ocean resources, which will provide an additional three million barrels of oil per day, as well as 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, as proposed in H.R. 6108 by Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC). Rep. John Peterson (R-PA) has also worked tirelessly on this issue.
- Open the Arctic coastal plain, which will provide an additional one million barrels of oil per day, as proposed in H.R. 6107 by Rep. Don Young (R-AK);
- Allow development of our nation's shale oil resources, which could provide an additional 2.5 million barrels of oil per day, as proposed in H.R. 6138 by Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI); and
- Increase the supply of gas at the pump by cutting bureaucratic red tape that essentially blocks construction of new refineries, as proposed in H.R. 6139 by Reps. Heather Wilson (R-NM) and Joe Pitts (R-PA).
To improve energy conservation and efficiency , the legislation will:
- Provide tax incentives for businesses and families that purchase more fuel efficient vehicles, as proposed in H.R. 1618 and H.R. 765 by Reps. Dave Camp (R-MI) and Jerry Weller (R-IL);
- Provide a monetary prize for developing the first economically feasible, super-fuel-efficient vehicle reaching 100 miles-per-gallon, as proposed in H.R. 6384 by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT); and
- Provide tax incentives for businesses and homeowners who improve their energy efficiency, as proposed in H.R. 5984 by Reps. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), Phil English (R-PA), and Zach Wamp (R-TN), and in H.R. 778 by Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL).
To promote renewable and alternative energy technologies , the legislation will:Once again, it's time that Republicans highlighted these provisions in every townhall meeting back in every district across America.
- Spur the development of alternative fuels through government contracting by repealing the "Section 526" prohibition on government purchasing of alternative energy and promoting coal-to-liquids technology, as proposed in H.R. 5656 by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), in H.R. 6384 by Rob Bishop (R-UT), and in H.R. 2208 by Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL);
- Establish a renewable energy trust fund using revenues generated by exploration in the deep ocean and on the Arctic coastal plain, as proposed by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA);
- Permanently extend the tax credit for alternative energy production, including wind, solar and hydrogen, as proposed in H.R. 2652 by Rep. Phil English (R-PA) and in H.R. 5984 by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD); and
- Eliminate barriers to the expansion of emission-free nuclear power production, as proposed in H.R. 6384 by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT).
This has the potential for doing alot of political damage to Democrats. If they don't put a viable plan on the table that will reduce prices and reduce our reliance on foreign oil supplies, they'll be portrayed as obstructionists who are controlled by their environmentalist allies.
If there's anything that won't sit well with people, it's a political party that won't act because they're owned by a special interest group. If I've learned anything about the TEA Party movement, it's that they demand to not be forgotten. Another thing they demand is that politicians take them seriously. If voters figure out that Democrats are playing games, they'll abandon them in droves.
There's a political hazard for President Obama, too. People saw how he cut deals and twisted arms to get health care passed. If they see he isn't pushing to dramatically increase domestic energy production, they'll take that as proof that he isn't serious about solving this problem.
Meanwhile, Republicans will be able to offer an appealing, all-of-the-above solution.
Posted Tuesday, April 6, 2010 12:10 PM
Comment 1 by Brent Metzler at 06-Apr-10 01:20 PM
People will demand solutions? Really? Really? Just like last time gas was $4 a gallon?
I think that everyone realizes that solutions don't fix things overnight. If gas is $4 a gallon, even if you demand "solutions" it won't change things for years maybe.
If people are really serious about solutions, they would be demanding changes now. The fact that people aren't demanding solutions now tells me that either they don't think it is a problem, or they have already restructured their lives in a manner that high gas prices aren't devastating to them.
You might argue that a lack robust plan to harvest the oil and natural gas on the OCS and in ANWR is bad for the Democrats. But somehow when we were dealing with this issue in 2008, it didn't seem to affect Democrats all that much, voters seem ok with not having a plan. So it just seems to be almost a non-issue for Democrats even though Republicans tried to make it a campaign issue.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 06-Apr-10 01:33 PM
Brent, It isn't that people didn't demand solutions. It's that Democrats didn't respond. The only thing that saved their backsides electorily was the financial meltdown. If that hadn't happened, Democrats wouldn't have won many seats in the House & Senate.
Let's not go revisionist history, either, Brent. When drilling was the topic, polls showed the McCain-Palin ticket leading in the polls & Sen. Coleman leading Franken by double digits. I know because I posted about those things on this blog.
