Monthly Archives: June 2013

A Death Panel Overruled

Posted on by
Reply

A Death Panel of One, consisting of the woman who’ll be in charge of the death panel that will come into being with the full implementation of Obamacare.  HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius refused to intervene to overrule her own Department’s rule that would have left a 10-year-old girl to die because her chronological age left her too young to be eligible to compete for a lung transplant that could save her life.

Sebelius insisted she had no authority to waive the rule and so to allow the girl to compete with adults for an organ donor’s lung, never minding that the Congress that authorized her Department to have the rule assured her she did.

Sebelius insisted she didn’t want to play God and tear-jerkingly assured the House Committee on Education and the Workforce that she “can’t imagine anything more difficult” and that she “can’t imagine anything worse than one individual getting to pick who lives and who dies” while cynically ignoring the fact that by refusing to act, she was taking the “difficult” step of choosing “who lives and who dies.”

This Death Panel of One further justified her refusal by claiming

[T]there are about 40 seriously ill Pennsylvanians over the age of 12 also waiting for a lung transplant[.]

Never mind that the girl is at the top of the children’s list, so the other children’s status wouldn’t be affected, except through a slight improvement in their chances for getting a pediatric lung.  And that the girl wouldn’t go to the top of the adult’s list as a result of the rule’s waiver—she’d only be eligible to compete for a place in the list.

Fortunately, Federal District Judge Michael Baylson has overruled the Death Panel of One, at least temporarily, ordering Sebelius to waive the rule at least until 14 June, when he’ll have a full hearing on the rule.

But this is temporary, both for the 10-year-old and for Americans generally.  This is the sort of thing we can expect out of Obamacare’s more formal Death Panel, and too few Americans will have the resources to fight that one’s…decisions.

It Doesn’t Get Much More Naked Than This

Posted on by
Reply

Recall Connecticut’s recently passed extensive gun ban law, a bill passed in the emotional aftermath of the Newtown shootings.  Essentially, it banned firearms the State’s government has defined as “assault” weapons.

Last Monday, the legislature “tweaked” that bill to “clear up confusion;” Governor Dannel Malloy (D) is expected to sign it.  One of the tweaks cleared up confusion surrounding the legal possession of these weapons that had been on order before the original legislation was signed into law but not received until after enactment.  Such firearms can now be legally possessed.

It’s another tweak that’s of interest here, though: this one expanded the list of those who can legally acquire these “assault” weapons, now that the gun ban law has been enacted:

  • sworn and certified officers at the department of motor vehicles
  • the chief state’s attorney office
  • the department of energy and environmental protection
  • some constables with police certification

Additionally, the tweak

  • exempts [the above] officers from the certificate requirement for long gun ownership
  • allows them to [retain their “assault”] weapons and large capacity magazines after their service ends by registering them.

Notice that: the citizenry are being denied the ability to possess weapons adequate for their own purposes (an inalienable right and a right acknowledged by the 2nd Amendment), but a broadened list of government officials is granted the ability to possess “assault” weapons.

State Senator Joe Markley (R) is on the right track, but he was a lone voice in the Connecticut wilderness:

I think if we acknowledge that we are putting law enforcement officers at risk by limiting their ability to defend themselves [thus, the allowed expansion of weapons possessions], I think we have to acknowledge that we’re putting homeowners at risk by limiting their ability to defend themselves.

Now why would a government seek to disarm the citizenry while expanding its own arsenal?

Hmm….

Holder’s Defense

Posted on by
Reply

On 15 May, Attorney General Eric Holder testified under oath before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that

With regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something that I have ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be a wise policy.

Yet he had already been consulted concerning, and subsequently approved, a search warrant application to search the personal emails of an individual reporter (James Rosen of Fox News), a warrant that said in part

Because of the Reporter’s [Rosen’s] own potential criminal liability in this matter….

A three-page Department of Justice letter to the Chairmen of the House Judiciary Committee and that committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations is cynically unresponsive (quite aside from the fact that while the chairmen had addressed their concern on the “disconnect” to Holder, the latter didn’t deign respond, instead having an underling do so).

The letter devoted two and a half pages first to piously proclaiming Holder’s reverence for the role of a free press in American society and then to outlining the way getting warrants to search members of the press is supposed to work.  The underling then proclaimed that there was and is no disconnect between the facts of Holder’s testimony and the fact of the warrant’s accusation.  That’s it—just a bald, unsubstantiated pronouncement.  The underling offered not the least shred of evidence to support that claim.  The underling did, though, include this shocker in his penultimate paragraph:

At no time during the pendency of this matter—before or after seeking the search warrant—have prosecutors sought approval to bring criminal charges against the reporter.

