Monthly Archives: February 2012

He Just Doesn’t Get It

Posted on by
Reply

Friday, President Obama announced a modification to his HHS Department’s mandate that all employers provide health insurance policies that include free contraceptive services—which include contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients—including those employers with religious objections to this sort of thing.  One version of his announcement is here.  In sum, the modification allows religious institutions like hospitals and charities to opt out of the requirement, but if they do, their insurance provider must itself and separately provide those services to the institution’s women employees—still free of charge.  Does this solve the problem?  Where to begin….

Obama made his announcement against his usual backdrop of denigrating those who disagree with him as just playing politics; there couldn’t possibly be legitimate concerns

…as well as, frankly, the cynical desire on the part of some to make this into a political football….

and

Understand some folks in Washington may want to treat this as another political wedge issue….

which, though, is a minor aspect of his speech.  He had this to say, of a more substantive nature:

It’s a lot cheaper to prevent an illness than to treat one.  We also accepted a recommendation from the experts at the Institute of Medicine that, when it comes to women, preventive care should include coverage of contraceptive services such as birth control.

and

…find a way that protects religious liberty and ensures that every woman has access to the care that she needs.

Thus, he continues the fiction that pregnancy is a disease that needs prevention, not a conscious act with lots of very low cost mechanisms for preventing, if prevention truly is wanted.  I’m waiting for the hue and cry from yesterday’s feminists.

Nor does the federalism that is the core of our republican democracy matter to him.

This basic principle…is already the law in 28 states across the country.

And

An exemption…, by the way, that eight states didn’t already have.

If some states do something within their own boundaries, this is sufficient justification for the Federal government to impose it nation-wide.  Except when the states don’t already do that something.  Then it’s OK for the Federal government to impose it nation-wide.

There’s more.

Under the rule…if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company—not the hospital, not the charity—will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without copays and without hassles.  The results will be that religious organizations won’t have to pay for these services, and no religious institution will have to provide these services directly.  Let me repeat: these employers will not have to pay for or provide contraceptive services.

If you watch the video, you’ll see that he said these words with a straight face: “the insurance company—not the hospital, not the charity—will be required to [provide] contraceptive care free of charge….”  He really thinks the insurance companies won’t pass on the costs for this in the form of higher policy premiums charged those religious institutions—and the employees, since most employer-provided coverages include employee premium-sharing—and in the form of higher premiums generally to everyone.

It’s highly doubtful, also, that he’s considered the likelihood that, when the institutions opt out of the mandate, many insurance companies will simply stop offering insurance plans to those institutions in order to avoid bearing the added cost of a separate, “free” service requirement.

Indeed, why does Obama think insurance premiums already have skyrocketed since Obamacare was enacted?  His ignorance of basic economic principles is breathtaking.

It’s also clear that the University of Chicago Senior Lecturer (which the university considers to be a professor) in Constitutional Law has carefully ignored all constitutional questions related to the federal government ordering private enterprises to give away products or services.  He’s simply, blithely, ordering private companies to provide, without compensation, those products he’s decided they should provide.

He concluded with this:

We live in a pluralistic society….  That doesn’t mean that we have to choose between individual liberty and basic fairness for all Americans.

But when government presumes to dictate the parameters of “basic fairness,” that is a direct attack on individual liberty.

Can we afford another four years of such ignorant arrogance?

Misleading Campaign for the Contraceptive Mandate

Posted on by
Reply

Senators Jeanne Shaheen, Barbara Boxer, and Patty Murray (D; NH, CA, and WA, respectively) have an Op-Ed piece in The Wall Street Journal that contributes to the disinformation being spread about concerning this diktat.

They begin with their opening premise:

…the Obama administration changed the law to require private health plans to provide preventive services including breast exams, HIV screening and contraception for free.

They actually think no one is paying for this mandate?  They actually think no tax increases, no insurance premium increases, no reductions in services or policy option flexibility will result from this?  No, they don’t think that: these are grown, adult human beings, of far above average intelligence.  Of course they know better.

