Category Archives: rights

President Obama’s Obamacare Tax Increase on the Middle Class

Posted on by
Reply

Straight from the horse’s mouth.  Chief Justice John Robert’s Majority Opinion includes this [emphasis added]:

The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause.  That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it.  In this case, however, it is reasonable to con­strue what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance.  Such legislation is within Con­gress’s power to tax.

The whole opinion, and the two dissents, can be read here.

A Grievous Supreme Court Error

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court has ruled unfavorably on Arizona’s SB1070, with which it attempted to secure its border with Mexico and the safety of Arizona citizens (the ruling, with the dissents, can be read here).  Sort of letting stand a provision that required Arizona police to check the immigration status of those they suspect may be in the country illegally (the Court sent this back to the lower court for further argument), they struck the rest of the law making it a crime for immigrants to look for work without work permits (never mind that Federal law requires the permits), to not carry their immigration papers (never mind that Federal law requires legal aliens to carry these papers), and let police arrest those whom they suspect committed crimes for which they could be deported.

Justice Scalia, in his dissent (to, apparently, a 5-3 decision, with Justice Kagan having recused herself), had the right of it:

Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty — not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State.

As did Justice Thomas, for a different, narrower, reason:

I agree with Justice Scalia that federal immigration law does not preempt any of the challenged provisions of SB 1070. I reach that conclusion, however, for the simple reason that there is no conflict between the ‘ordinary meaning’ of the relevant federal laws and that of the four provisions of Arizona law at issue here.

And Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority has revealed an appalling mindset for an American judge:

Some discretionary decisions involve policy choices that bear on this Nation’s international relations.

This is a domestic law, and a domestic concern. Foreign opinion has no bearing. But this Progressive administration gave their view of American sovereignty when it encouraged 11 foreign nations to join the suit at the Appellate level.

We badly need an election, so this error can be corrected legislatively.  Oh, wait….

A Town Understands Frivolous Costs

Posted on by
Reply

In at least one town, it costs up to $30k to add extra police, fire, and so on for a Presidential visit.  Those hosting towns generally suck up and pay those costs when the President comes a-calling on official business, but who pays when it’s a purely campaign visit?

Durham, NH, says the President’s campaign team should pony up.  The city government’s press release said

Community leaders do not believe that costs associated with the campaign should be borne by local taxpayers.

And Town Manager Todd Selig added

Community leaders have taken the position that the campaign, regardless of party affiliation, should absorb the added local public safety costs rather than local taxpayers.

A carefully anonymous Obama campaign official told CBSBoston,

The campaign will follow all rules and pay for the portion of travel that relates to political events, as has been true for previous incumbent presidential candidates.

Frankly, this just sounds like more Obama weasel words to put another fund-raiser on the taxpayer’s nickel.  Entirely.

It’s moot for now, though:  Selig said on Sunday that an anonymous donor—who Selig says insists that the town is doing the right thing by declining to pay for a campaign stop—has donated $20k to the town for the incremental costs related to the President’s campaign stop.

Federal Overreach

Posted on by
Reply

As C Boyden Gray and Jim R Purcell note in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 is an especially egregious example, an Act that arrogates vast power to the Federal government and then concentrates it in the Executive Branch.

As they note,

Dodd-Frank created both the Financial Stability Oversight Council and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, giving each agency effectively unlimited power. The FSOC can declare a financial firm “systemically important”—that is, too big to fail—based on “any” “risk-related factors” that it “deems appropriate.” And the CFPB can punish even responsible lenders who in good faith offer loans that the bureau later deems to be “unfair,” “deceptive” or “abusive.”

Demonstrating just how far this overreach is intended to go, the illegally appointed head of the CFPB, Richard Cordray, has instructed Congress that it is “probably not useful” to define in advance what an “abusive” lending practice is.  No, he’s just going to use his enormous, and unconstrained, his enforcement powers to retroactively punish lenders based on his carefully ex post definition of the “facts and circumstances” of each of their cases.  Nice company you got there.  Be too bad if something was to happen to it.