DoJ and writers of the Left have made much of that word “potential,” saying that there was no prosecution after the fact, as though this non sequitur eliminates any potential.

Yet Holder did not testify “with regard to prosecution;” he testified explicitly to its potential.  And the warrant he’d already approved at the time of his testimony spoke explicitly about that potential.

It’s clear that Holder still has some tap dancingexplaining to do in order to reconcile his sworn testimony with the content of the search warrant he’d approved prior to his sworn testimony.

But there’re an additional couple of questions in my mind that goes to Holder’s fitness as the US’ chief prosecutor.  What kind of prosecutor accuses a man of criminal activity—that warrant—in order to obtain a search warrant while, at the time of the accusation, having no intent of prosecuting that man should the warrant produce the relevant evidence?

Did Holder lie to the judge in his warrant—he didn’t consider the reporter to be “potentially” criminally liable at the time?  Related to that, is it normal DoJ practice to deliberately mislead a judge with such ruses in order to get a warrant to conduct a search?  And: if the warrant is unobtainable without such shenanigans, how legitimate can the warrant be?

The DoJ letter can be read here.  The Rosen search warrant can be read here.

False Premise

Posted on by
Reply

Reuters talked about a CBO study commissioned by Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D, MD) that purported to look at tax deductions in our tax code.

The top 10 tax deductions, credits, and exclusions will keep $12 trillion out of federal government coffers over the next decade, and several of them mainly benefit the wealthiest Americans….

Never mind that the claim proceeds from a couple of false premises, as I’ve beefed about before.  For one thing, it’s not the government’s money, so of course it doesn’t “keep $12 trillion out of federal government coffers.”  Such a claim presumes that the money belongs in the federal government’s coffers.

For another, even were the money in some sense due the government, the government’s need for the money hasn’t been established, and so any discussion of monies “lost” is…premature…at best.

James Taranto, writing for The Wall Street Journal, had additional problems with the study.

[W]hat makes the CBO study misleading is not the frame but the anchor.  The CBO uses the Joint Committee on Taxation’s definition of “tax expenditures” as “deviations from an individual income tax structure that incorporates the existing regular tax rates, standard deduction, personal exemptions, and deduction of business expenses.”  But as a practical matter, many of these “deviations” are integral to our tax system.

And

[T]he JCT/CBO definition of the tax “structure”—the anchor that holds in place all the study’s assumptions—is arbitrary.  Two examples will suffice to make the point.

The two tax credits in the CBO list—the EITC and the child tax credit—differ from the exclusions, deductions and differential rates in that they are available only to taxpayers with relatively low incomes.  Indeed they are available to “taxpayers” who don’t pay taxes, which is to say that in some cases they can result in a negative tax liability—an actual subsidy, as that word is commonly understood.

Thanks to those credits, taxpayers at the lower end of the income scale get some benefit from “tax expenditures.”  But other redistributionist programs like food stamps, Medicaid, and Supplemental Security Income are left out of the CBO’s analysis merely because they are not administered through the income-tax system.

The CBO’s study also is a typically static study that, from the assumptions dictated to the CBO by Van Hollen for this one, cynically ignore, among other things, how the people being taxed and the economy in generally will react to changes in these “tax deductions, credits and exclusions.”

Deficit and Revenue

Posted on by
Reply

[S]enior White House officials now say they haven’t found a sufficient number of Republican partners willing to accept the revenue increases Democrats say must be part of any compromise.

In other words, Progressives’ “compromise” is for the opposition to go along with their demands for more revenue.  Never mind that revenue questions are no part of the deficit or of the resulting debt.

The shrinking of the deficit, although still too large and at any size contributory to our debt, results from already increasing revenue to the government.  The increased revenue, though, comes not from tax increases (the payroll tax holiday expiration goes to the Social Security System, not to the general Treasury, and the tax increase on those making over $400,000 totals to chump change compared to any year’s deficit) but from the slowly improving economy.  Thus, Progressives’ increased tax rates aren’t necessary to increase revenues to the government.

Spending cuts are what are needed to eliminate the deficit and so to start paying down the debt.  This graph, from The Wall Street Journal, illustrates the matter:

Revenue is up, even in Obama’s hindered recovery, but spending is up more in the projection.  The economy is producing the revenue needed (eliding the question of needing even that much); government needs to do its part and cut spending.  Drastically.