June 10, 2015
Jun 10 00:00 Greta predicts King v. Burwell Jun 10 00:45 Minnesota's progressive spoiled brats Jun 10 08:55 Hillary's Obama problem Jun 10 12:11 Frank Hornstein vs. America Jun 10 13:27 Rebecca Otto's challenge Jun 10 14:57 Shep Smith, blithering idiot
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Greta predicts King v. Burwell
During Tuesday night's Off the Record segment, Greta van Susteren made a rare prediction:
Here's what she said:
GRETA: First, some Law 101. When 2 parties dispute a statute, here Obamacare, the Court must first decide who's right. The Court first looks at the plain wording of the statute. If it's plain, that's the end of it. The Court rules on the plain words. If the wording, however, is somehow confusing or ambiguous, the Court then goes beyond the words to decide the case. What did the lawmakers intend when they wrote the confusing language? So now, the Obamacare statute and the words. It says "people are eligible for subsidies if they obtained health coverage quote 'through an exchange established by the state.'" Now that's plain. To get a subsidy, you have to be in one of the states that set up an exchange, not in the other 34 states that rely on the federal exchange. So I think the Supreme Court will rule against Obama.
Tons of ink has been used to talk about the Republicans' dilemma if the Supreme Court rules that the IRS can't give subsidies to people who bought insurance through HealthCare.gov. I'm not often critical of Republicans but I'm upset with them this time. Republicans have a bunch of ideas that, if put together in a piece of legislation, would be a significant improvement over Obamacare. Sen. Bill Cassidy put a plan together, which is the topic of this article :
Cassidy's bill proposes a way forward following the Supreme Court's decision in King v. Burwell, which is expected by the end of June. The case will decide whether the majority of health exchanges, which are run by the federal government, are legally allowed to provide subsidies.
Cassidy, a doctor who unseated Mary Landrieu (D., La.) last November, narrowly focused his bill to be a response to a ruling in favor of Burwell, which would take away subsidies in states that are operated by the federal exchange. Only 13 states operate their own health insurance marketplaces, since the $205 million Hawaii exchange announced it would fold and be taken over by the federal government.
The Patient Freedom Act would give states the option of keeping Obamacare by establishing a state-based exchange, or using existing funding to provide tax credits to create Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) for the uninsured, averaging $1,500 per person.
'We are trying to give the state an option other than setting up an Obamacare exchange,' Cassidy said. 'The president, I'm sure, will make it easy [to set up a state exchange], because he wants his law to take root,' he said. 'If we don't have a better plan, it will take root.'
If states chose Cassidy's option, they could do away with various mandates under Obamacare, including the individual and employer mandates and requirements for minimum essential coverage. The legislation would also equalize tax treatment, and require health providers to publish cash prices for services reimbursed from an HSA.
While there are certain to be parts of Sen. Cassidy's bill that we don't like, this bill should get a committee hearing. Amendments should've been offered to improve the bill. That would prove that Republicans are interested in solving problems, not just complaining about problems.
The American people know the complaints. They've made those complaints themselves. What Americans insist upon is a solution. Republicans should get behind this legislation ASAP. Committee hearings should start next week. If a Republican senator who's running for president starts complaining or grandstanding, Mitch McConnell should highlight that senator's grandstanding and tell them that it's this legislation. Period. If they won't be team players, Senate leadership should make it known that they'll blow up that senator's presidential campaign.
This isn't a situation for political gamesmanship. It's a situation that demands leadership and solutions. The American people deserve that much.
Finally, a group of ideas isn't a solution. They're a collection of theories. It's time for Republicans to put on their big boy pants and provide solutions. Carpe diem.
Posted Wednesday, June 10, 2015 12:00 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 10-Jun-15 07:51 AM
Gary:
What I have been waiting for and haven't seen yet is that the Republicans give a refundable tax credit for any health care expense (insurance expenses, health care expenses) which is the amount of the subsidy. At the same time they can make the argument that if a person is filing for the refundable tax credit the IRS can't impose the penalty for the individual.
Not to mention with no subsidy to hide the cost the people will see the true costs of all the mandates that Obamacare is imposing and might give a reason for lawmakers to try to restart repealing the sillier mandates such as a woman who can't give birth needing birth coverage.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Minnesota's progressive spoiled brats
Dave Mindeman's article exposes progressives' thought process. It isn't a pretty sight:
Dayton wants the Auditor change for valid reasons. Yes, he signed the overall bill because he was concerned about the number of government layoffs another veto would increase. But the auditor provision was rammed through on questionable grounds. Yes, it had Senate leadership on board, but the rest of the caucus is not so solidly on board. Some voted for the ball and then called for a veto. But the bottom line is that the legislative branch is dictating terms to the executive branch regarding an executive office .
Here's a question for Mr. Mindeman. What budget bill doesn't directly impact the Executive Branch? Answer: There isn't a budget bill that the legislative passes that doesn't affect the executive branch.
