Tag: Obama

Obamacare: The Mandate And the Taxing Power

33 comments

Oftentimes, the federal government finds itself wanting to promote a certain behavior as part of a national program, but without the direct power to do so. By way of example, in the 1980s, the Reagan Administration decided that it wanted the drinking age to be raised from 18 to 21 nationwide. But the drinking age isn’t a federal, but a state statute. In order to persuade states to raise the drinking age, the federal government passed an incentive plan. If a state failed to raise its drinking age to 21, it would find itself with a diminution in federal highway funding. 

“The power to tax involves the power to destroy”, wrote Chief Justice John Marshall in 1819. With respect to the Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare”, the power to tax also involves the power to build something. Under the law, beginning in 2014, Congress will require most Americans to obtain health insurance, or – if you don’t, you pay a fine to the government. The mandate was, ironically, a precondition set by the insurance industry, without which they would not be able to economically justify offering insurance to people with pre-existing conditions at no penalty.

The key part of Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion yesterday reviewed the constitutional justification for that mandate to purchase health insurance.  Congress’ powers are specifically limited and enumerated in Article 1 of the Constitution. 

Roberts turned first to the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8), whereby Congress has the power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”  Roberts rejected the argument that the government could regulate the absence of commerce; you cannot regulate that which does not exist.  His analysis seems somewhat limited, however. After all, there is not a personal alive who isn’t engaged in the health care market now, or inevitably. Even if you’re not seeking medical care, you’re paying for others’. 

Right now, you and I (and everybody) are taxed to help pay for uninsured people’s emergency room visits. ERs can’t turn people away, and oftentimes the poor and uninsured use them for primary care.  Those hospitals seek reimbursement for the cost of providing those services through two Federal Programs, Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) and Upper Payment Limit (UPL)–that require a 50% local share match. So…instead of forcing the cost of health care provision onto the people who don’t have insurance, you (a taxpayer, or a person with insurance) are paying for them to get health care with both your federal and county tax dollars. 

Secondly, Roberts turned briefly to the “Necessary and Proper” Clause, also in Article 1, Section 8, it reads, “The Congress shall have Power – To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”  Roberts declined to go along with this, reasoning that…

Each of our prior cases upholding laws under that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, and in service to, a granted power. For example, we have upheld provisions permitting continued confinement of those already in federal custody when they could not be safely released…[t]he individual mandate, by contrast, vests Congress with the extraordinary ability to create the necessary predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power.

And so, the last resort – the “in the alternative” argument – was most persuasive to the 5 members of the Court who voted to maintain the ACA mandate. The very first Congressional power enumerated at Article 1, section 8 involves the power to tax and spend. Roberts wrote that Congress’ mandate isn’t the issue – it’s the “penalty” imposed on people who refuse to purchase insurance. While the dissent argued that the government is semantically blocked from calling the “penalty” a “tax”, Roberts argued that the word “penalty” assumes some sort of fine for illegality. Yet the refusal to purchase insurance isn’t illegal – it isn’t a crime. It is merely a choice, and a person’s choice to opt to pay a tax instead of buying insurance is one that government can regulate under its taxing power. 

…the Government asks us to read the mandate not as ordering individuals to buy insurance, but rather as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product…

…None of this is to say that the payment is not intended to affect individual conduct. Although the payment will raise considerable revenue, it is plainly designed to expand health insurance coverage. But taxes that seek to influence conduct are nothing new. Some of our earliest federal taxes sought to deter the purchase of imported manufactured goods in order to foster the growth of domestic industry

Because Roberts invoked the taxing power, dumber pundits and lazy politicians have pivoted to calling it all – the whole law – a “huge tax”.  Perhaps they should read the law, and then read the Court’s opinion. It’s not a “huge tax”. It’s a mandate that you have health insurance. Chances are, you already have it – it’s not like you’re being forced to buy super-more health insurance on top of what you may already have. And if you don’t have it, you’ll have much easier and cheaper access to health insurance. And if you choose not to have any at all, then you’ll be assessed a fine, a tax, whatever you want to call it. 

The ACA’s “shared responsibility payment”  is a tax only on people who choose not to hold insurance. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant, mistaken, and/or lying. 

With the mandate in place, no longer will the person without health care get away with not paying hospital bills, and no longer will taxpayers be “mandated” to subsidize those choices. Instead, the person making the choice to avoid insuring himself will be assessed a tax in the eventuality that he becomes ill and can’t afford to pay his bill. Do you want the person without health care to be taxed, or do you want to continue to be taxed because they don’t have health care?

In the olden days, “personal responsibility” was a conservative talking point.  Now, we’re essentially codifying it through Obamacare – you’re responsible to get coverage, or for the consequences if you don’t. Now? 

The remaining portions of the decision dealt with (a) the Court’s analysis of whether the issue was ripe for decision (it is); (b) whether striking the mandate meant invalidating the whole law (they didn’t have to reach it); and (c) a provision dealing with the expansion of Medicaid, holding that States can reject federal funding and therefore not comply with the new rules. 

