Tag Archives: government

Lobbying with a Red Herring

Posted on by
Reply

The Associated Press is joining the lobbying of the Supreme Court over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and its effort is either cynical or ignorant, depending on their motive for their chosen focus:

During the recent oral arguments some of the justices and the lawyers appearing before them seemed to be under the impression that the law does not allow most consumers to buy low-cost, stripped-down insurance to satisfy its controversial coverage requirement.

The AP presents this as a “possible misunderstanding” the “could cloud” the Court’s deliberations.

Of course, cost is only a peripheral issue, arising primarily from Justice Antonin Scalia’s discussion of the subsidy a young, healthy American (who does not need health insurance—and who used to be able to make that decision for himself) must pay, through forced purchase of unneeded/undesired health insurance, so that others, claiming the need, can afford to get health insurance.

The question before the Court—as all the players understood, making their arguments concerning the constitutionality of PPACA’s Individual Mandate, and by extension of the PPACA itself, as they did—is the question of individual liberties and the degree to which Government can, under our Constitution, limit our liberty for our own good.

Cost isn’t the issue—freedom and government control over an individual’s decisions is.

Another View from the Left

Posted on by
Reply

From Spiegel International Online comes this description of the Republican presidential candidates in an article about Senator Rick Santorum’s decision to end his “Ludicrous Race:”

It was a circus, one in which—for long stretches—the clowns took center stage. The candidates lost their way in an extended debate on abortion and contraception; climate change was anything for them except manmade; they threatened to unceremoniously throw millions of illegal immigrants out of the country; they competed for who could promise the lowest taxes and the deepest social welfare cuts; and they pledged to shut down government ministries. And when it came to foreign policy, they repeatedly showed that they didn’t have a clue.

And this is the political Europe President Obama wishes so desperately to emulate.  These are the misunderstandings of the purpose of government, the misunderstandings of issues, and the distortions of positions the Obama insists are…gospel.

Hmm….

You Didn’t Hear It Here First

Posted on by
Reply

Although I have written something similar before.

Freedom of speech is on no use to a man who has nothing to say, and freedom of worship is of no use to a man who has lost his God.

And

We cannot read the history of our rise and development as a nation without reckoning with the place the Bible has occupied in shaping the advances of our Republic.

And

The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole our relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of a sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America.

And on Social Security, as it was drafted originally (and ultimately as passed and evolved; although the remark was made of the draft):

This is the same old dole under another name.  It is almost dishonest to build up an accumulated deficit for the Congress of the United States to meet in 1980.  We can’t do that.  We can’t sell the United States short in 1980 any more than in 1935.

Who said this stuff?  A man not known for his modern conservatism: Franklin Roosevelt.

The catalog of Roosevelt’s economic and regulatory failures is long, but there also is much that the present administration could have listened to and thereby avoided the damage done by its own economic and regulatory failures—as could FDR, had he listened to himself.

 

h/t to Power Line

Another Thought on Self Defense

Posted on by
Reply

I wrote, a short time ago, about individual self-defense.  In this post, I’d like to explore a little bit of the self-defense rights of a nation.  Senator Jon Kyle (R, AZ) asked, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, “What’s at Stake in the Missile-Defense Debate?”  His question also raises a larger question concerning a nation’s right to self-defense.  I’ll address the second question first, then I’ll talk about the role of missile defenses within that right.

As our Declaration of Independence acknowledges, all men have a right, among other things, to our Lives, our Liberty, and our Happiness.  In that earlier post I demonstrated the right, and the obligation, of each individual to defend himself—lethally, if necessary—against threats to himself, his family, his property, and to extend that defense to others whom he might see under similar threat.

Far too often, that individual is incapable of conducting that defense, even acting in concert with a few of his fellows.  This is why, as Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, et al., have demonstrated, men come together to form social compacts, nations, with governing structures.  Universal among these men’s demonstrations was a purpose of those compacts: to defend the individual members against external threats.  Thus, nations are formed for an explicit purpose of defending its citizens—of defending itself.

The right of a nation to defend itself thus flows directly from its members’ individual rights to defend themselves.

Within a national right of self-defense, where do missile defenses fit?  Plainly, a nation that does not use all of the tools at its disposal is limiting itself in its ability to carry out its duty of defending its citizens, of defending itself.  A nation that disgorges itself of any of the tools it has, and/or turns its back on acquiring all the tools it might, that are useful in defending itself is turning its back entirely on its obligation to defend itself.

