Daily Archives: 26 January 2012

State of the Union

Posted on by
Reply

Third verse, same as the first.  President Obama’s speech Tuesday night before the Congress, although couched in rousing terms of “teamwork” and “rebuilding America,” was in the end just more of the usual Progressive fare of class warfare, higher taxes and spending, and bigger government.

While promising to work toward job creation, Obama already has cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have been worth a prompt 20,000 construction and construction-related jobs and an additional 100,000 plus follow-on, more permanent jobs.  While promising vast reductions of intrusive regulations (he actually cited only a single elimination, that of 40-year-old regulation concerning treating spilled milk as an oil spill), his EPA has been running amok with intrusive regulations, from dictating the light bulbs we’re allowed to have in our bed- and bathrooms, to closing down badly needed electricity power plants (with their jobs and the jobs of the businesses that need that power) with excessive “pollutant” regulations that will do nothing to improve our environment or our health, to expanded regulations in the medical device industry that will stifle innovation in that vital area, and on and on.

He wants to reform our tax system, he said, but only to raise taxes on disfavored groups while “reforming” it through extending a payroll tax holiday that guts funding for Social Security;  “double[ing] the tax deduction” for businesses that manufacture in the US, adding to the Byzantine complexity of our corporate tax code; taxing revenue (all of it) from the sale of those severely regulated medical devices; and so on.  But he refuses to accept an overall reduction in income taxes in substitution for that general payroll tax reduction, he refuses to simplify the code and reduce the rates for all corporations—or for all individuals.  Instead, he wants to raise taxes on his “wealthy,” the top 5% of whom pay nearly 60% of the nation’s income taxes, while he refuses to talk about the taxes of the 50% of Americans who pay around 3%-4% of the nation’s income taxes while.  He wants to eliminate the tax breaks for

an [oil and gas] industry that’s rarely been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that’s never been more promising. Pass clean energy tax credits….

Yes—he refuses to eliminate the same subsidies for his “green” energy efforts, like Solyndra, et al.

Obama said he wants an “an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.”  This from the president that shoved senior creditors (at least as defined by existing bankruptcy law) to the back of the bus and gave preferential treatment to his union donors in the government-union takeover of GM and Chrysler.

And he promised openly to continue to govern by fiat whenever our democratic process won’t let him get his way:

With or without this Congress, I will keep taking actions….

Next, there are factual errors in Obama’s speech.  He claimed that Obamacare “relies on a reformed private market, not a government program.”  But the fact is that fully half the more than 30 million currently uninsured are expected to receive coverage through government programs, while the other half are expected to be enrolled in government-approved “private” health insurance through state-based insurance markets.  Moreover, many of these will be get federal subsidies to do so.  Further, Medicaid will be expanded drastically.

And there’s this:  “On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen.”  I’ve addressed above some of the corrections to this claim.  Here’s more: the bailout actually began under President Bush the Younger.  Ford, though, the other member of the American auto industry as Progressives define it (eliding Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Volkswagen, etc. that also have major manufacturing plants in the US and so are key participants in the American auto industry) took none of the bailout money.  Furthermore, if we’re limiting the “American auto industry” in the Obama manner, Chrysler is no longer a part: it’s owned by Fiat, an Italian company.

Finally, although Obama gave short shrift to America’s foreign affairs, he did claim this.  “The Taliban’s momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.”  However, the latest National Intelligence Estimate says that the Taliban will grow stronger, and it’ll use Obama’s unilateral offer of “negotiation” for delay.  The NIE adds that the Taliban in fact will end controlling the Afghan countryside—which gives it the cities

Rule of Law, or Rule by Law?

Posted on by
Reply

Mary Anastasia O’Grady writes about the Obama administration’s disregard for law through its decision to flout it on the subject of Obama’s cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline, and Kevin Mooney writes about this administration’s disregard for law through its carefully selective enforcement vis-à-vis Federal voter registration law.

The Keystone law, an amendment (a rider in O’Grady’s terms) to the temporary payroll tax holiday bill passed last December, required Obama promptly to give thumbs up or down to the pipeline, and if he nixed it, he had to say why.  In his determination, Obama was explicitly enjoined by that law (which he signed, mind you) to consider the economy, energy security, foreign policy, employment, trade, and the environment.

In the event, Obama ruled the pipeline not to be in the national interest because of the State’s view that further environmental studies are required.  This directly contravenes the amendment, though, which specifically required that new environmental impact studies not be part of the consideration—there already having been three environmental studies completed in the last three years, each concluding minimal, if not trivial, impact.  O’Grady explains:

The three bullet points that cover this point in the rider couldn’t be much clearer: First, “the final environmental impact statement issued by the Secretary of State on August 26, 2011, satisfies all requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969…and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.” Second, “any [O’Grady’s emphasis] modification” to the route “shall not require supplementation of the final environmental impact statement….” Third, “no further Federal environmental review shall be required.”

And so

…if the law is to be followed, since the president failed to make a national interest determination as specified in the rider, it means that “the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline…shall be in effect by operation of law.”

The only question, as O’Grady suggests, is whether Obama can be made to obey the letter and the spirit of that law—whether Obama believes in the rule of law, or in his rule by law.

In Louisiana, officials are attempting to follow Federal law, specifically the National Voter Registration Act of 1973, also known as the Motor Voter Law.  It seems that the election officials of Louisiana’s state government are following Federal law too zealously (a condition with which Arizona, Alabama, South Carolina, and others are quite familiar).

Obama’s lawsuits focus on the Motor Voter Law’s Section 7, which requires officials at state health and social service agencies, among others, to offer voter registration forms to all eligible adults, even if the same person visits the agency multiple times: that person is to get the forms at each visit.  The Feds have offered no evidence that this is failing to occur beyond the occasional honest error rate; what drew their eye, though, is the state’s adherence to Section 8 of the law.

Section 8 requires the state to purge its voter rolls of deceased and otherwise ineligible voters specifically to reduce the opportunity for voter fraud—which Progressives deny is happening at all.  It seems, though, that several Louisiana parishes have implausible voter registration rates: there are more registered voters in each of these parishes than there are people actually living in them.

The goal here is revealed by the “settlements” Obama’s administration has imposed on other states after similar suits were filed.  New Mexico, Indiana, Rhode Island, and others are now prevented from purging their voter rolls of any ineligible names until after the November elections.  Thus, the dead and other ineligibles, Democrats all, will be permitted to vote in the coming election.

Here, too, this administration’s choice between rule of law and rule by law is manifest.