The misinformation and disinformation being spread over the last 24 hours has been simply mind-blowing. For instance, here’s a fundraising email that Republican congressional candidate Chris Collins (who, incidentally, never, ever has to worry about not being able to afford anything, ever, including health care) sent yesterday: 

Dear friend,

The Supreme Court has confirmed what we already knew – ObamaCare is nothing more than a massive tax increase that will hurt hardworking families and continue to act as a wet blanket on economic growth and job creation.

Today, I’m asking for your donation of $27 dollars to protect the residents of the 27th Congressional District from this massive tax hike and help end ObamaCare.

I need your help to stop Kathy Hochul and Barack Obama from raising taxes on thousands of Western New York and Finger Lakes families. 

$27. 

$27 is how we can protect our families in the 27th Congressional District from massive tax increases.

When I go to Congress, my first order of business will be to lead the fight to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with common sense solutions that protect seniors and don’t crush small businesses and cost us jobs.

$27 can get us there.

Whether it’s $27, or $5, $10, $50 or $100 – anything you can do to help us stop Barack Obama and Kathy Hochul from raising taxes and cutting Medicare by $500 billion is so important.  Will you consider donating today?

There’s so much at stake, and I need your help.

Sincerely,

CHRIS COLLINS

Congressional Candidate, NY-27

No, it’s not one side or another that won or lost – everybody won. Everybody will benefit from the implementation of Obamacare. It isn’t at all a huge tax increase, and the only reason Medicare funding goes down is because the ACA picks up the slack. Obamacare isn’t a “huge tax increase”, indeed it will help families by reducing the most common type of bankruptcy – ones brought about through medical expenses. Is this law a boon to insurers? Yes. That’s why many progressives didn’t like it much, and that’s why the law is something of a Frankenstein’s monster. But Obamacare, like its progenitor, Romneycare, is a fundamentally conservative idea. Because it’s been adopted by a Democratic President whom the Republicans are determined to ruin, it is now characterized as something it’s not. 

And make no mistake – the Republican drive to ruin Obama is so concentrated and driven, that it doesn’t matter what collateral damage there is to average Americans, or the economy. 

It’s not surprising to see a politician lie, but when mere puffery, (“I’m the best”), turns into brazen lying, (“I poop rainbows and spit unicorns”), you have to wonder what the politician thinks of the people who are going to vote for him. I heard some of our right-wing omniphobe media personalities liken the United States under the ACA to North Korea. There was heavy emphasis on “Hussein” yesterday, because “Hussein” is a foreign, Muslim name, and because somehow that correlates with socialism. Or something. I wish I was a professional psychologist so I could better analyze what was taking place.  Even Mitt Romney noted that the Court didn’t hold that Obamacare was a “good policy”. That’s jaw-droppingly dumb – Palin dumb. 

Requiring Americans to buy private health insurance from private corporations is socialist? Spreading the risk across most Americans so that health insurers can’t refuse to insure people with pre-existing conditions is like living in a Stalinist dictatorship with no market, no freedom, no food, no money, closed borders, and extensive gulags? How dumb. Almost as dumb as the many people who took to Twitter to decry the loss of America’s freedom and announce that they’d move to Canada, which has true single-payer socialized medicine. 

Set aside the crazies and the liars – Americans won today. The ACA – Obamacare – isn’t a perfect solution. No solution is perfect, after all. But it will make our health insurance in this country more affordable, with better coverage, and no longer will you live at the mercy of health insurance companies, fearing arbitrary rate hikes, lifetime payout maximums, or being barred from buying insurance due to a pre-existing condition if you change your job. This is good for people. 

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5zU1y_0Geo]

Clownshoes

4 comments

When professional Facebooker Sarah Palin quit her last public employment as Governor of Alaska, it was because the media were intruding too much and too far into her personal space, and her family. 

So it’s somewhat ironic to find Ms. Palin’s single-mother abstinence advocate, Bristol, criticizing the Obama family for helping the President arrive at his acceptance of same sex marriage. 

“Is anyone really surprised by the fact that President Obama came out of the closet for gay marriage? What was most surprising is when he explained how his position (supposedly) “evolved,” by talking to his wife and daughters“, wrote Bristol. 

The single mother of one, who is estranged from her babydaddy, went on to write, 

While it’s great to listen to your kids’ ideas, there’s also a time when dads simply need to be dads.  In this case, it would’ve been helpful for him to explain to Malia and Sasha that while her friends parents are no doubt lovely people, that’s not a reason to change thousands of years of thinking about marriage.  Or that – as great as her friends may be – we know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home.  Ideally, fathers help shape their kids’ worldview.

In this situation, it was the other way around.  I guess we can be glad that Malia and Sasha aren’t younger, or perhaps today’s press conference might have been about appointing Dora the Explorer as Attorney General because of her success in stopping Swiper the Fox.

Sometimes dads should lead their family in the right ways of thinking.  In this case, it would’ve been nice if the President would’ve been an actual leader and helped shape their thoughts instead of merely reflecting what many teenagers think after one too many episodes of Glee.

