Tag Archives: regulation

A Grant of Dominion

Posted on by
Reply

…of one group of Americans over another, courtesy of President Barack Obama, congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV), and their Obamacare.

Dr Ezekial Emanual, ex-health-care adviser to Obama and presently senior fellow at the Center for American Progress strongly recommended this grant in a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal.

In touting Obamacare’s health “insurance” exchanges, he recommended government add overt pressure on our young to buy health “insurance,” in addition to the existing Individual Mandate requirement, because their participation is a necessary subsidy for others’ purchase.

Emanual began his push for this strengthening of the grant of a claim on one person’s private property to another with this…error:

Government exchanges on a national scale have never been tried before.

This is clearly untrue.  Canada, which is moving away from its national health “care” travesty, and Great Britain, which still is maintaining its National Health Service disaster, have already done this creation of health “insurance” on a national scale.  We know the failure that is pending.

Emanual had this in support of his push for extending that grant of dominion:

Here is the specific problem: insurance companies worry that young people, especially young men, already think they are invincible, and they are bewildered about the health-care reform in general and exchanges in particular.  They may tune out, forego purchasing health insurance and opt to pay a penalty instead when their taxes come due.
…
The consequence would be a disproportionate number of older and sicker people purchasing insurance, which will raise insurance premiums and, in turn, discourage more people from enrolling.  This reluctance to enroll would damage a key aspect of reform.

There are a number of things wrong with this.  In the first place, young people aren’t invincible and generally don’t think they are—this is just a cynically dragged red herring.  Young people, though, generally are healthy enough that both health “insurance,” especially the expensive, overwrought versions being pedaled by government, and health welfare, which is what the government’s product really is, are bad bets.

Insurance companies—when they’re allowed to sell true insurance policies—make their money by correctly assessing the likelihood of payout and adjusting the premiums they charge in advance of the expected payout accordingly.  The likelihood of payout for a young person (the odds of his getting sick) is quite low over any reasonable time frame.  The healthy young are wise to take that risk on themselves.

Secondly, young people aren’t as bewildered as Emanual makes them out to be.  They understand the risks they’re assuming, and they’re quite clear on the wisdom of the assumption.  They just don’t have the same assessment that Emanual—who apparently Knows Better—does.

Third, the penalty of the Individual Mandate itself is nothing more than a sinister enforcing mechanism of government’s grant of dominion over one man to another.

Fourth, the consequence of not following Emanual’s “recommendation” is simply the consequence of government’s demand for health welfare rather than allowing free market, competitively sold health insurance.  That consequence has nothing to do with the choices the young might freely make.

Emanual added further defense:

[W]e need to make clear as a society that buying insurance is part of individual responsibility.  If you don’t have insurance and you need to go to the emergency room or unexpectedly get diagnosed with cancer, you are free-riding on others.  …  The social norm of individual responsibility must be equated with purchasing health insurance.

Stipulating, arguendo (and only for that), that this is an accurate characterization, this justifies being forced to let others free-ride on me how, exactly?

Moreover, when I get sick and I’m uninsured, I don’t go to the ER and freeload—I pay for my infirm out of my own resources.  Just as my wife and I did when we were uninsured and paid for her biopsy and bilateral mastectomy out of our own resources.

Additionally—and this is a critical point that Progressives in general either can’t understand or simply ignore—helping those less well off is a matter of individual responsibility, not a government one.  Paying into government-provided welfare is legitimate, but only when government involvement is the last resort, not the default one.

Buying insurance or not, though—real insurance, not the present health welfare—has nothing at all to do with individual responsibility or with welfare.  That’s purely a personal economic and risk assessment choice.  Demanding that this man buy insurance so as to hold down that man’s cost for insurance is just, again, a grant of dominion to that other over the one: it’s government’s grant to another man of a claim superior to the one’s on his own property.

That’s tyranny, at best.

Emanual gave his game away here:

The president connects with young people, too, so he needs to use that bond and get out there to convince them to sign up for health insurance to help this central part of his legacy.

How cynical.  They should spend money on a thing they don’t need because Obama says that’s cool.  And to preserve a political legacy for Emanual’s hero.

Nor another man nor government has dominion over us.  Especially, government has no dominion over us; government, contrary to Emanual’s apparent understanding, is our employee.

Obama’s Regulation Costs

Posted on by
Reply

Heritage Foundation estimates that annual regulatory costs increased during Obama’s first four years by nearly $70 billion—with more regulations in store for term two.

And that’s just the 130, or so, so-called major regs.  President Barack Obama’s EPA accounted for $45 billion all by themselves.

So much for Obama’s “commitment” to cut the red tape in Washington.

The Convenience of Government

Posted on by
Reply

President Barack Obama has decided to appeal last fall’s ruling of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that invalidated his “recess” appointments of three people to the NLRB.  The Court ruled that since the Senate wasn’t in recess, the appointments were unconstitutional and so invalid.