This failure is exacerbated in a nuclear world, where one of the weapons of attack is fully capable of destroying an entire city, murdering the hundreds of thousands or millions of people who live(d) there.  A missile defense capability becomes critical to national defense, even to national survival, when such offensive destruction is possible.  Certainly, a missile defense of the kind discussed by Lyle and dismissed by President Obama is useful only against missiles and is not proof against those missiles.  However, with our enemies capable of missile delivery of nuclear destruction, not defending against that threat is not just amoral, it’s actively immoral.

For the United States to walk away from a maximally capable defense capacity solely to appease our enemies who have that nuclear offensive capability is not just amoral, it’s actively immoral.  Yet this appears to be the path on which Obama is setting us.  He already has withdrawn missile defenses against rogue Iranian missiles from eastern Europe (where they could defend Israel and Europe against Iranian attack) at Russia’s behest.  Now he’s telling outgoing Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin that, given time to win his reelection before being pressed on our missile defense system, he’ll then no longer be accountable, and he can give the Russians everything they want in the complete removal of any American missile defense capacity.

Senator Kyle rightly points out legal concerns about this course.

[President Obama] may have to ignore or circumvent commitments he made to Congress to secure support for the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start)—among them, that he would deploy all four phases of planned U.S. missile-defense systems for Europe, and that he would modernize the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system for the protection of the U.S. homeland.

Never mind that acceding to Russian demands would eliminate

…the only U.S. theater missile-defense system capable of catching intercontinental-range Iranian missiles, making it important for the defense of our homeland.

Senator Kyle adds

It is questionable whether concessions on missile defense would induce Russia to further reduce its nuclear arsenal.  Unlike the U.S., Russia maintains a robust nuclear warhead production capability, and its national security strategy is to increase reliance on nuclear weapons.  Russia is also modernizing ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

Indeed.  I’m reminded of the Third Punic War.  Rome insisted that Carthage disarm itself, and Carthage acceded to the demand.  After that, Rome attacked, razed Carthage to the ground, occupied all Carthaginian territory, and enslaved its surviving people.

But Obama has said of his moves to eliminate our missile defenses

As a nuclear power – as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon – the United States has a moral responsibility….

Sorry.  The one who would unilaterally remove our ability to defend ourselves is in no position to discuss any part of our military posture.

Further, the champion of wealth distribution, of “you’ve made enough money,” give up what I’ve determined for you as excessive for me to redistribute; the champion of denying anyone his right to live his life to the fullest of his own potential through that wealth redistribution is in no position to lecture anyone on morality.

Government and Due Process

Posted on by
2

Senator Barbara Boxer (D, CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, UT) want to bar American citizens from leaving the country solely on the basis of the say so one of the collections of President Obama’s decried “unelected officials”—this time the bureaucrats of the IRS.

Boxer’s Senate Bill 1813, “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act” (MAP-21), is “AN ACT To reauthorize Federal-aid highway and highway safety construction programs, and for other purposes.”  Reid tacked on to this his amendment, which reads in part (it’s in Section 40304 of this 1,700 page bill):

If the Secretary [of the Treasury] receives certification by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that any individual has a seriously delinquent tax debt in an amount in excess of $50,000, the Secretary shall transmit such certification to the Secretary of State for action with respect to denial, revocation, or limitation of a passport….

Hmm….

The Editor of the Congressional Quarterly publication’s Senate Watch, Niels Lesniewski, insists that such a thing has legal precedent:

Existing law says that passports may not be reviewed for applicants owing child support in excess of $2,500.  So I think supporters would say: “You can’t get a passport if you don’t pay child support, but you can get a passport if you don’t pay taxes?”

But this is a red herring.  The deadbeat parent has been found in open court to be guilty of the arrearage.  An IRS filing of notice, which is all Reid’s amendment requires, is not even an accusation of tax evasion, as Constitutional Lawyer Angel Reyes points out, much less an actual conviction for tax evasion.  Reyes expanded on the point:

It takes away your right to enter or exit the country based upon a non-judicial IRS determination that you owe taxes.  It’s a scary thought that our congressional representatives want to give the IRS the power to detain US citizens over taxes, which could very well be in dispute.

Our Bill of Rights’ 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments each carry very a strongly implied right to due process, and the 14th Amendment makes that right explicit.  But, then, as the Progressive opinionist, Ezra Klein, has already pronounced, the Constitution isn’t binding on anyone.

This is a bad amendment, and one marvels at the cynicism of the Progressive Senators in attaching such a wholly irrelevant amendment to what is, at bottom, an attempt at a jobs bill.  If they really believed in the legitimacy of this concept, they’d put it into a separate bill of its own and bring it to the floor for open debate.

One marvels further, though, at the margin of passage: this bill passed out of the Senate on a 74-22 vote.  There are entirely too many RINOs in the Senate.