That this overreach is deliberate is demonstrated by the Act’s cynical elimination of any pretense of control by any branch of the government over these two Executive Branch bureaucracies, and the Act’s cancelation of even the most ephemeral separation of the three branch’s powers.

The CFPB is not subject to Congress’s “power of the purse,” which James Madison knew to be Congress’s “most complete and effectual weapon.”  Instead, Dodd-Frank lets the CFPB claim more than $400 million from the Federal Reserve each year and prohibits Congress from even reviewing that budget.  The president’s control over the CFPB is limited because by law he can remove the agency’s director only under strictly limited circumstances.  Finally, Dodd-Frank limits the courts’ review of CFPB’s legal interpretations.

And

The FSOC is similarly free from checks and balances.  For example, when the Council—a working group of the Treasury secretary, Federal Reserve chairman, comptroller of the currency, and other unelected regulators—anoints a financial institution as too big to fail, the courts are prohibited from even reviewing whether the regulators properly interpreted the applicable laws.

And that illegal appointment?  Cordray was given a recess appointment while the Senate was in session.

So much for the Constitution, that document that’s more than 100 years old and hard to understand.  So much for the Rule of Law.

RTWT.

The Progressive Endgame

Posted on by
Reply

What Progressives don’t understand—won’t accept—is that, as Eric Falkenstein wrote

People get most of their pleasure, and meaning, being useful to others, which includes inspiring the admiration or happiness of others by one’s actions. Every time I make my daughter squeal with delight makes me thankful to be alive, because I know she really loves me, and I work to provide her with things and habits that will make her prosper, and hope that at some point after I’m gone she will remember me with sincere gratitude.

This made especially in the actual community interactions of individuals.  Progressives are only willing to help their fellows by government diktat, not directly with their personal resources.  I’ve written elsewhere about who donates to charity, for instance, but it bears repeating: Conservatives donate 3.5% to 4.5% of their incomes; Liberals just 1.25% to 1.5%.  And further,

A healthy wage is a strong correlate with one’s usefulness to non-family members, especially if you work in field without a lot of regulation.

Adam Smith understood this.  John Locke and our Founders understood this.  The “invisible hand” and the existence of a social compact both are founded on the not-so-enlightened self-interest—the greed—of the individuals participating in the commerce and in the formation of the social compact.  Free commerce, and the republican government over which the compact members are sovereign, are what lead to the greatest material and moral prosperity of the individuals involved.  The first is self-evident.  The second derives from that material prosperity: being useful to others, indeed, satisfying our duty to others (which involves such mundane things as honoring our commitments, here to provide our mutual support to defend and preserve our—and our fellows’—individual and several inalienable Rights, to help those less fortunate than ourselves, and so on) is enormously facilitated by personal prosperity (which, just incidentally, also creates community prosperity): we have more wherewithal with which to satisfy our individual obligations (which are, don’t forget, individual, not collective).

Falkenstein concludes

[Eric Hoffer considered that] intellectuals found free societies a threat because such societies didn’t need mandarins directing them, and if not flattered would help incite the masses to some sort of revolution.  A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding, and so those unhappy with their own meaningless affairs will focus on minding other people’s business.  Hoffer noted one must not merely provide for those without meaning in their lives, but provide against them, because in a democracy and market economy their preferences will have power.  Those who see their lives as inferior and wasted crave equality and fraternity more than they do freedom, and this can cause a Republic to fall to a democracy, and ultimately a tyranny.

Thus,

In other words, Hoffer describes the essence of the Liberal [I say Progressive—ed.] desire to micromanage society into perfect equality at the expense of liberty.  A coalition of intellectuals and the underclass, both of whom feel unappreciated.  We haven’t figured out a good outlet for these do-gooders, or a good way for those without a purpose to find life rewarding, so they continue to plague us with their plans and angst.