Obama’s grounds for appeal would be laughable if the matter weren’t so serious.  He

urged the Supreme Court to rule that presidents have broad authority to make certain appointments without Senate approval.

This from a Lecturer in Constitutional law.  Presidents have the authority to “make certain appointments” that the Constitution gives them, and not a particle more.

He, through his Solicitor General Donald Verrilli,

defended the recess appointment powers of the president, disputing the court’s conclusion that it can only be used in the period between formal sessions of the Senate.

Sorry, Ace, “in recess” means in recess, not on lunch break, and not any period a president finds convenient.  What part of the DC Circuit’s writing on this is unclear to you?  After all, it was written in plain language with simple words:

…the inescapable conclusion that the Framers intended something specific by the term “the Recess,” and that it was something different than a generic break in proceedings [an adjournment].
…
The natural interpretation of the [Recess Appointments] Clause is that the Constitution is noting a difference between “the Recess” and the “Session.”  Either the Senate is in session, or it is in the recess.  If it has broken for three days within an ongoing session, it is not in “the Recess.”

Then ObamaVerilli included in his brief this gem:

If the appeals court ruling was left to stand, it would “dramatically curtail” the president’s authority[.]

Well, yeah.  That’s sort of the point, given how far you’ve overstepped your authority.

Finally, this laugher:

The ruling “threatens a significant disruption of the federal government’s operations[.]”

You just don’t seem to get it, Ace.  The convenience of government does not take precedence over the Constitution.

A Thought on Gun Control

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that last November the 2nd Circuit upheld a New York law requiring those who want to carry handguns to show “a special need for self-protection.”

There is an underlying problem with this.  The Federal Constitution does not allow the Federal government to decide the purposes for which it will permit citizens to “keep and bear arms.”  The Constitution requires the Federal government not to infringe citizens’ right to keep and to bear, period.  There is no “except for when the government deems otherwise” caveat; the clause reads the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This also is clear from the authors’ understanding of the terms of relevance here: from the 10th edition of Johnson’s Dictionary we have: Infringe: 1. To violate; to break laws or contracts.  2. To destroy; to hinder.  That definition has not changed much, if at all, in the intervening more than one hundred years since the Constitution was written.

Additionally, the right to keep must mean the right to bear anywhere, else the keeping has no import.  Moreover, the right to bear is as explicitly stated in the Clause as is the right to keep, and that right has no limit on where stated, and so there is no limit.

On top of that, in A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, “State” refers to the constituent States of the United States, not to the United States itself.  Again, the Federal government has no say.

Finally, Heller and McDonald made explicit the extension of these 2nd Amendment clauses to the inside of the individual States—all of them.

It should be clear, then, even to a New York-based 2nd Circuit, that the government has nothing to say on the purpose a private citizen, of any State or of the United States, might have for possessing or carrying about his privately owned weapon.  Indeed, as Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit notes, a citizen’s need can be acute everywhere, and with particular reference to “a special need for self-protection,” Posner had this in his opinion in Moore v. Madigan:

Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians.  But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower.  A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a protective order against a violent ex-husband is more vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from her home than when inside.  She has a stronger self-defense claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under her mattress.

It’s certainly true that some reasonable State-level (but not Federal) limits on the where might be applied.  It’s reasonable, for instance, to uphold the right of a private business owner to bar weapons from his establishment.  It’s reasonable for a State to bar private citizens’ weapons from a courtroom.  It’s reasonable for a State to bar the bearing anywhere (and so to bar the keeping) by those convicted of violent crimes.  It’s reasonable for a State to bar the bearing in public by any other citizen absent that citizen’s possession of a license demonstrating his understanding of the handling and maintenance of his weapon.

But there’s very little else that a government might do to inhibit those 2nd Amendment rights.

Gun Control…Ignorance

Posted on by
Reply

…or outright dishonesty.  As one demonstration, we have a breathtakingly ignorant claim from the Congresswoman who’s pushing a gun control bill in the House of Representatives.  Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D, CO) actually said this, out loud and in public, about firearm magazines and the usefulness of banning them:

These are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now, they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available[.]

For another demonstration, we have Barack Obama’s similarly ignorant (or, in his case, deliberately distorting) claim about the weapons used in the Sandy Hook massacre—the latest crisis this Progressive is trying not to let go to waste.  It’s interesting to note, also, that he made this remark at one of his campaign stops in in San Francisco [emphasis in the original].

…it is possible for us to create common-sense gun safety measures that respect the traditions of gun ownership in this country and hunters and sportsmen, but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon—by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.

Leaving aside his arrogance in presuming—contra the 2nd Amendment—that the Federal government has authority to determine the permissible purposes for owning weapons, Obama knows two things about this: he knows that that Lanza killed his victims with a semi-automatic rifle, not a fully automatic one, and he knows the difference between a semi-automatic rifle and a fully automatic one.