They go on:

…the real forces behind [an alleged campaign to deny this “benefit” to women]…are trying to force their politics on women’s personal health-care decisions.

Of course, this mandate in no way seeks to impose government’s politics to override the fundamental teachings of a broad reach of religions and religious institutions.  Nosirreebob.

And

Contraception was included as a required preventive service on the recommendation of the independent, nonprofit Institute of Medicine and other medical experts because it is essential to the health of women and families.

Aside from the fact that, as feminists used to protest—correctly—pregnancy isn’t a disease, pregnancy prevention (and cancelation) mechanisms are widely available already.  Not overriding religious teachings, not canceling religious tenets, in no way impacts this.

And

Those now attacking the new health-coverage requirement claim it is an assault on religious liberty, but the opposite is true.  Religious freedom means that Catholic women who want to follow their church’s doctrine can do so, avoiding the use of contraception in any form.

It also means that religious institutions—including “institutions that have historic religious ties but also have a broader mission, such as hospitals and universities”—do not have to cast aside their fundamental beliefs, do not have to submit to a government order to ignore those teachings.  Catholic—and other—women still can exercise their religious freedom.  And they still have access to contraception and abortions absent this government intrusion.

The good Senators’ disingenuous claim to the contrary, this mandate has nothing to do with women’s health, except in the most peripheral, side effect way.  It is exactly an assault on religious liberty, it is a deliberate reach for political power and an assertion of government’s authority over what will be permitted to be taught by religious institutions and what teachings will be permitted to be obeyed by related institutions.  This is an attempt to bring down Jefferson’s wall of separation between Church & State, and nothing else.

Congresswoman Gwen Moore (D, WI) makes this plain.  She has said that the church

…can’t impose its religious views on people and whether they can have health care.

However, it’s the government that’s imposing its religious view: religions must act contrary to their fundamental tenets because Government requires it.  Moreover, “the church” certainly can impose its religious views.  It’s what a church is.  It’s God’s Word—regardless of the religion at hand—that’s being taught.  The question of individual conscience, as the Catholic Church (for instance) teaches, is still a matter among the individual, the church, and God—government is, in no way, permitted to interfere here.

Yet government is doing everything it can to interfere.

The Constitution: Who Needs It?

Posted on by
Reply

Certainly not our Progressive Supreme Court Justices.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg doesn’t even think our Constitution is a worthy for others drafting a new one:

I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.

I might look at the constitution of South Africa.  That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary.

The South African constitution is interesting for how it treats individual rights and Justice Ginsburg’s independent judiciary.  There’s this on rights [emphasis added]:

When interpreting the Bill of Rights, a court, tribunal or forum must promote the values that underlie an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom; must consider international law; and may consider foreign law.

Their Constitution notes this in its Preamble:

We therefore, through our freely elected representatives, adopt this Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic

It wasn’t even adopted directly by the people, as ours was, just by their government.

Their Constitution notes this about their Bill of Rights [emphasis added]:

7. Rights.-
( 1) This Bill of Rights is a cornerstone of democracy in South Africa. It enshrines the rights of all people in our country and affirms the democratic values of human dignity, equality and freedom.
…
(3) The rights in the Bill of Rights are subject to the limitations contained or referred to in section 36, or elsewhere in the Bill

Here is what Section 36 says about limiting those “Rights.

36. Limitation of rights.-
(1) The rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including-
(a) the nature of the right;
(b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation;
(c) the nature and extent of the limitation;
(d) the relation between the limitation and its purpose; and
(e) less restrictive means to achieve the purpose.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (1) or in any other provision of the Constitution, no law may limit any right entrenched in the Bill of Rights.

The Government gave, the Government hath taken away.

I won’t go into the vasty enumeration of “fundamental” rights (34 pages worth!), that is an enshrinement of “rights” that are the fallout of individual decisions made under our Creator-given and inalienable ones.