Comment 3 by D Koski at 06-Apr-10 07:15 PM
All I remember about a Republican solution was a bunch of ugly, hateful people bent over, backsides high in the air chanting drill, baby, drill, and pointing to their arses as if we didn't get it. The Republicans don't represent anywhere near the majority of the American populace and even against a completely corrupt right wing dominating media the real America got the right man in office after the last buffoon stole the election twice. Did you get it slow boy? Drill, Baby, Drill means screw us again again. God, are you a stupid hack, Mr Gross.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Apr-10 11:33 PM
Koski, Feel free to stay living in that fantasy world you're living in. When gas was $4 a gallon, 70+ percent of the people polled agreed with the Republicans' plan, whether you called it Drill, Baby, Drill or whether you called it Drill Here, Drill Now. That was the result of poll after poll after poll.
I guess that settles which of us is a "stupid hack" & which of us represents "the majority of the American populace." Hint: According to the polling, I represent the majority of the American populace."
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 07-Apr-10 09:29 AM
Gary:
Was it you or some other website that showed Nancy on the floor when the House passed some great energy bill that was going to reduce costs and make us less dependent on foreign oil.
If that bill didn't work doesn't that offer more proof to those people who think government can get it done in health care, education, etc.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Apr-10 09:33 AM
Walter, I don't think it was me because I haven't been impressed with any energy legislation that Pelosi has passed.
Yes, that would be additional proof.
Comment 5 by walter hanson at 07-Apr-10 09:44 AM
The post as I remember it was this is what she says it's going to do, but won't. The speech took place when the House had passed their version of energy reform. I don't remember if it was 2007 or 2008, but if you have it you might want to dig out of your archieve to show you were right.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 6 by Lady Logician at 07-Apr-10 11:03 AM
Walter - I vaguely remember the video you are talking about. I want to say that it might have been one of the Freedom Dogs that posted it, but I could be wrong.
LL
The Death Of Net Neutrality?
As much as I'd like to think that this ruling signals the death of net neutrality, I'm still skeptical. Here's the news:
The Federal Communications Commission does not have the legal authority to slap Net neutrality regulations on Internet providers, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.If I've learned anything about the Obama administration, it's that they won't let a court ruling stifle their enthusiasm for shutting down free speech. I cite President Obama's lecturing SCOTUS during his SOTU. Much like Rep. Phil Hare, President Obama, Sen. Schumer and Speaker Pelosi don't care what the Constitution says or how the SCOTUS rules. If the Constitution or SCOTUS get in their way, they'll simply attempt to do what they want through another channel. That's why winning big this election and the 2012 elections are so important.
A three-judge panel in Washington, D.C. unanimously tossed out the FCC's August 2008 cease and desist order against Comcast, which had taken measures to slow BitTorrent transfers and had voluntarily ended them earlier that year.
Because the FCC "has failed to tie its assertion" of regulatory authority to any actual law enacted by Congress, the agency does not have the authority to regulate an Internet provider's network management practices, wrote Judge David Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Tuesday's decision could doom one of the signature initiatives of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Democrat. Last October, Genachowski announced plans to begin drafting a formal set of Net neutrality rules--even though Congress has not given the agency permission to begin. That push is opposed by Verizon and other broadband providers.
We can't afford to have an administration in office that's willing to ruthlessly push people and the Constitution aside if they want something.
I'd further add that Neil Steven's post makes a most salient point:
Judge David Tatel, Clinton appointed successor of now-Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, wrote for the court that since even the FCC acknowledged it had no "express statutory authority" to go after Comcast for regulating use of Bittorrent on its network, the Commission had to show that the regulation was "reasonably ancillary" to the authority it does have. The FCC did not, and so the FCC's order to Comcast has been thrown out.Neil's right. Losing unanimously indicates that SCOTUS won't likely overturn the DC Circuit's ruling. That the judge that wrote the ruling is a Clinton-appointed judge is telling, too. While I won't be so bold as to predict a unanimous verdict if it reaches the Supreme Court, I'm willing to say that it isn't likely that we'll see a 5-4 ruling either.
I'm no lawyer, but having lost decisively at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals seems to set a dangerous precedent for the FCC's future ability to regulate ISPs. That is why the FCC has a plan: reclassify (or deem) ISPs to be something different under the law (make them a Title II service under the Communications Act, which former Chairman Michael Powell says they never, ever have been), and then reassert (or pass) this authority regardless of what the court said.
Nonetheless, Neil is right in saying that we need to stay ever-vigilant in this fight against the Party of Censorship. After all, they've made it abundantly clear that they intend to limit speech via whatever method works.
The FCC's attempt to regulate the internet indicates just how radical this administration is.
Posted Tuesday, April 6, 2010 6:32 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 07-Apr-10 06:03 AM
Opposing net neutrality is like hating motherhood and apple pie.
Comment 2 by Brent Metzler at 07-Apr-10 06:33 AM
Why would you support Net Neutrality anyways? Net neutrality forces us to have a slower, more congested, less useful internet.
Not my idea for what the internet should be.