VERDICT: This argument is flimsy.
Frankly, the Governor has agreed to many issues - he has compromised on a variety of policy points. But he has drawn a line in regards to the auditor language....and he signed the bill with an expectation that he would be respected in regards to a policy discussion on this one point.
There's no proof that Speaker Daudt promised that they'd look at the auditor provision later. Ergo, there isn't a realistic expectation that this provision would be subject to future scrutiny. Second, respect isn't given. It's earned. There's no question that Gov. Dayton doesn't like the auditor's provision. Similarly, there's no question that privatizing audits would save taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. There's little question that audits would be completed faster, which would produce greater accountability.
I can't respect a politician that fights for inferior, ineffective policies.
Does he want to push the issue to the brink and hold up state government to maintain a couple of lines in a bill that has questionable Constitutional validity?
There's no constitutional questions on this. David Schultz got it wrong. It's time for the DFL to actually read the plain language of Minnesota's constitution. Article V of Minnesota's constitution establishes the office of State Auditor. It didn't assign the auditor any responsibilities. That was done through enacting state statutes.
Dr. Schultz says that there's precedent supporting his opinion. I don't doubt that. That's substantially irrelevant if the precedents run contrary to Minnesota's constitution.
Posted Wednesday, June 10, 2015 12:45 AM
No comments.
Hillary's Obama problem
This article highlights the problem that President Obama created and that Hillary Clinton will inherit:
Jacksonville, Fla. - During those two electric Novembers, the chance to elect a black president, and then keep him in office, seized Regenia Motley's neighborhood. Nightclubs were registering voters. Churches held fish fries after loading buses that ferried parishioners to the polls. A truck hoisted a big sign that said 'Obama.' And residents waited in long lines at precincts across the community.
But as Motley and some friends sought shade recently under a mulberry tree and looked across the landscape of empty lots and abandoned houses that has persisted here, they wondered whether they would ever bother voting again. 'What was the point?' asked Motley, 23, a grocery store clerk. 'We made history, but I don't see change.'
On Jacksonville's north side and in other struggling urban neighborhoods across the country, where Barack Obama mobilized large numbers of new African American voters who were inspired partly by the emotional draw of his biography, high hopes have turned to frustration: Even a black president was unable to heal places still gripped by violence, drugs and joblessness.
President Obama's greatest 'accomplishment' is the consistency with which he overpromised and underdelivered. In 2008, his mantra was hope and change. In 2015, President Obama's legacy is one of frustration and anxiety. Mix in healthy doses of incompetence and arrogance, too. Mix them all together and you've given minority voters justification for being highly cynical.
The dynamic, made prominent in recent months after unrest in Baltimore and Ferguson, Mo., sets up a stark challenge for Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner. While supporting Obama became a cause for many here rather than a typical campaign, Clinton faces a higher bar in making a case that she, too, can be a transformative figure.
Hillary's challenge is daunting. There aren't many people who've hung around Washington, DC for a quarter century that are considered transformative figures. They're mostly thought of a technocrats that haven't had a new thought in decades.
Salesmanship isn't Hillary's strong suit. That was Bill's strength. Hillary's always been a check-the-box politician, the opposite of being a transformational president. That's why it's difficult to see Hillary rebuilding the Obama coalition. That was already fraying in 2012 with President Obama at the top of the ticket. If cynicism is running as high as this article presents, then Hillary's fight to become the first female president is a steep uphill fight.
Posted Wednesday, June 10, 2015 8:55 AM
Comment 1 by Terry Stone at 10-Jun-15 09:33 AM
He failed to transform the plight of minorities. Perhaps the color of a person's skin is only as important as we would like it to be.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 10-Jun-15 01:27 PM
Every Republican presidential candidate should visit that city and try to meet Regina! What can turn the tide for the Republicans on demographics is if they work hard to court the black vote and get 90% plus democrat advantage down. There is a chance for Republicans to do that now!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Frank Hornstein vs. America
Frank Hornstein represents a Twin Cities district. That's why it isn't surprising that he opposes the Sandpiper Pipeline project in northern Minnesota. What's odd is his reason for opposing it:
Rep. Frank Hornstein, DFL-Minneapolis, said many frame pipelines as a safer alternative to oil-carrying trains but that it shouldn't be a choice between the two.
'Pipelines leak and explode and so do trains. The choice is: Are we going to continue our dependence on oil or get serious about conserving?' said Hornstein, who called the debate a symptom of 'America's gluttonous appetite for oil. The science is in, the data is screaming at us. And what goes on inside here,' he said pointing to the Capitol, 'is unfortunately not helping.'
Bulletin for Hornstein: The vote is in. People love their oil-loving ways. They don't care that we're using lots of oil.