Now here is Justice Ginsberg’s “independent” judiciary

(4) Only the Constitutional Court may-
(6) decide on the constitutionality of any amendment to the Constitution:

And this [emphasis added]

173. Inherent power.-
The Constitutional Court, Supreme Court of Appeal and High Courts have the inherent power to protect and regulate their own process, and to develop the common law, taking into account the interests of justice….

This isn’t “independent.”  This is superior, the final despot.  The people aren’t to be allowed to decide for themselves what their Constitution will say.  Ultimately, the people’s representatives will not be permitted to make the law in their name—the courts’ common law will overwhelm.

This is what a Progressive Justice of the Supreme Court thinks is a superior constitution.

Taxes, Again

Posted on by
Reply

Once again, a tax cut for Americans is being held hostage against a demand to offset that cut by a commensurate tax increase imposed on a government-disfavored group.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV) has announced, at this late date,

We know there’s gonna have to be mandatory cuts, we understand that but also going to have to be something done with tax incentives, enhancements, revenues[.]

Unfortunately, this also is the wrong fight.  Both Democrats and Republicans are agreed that a two per centage point reduction in individuals’ taxes (or a three per centage point reduction both for individuals and businesses, if President Obama can be believed) is good for Americans.  Economists are agreed that temporary tax cuts, such as the proposed payrolls cuts, are not at all stimulative for the economy as a whole—a stimulus effect requires the cuts to be permanent.

The discussion, then, shouldn’t be a debate at all, nor should it concern payroll tax reductions, which serve only to further gut, and so to hasten the demise of, the Social Security system.

This discussion should be about a permanent income tax reduction for both individuals and businesses of two to three per centage points.  This much seems doable within the month since the idea of a tax cut and its present size already are agreed by all.  And who can understand the logic of “paying for” a tax cut with a tax increase (leaving aside the fact that there’s no need to pay for a reduction in the government’s receipt of something—our money—which doesn’t belong to it in the first place)?

This cut then should be followed by further discussion with a view to deeper income tax cuts.

Fairness

Posted on by
Reply

Stephen Moore, of The Wall Street Journal, asks some questions….

about taxes

Is it fair that the richest 1% of Americans pay nearly 40% of all federal income taxes, and the richest 10% pay two-thirds of the tax?

Is it fair that the richest 10% of Americans shoulder a higher share of their country’s income-tax burden than do the richest 10% in every other industrialized nation….

Is it fair that Americans who build a family business, hire workers, reinvest and save their money—paying a lifetime of federal, state and local taxes often climbing into the millions of dollars—must then pay an additional estate tax of 35% (and as much as 55% when the law changes next year) when they die, rather than passing that money onto their loved ones?

Is it fair that nearly four out of 10 American households now pay no federal income tax at all—a number that has risen every year under Mr. Obama?

about labor

Is it fair that after the first three years of Obamanomics, the poor are poorer, the poverty rate is rising, the middle class is losing income, and some 5.5 million fewer Americans have jobs today than in 2007?

Is it fair that those who work full-time jobs (and sometimes more) to make ends meet have to pay taxes to support up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits for those who don’t work?

Is it fair that thousands of workers won’t have jobs because the president sided with environmentalists and blocked the shovel-ready Keystone XL oil pipeline?

Is it fair that in 27 states workers can be compelled to join a union in order to keep their jobs?

Is it fair that Boeing, a private company, was threatened by a federal agency when it sought to add jobs in a right-to-work state rather than in a forced-union state?

about individual responsibility

Is it fair that those who took out responsible mortgages and pay them each month have to see their tax dollars used to subsidize those who acted recklessly, greedily and sometimes deceitfully in taking out mortgages they now can’t afford to repay?

Is it fair that our kids and grandkids and great-grandkids—who never voted for Mr. Obama—will have to pay off the $5 trillion of debt accumulated over the past four years, without any benefits to them?