Americans processed all of the data that's "screaming at us." The perspective that Rep. Hornstein prefers lost. Actually, it got its butt kicked. It isn't surprising, though, that Rep. Hornstein isn't paying attention to what the American people want. He' a hardline progressive who knows what's best for Americans. Because knows what's best for Americans, his policies should be implemented ASAP.
That sounds like a certain pen-wielding president who hates Congress and the courts, doesn't it?
With all due respect to Rep. Hornstein, the American people don't care that he thinks he knows what's best for them. Though he'll probably continue getting re-elected for as long as he wants, Minnesotans will reject his attitude.
Protesters carried makeshift signs and banners and chanted, 'We don't want your tar sands oil, we won't let you kill our soil,' and 'Pipelines spill, tar sands kill.'
I'd love to see the autopsy report that states that tar sands were the cause of death. These environmental activists are from the outer fringes of the outer fringe of the DFL.
Posted Wednesday, June 10, 2015 12:11 PM
No comments.
Rebecca Otto's challenge
It's looking like Rebecca Otto will file a lawsuit to prevent private auditors from conducting audits:
State Auditor Rebecca Otto Wednesday reiterated her determination to take a recent change to her office's responsibilities to court unless legislators repeal the new rules in a special session. 'They're going to have a special session and they can deal with this then,' Otto told MPR News host Tom Weber. 'If they choose not to, they've made a choice. If they don't want to [spend money on a lawsuit], they should take care of it in a special session.'
Gov. Dayton and Ms. Otto have gotten uppity about this. David Schultz has chimed in, too. Here's my question to that trio: Where in Minnesota's Constitution does it outline the State Auditor's responsibilities?
I've read Article V. That's where the Constitution establishes the office of State Auditor. Nowhere in Article V does it list the auditor's responsibilities. Article V, Sect. 3 outlines the governor's responsibilities. That's the only constitutional officer whose responsibilities are defined in Minnesota's Constitution.
Since the legislation passed by the legislature and signed by Gov. Dayton doesn't attempt to abolish the State Auditor's office, there isn't a constitutional issue. The office is still intact. It's just that the auditor's responsibilities have changed. Here's where things get tricky for the DFL.
Twenty-eight counties currently have the right to hire private auditors. That carve-out isn't in the Constitution, meaning that changed through the passage of a state statute. If that change can happen through passing a state statute, why can't other changes happen via state statute?
Otto argues the move is unconstitutional, and that it stands to gut her office.
Ms. Otto will lose that fight. Here's why:
Anderson's plan extends that option to all Minnesota counties, though it preserves Otto's authority to double check private audits.
Sarah Anderson's plan changes Ms. Otto's responsibilities. It doesn't eliminate Ms. Otto's responsibilities, which is the linchpin constitutional argument.
If Rep. Anderson's legislation sought to eliminate the State Auditor's constitutional office, that legislation would be DOA. When the Treasurer's office was eliminated in 1998, it was done with a constitutional amendment.
That doesn't guarantee that the courts will do the right thing. Unfortunately, there are too many liberal jurists who either don't understand the Constitution or they implement their policy preferences. Let's hope that doesn't happen in this instance. If it does, however, then it's time for voters to vote out the justices that don't follow the clear language of the Constitution.
Not even justices are above the law.
Posted Wednesday, June 10, 2015 1:27 PM
No comments.
Shep Smith, blithering idiot
I just finished watching Shepard Smith talking about the US strategy in Iraq. Actually, we don't have one but that's another story for another day. Smith said that he agrees that ISIS wins if the US sends in more ground troops. That's foolish. If a substantial number of US troops go into Anbar Province with a clearly defined assignment of destroying ISIS, ISIS won't be the winner. They'd get their butts kicked like they did during the Anbar Awakening.
This isn't speculation. History provides the proof. The Anbar Awakening happened because a) we surged a ton of troops into Anbar Province and b) Sunnis trusted us because we fought alongside of them. The Obama administration won't do either thing for ideological, aka political, reasons. When our troops supported the Iraqi troops, they fought well. They weren't put in the impossible situation of picking between ISIS Sunnis and Iranian-backed Shiites.
That's a head-Iran-wins-tails-I-lose situation. It's a lose-lose situation for the Anbar Sunnis.
Further, it's insane to say we should pull out of Iraq because the Iraqis aren't fighting. While that's aggravating, that isn't what's most important. Pulling out of Iraq means ISIS a) will establish its caliphate and b) will bring a major terrorist attack to the United States sooner rather than later.
To the idiots that want to pull out, here's my question: Are you willing to have American blood on your hands when the next terrorist attack hits our homeland? I'm tired of idiots like Shep Smith and Bill O'Reilly arguing that we should pull out if we aren't in it to win it. That's the wrong argument.
My argument is simple. Let's change our strategy to accepting only victory. That means demolishing the ISIS caliphate ASAP. It's time we started thinking about winning. Period.
Posted Wednesday, June 10, 2015 2:57 PM
No comments.