At what point does Tripp‘s dad get to be dad? The irony and cognitive dissonance here is so incredible – so palpable -as to be infuriatingly hilarious. It’s got everything, starting with the irony of a single mother lecturing the President – who is in a longtime monogomous marriage – about family values.

She lectures the Obamas about how to parent; she trivializes the societal and political import of same-sex marriage – which is critically important to many people, and does no one any harm; she clumsily throws up the idea that teenaged kids and their perhaps more progressive opinions about social issues are akin to a toddler recommending fictional cartoon characters to occupy cabinet posts; and finally, she passive-aggressively attacks Glee, which is a conservative bogeyman representing popular culture’s acceptance of LGBT people as valuable members of society. 

But what I want to know is something I Tweeted shortly after learning of this astonishing criticism by America’s Walking Contradiction: 

[blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/#!/buffalopundit/status/200644393131196416″]

Prez in Gay Flip Flop Flap

5 comments

The headline is tongue-in-cheek. Last night, that’s what I predicted the New York Post’s headline would be. I had to put myself in the mindset of an alliterative Murdoch-paid wingnut headline author.  Instead, the Post went with a Travolta massage story. 

Yesterday, I wrote, 

Obama is caught between a rock and a hard place here. If he follows his head and comes out in support of same-sex marriage, he risks alienating a huge swath of the electorate – especially those in swing states. This is all about independent and undecided voters, and a vicious campaign based on a selective, phony reliance on obscure Biblical passages ensures that the homophobic drive to oppose same-sex marriage will continue to be strong, and risk Obama’s re-election. 

Unfortunately, this is the perfect opportunity for Obama to led on this particular issue. It’s a great chance for him to give one of those barn-burner, epic, historical speeches he’s known for where he appeals to people’s decency and common sense to try and change minds. 

Later that same day, President Obama said that he had come around to the opinion that, in his opinion, gay couples should be able to get married. This was a shift from his previous opinion – that civil unions would do the trick.  As we learned during the debate in New York over same sex marriage, civil unions don’t do the trick very much at all. 

I’ve seen lots of reaction over Obama’s change of opinion. Some Republicans accuse him of flip-flopping.  But that only works when the politician has changed his view to something safe.  I don’t think this is safe at all – I think it’s risky. This is not a poll-driven thing – this came up unexpectedly thanks to Joe Biden’s appearance on Meet the Press last weekend. The White House took only a few days to get its act together on it.  Mitt Romney reaffirmed his position that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, thus further alienating a particular population – something the Republican field (including Swiss-American Michele Bachmann) had been doing throughout this campaign. 

But it’s clear that Romney is a bit irked by the attention Obama’s getting. 

 

Some Republicans quip that Obama has become – at long last – a clone of Dick Cheney.  For Republicans, that would be valid were it true that Cheney’s view was the mainstream Republican position, but it isn’t.  But even though Obama’s statement in support of same sex marriage didn’t come right out and advocate for any change in legislation – state or federal – it’s a pretty big deal. And it’s quite risky. 

But one thing it might do for Obama is reignite youthful enthusiasm for his re-election. The acceptance of same sex marriage isn’t just geographical or philosophical – it’s generational. 

I don’t know whether Taibbi’s right about this race being a yawn-fest. At the very least, it’ll be fun to watch the Republicans begrudgingly fall behind one-size-fits-all Romney, and I’m sure the attacks on Obama will be as ridiculous as they will be ubiquitous. But Obama has many vulnerabilities, and it will be a test of Romney’s … “managerial” bona fides to see how he exploits that. 

Afghanistan 2014

2 comments

President Obama addressed the nation yesterday from Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, and on the first anniversary on the elimination of Osama bin Laden, he explained that Afghani security will be Afghani-dependent beginning in 2014. Afghanistan and the United States also executed a “strategic partnership agreement” whereby the United States will work with Afghani security after 2014, but no permanent occupation will take place, and no bases will be built. 

Although the President says the “tide has turned” in the Afghan war, the country has by no means returned to any semblance of a pre-1973 stability or security. This is a country that hasn’t known peace and normalcy in almost 40 years, and it’s unlikely to know them anytime soon. 

But that’s soon going to be Afghanistan’s problem, not ours. What’s important here is that the withdrawal of American involvement will enable the Afghani government to start talking to the Taliban which, if it renounces violence, will be invited to participate in government. We may have been appalled by the Taliban government’s treatment of its citizenry – particularly its women – we went to war with them over their harboring of al Qaeda, not over their internal affairs. We weren’t so appalled by the Taliban that we did anything about their patrons in the Pakistani security service. 

And since al Qaeda was driven into Pakistan and out of Afghanistan, the mission has been muddled, at best. We helped set up the Afghani government that controls very little outside of Kabul. This is a country with a 12% literacy rate for females and 43% for males; with a $900 annual per capita GDP.  What Afghanistan needs isn’t more fighting, but investment in education, infrastructure, and to produce things that don’t involve poppies. That investment obviously can’t come from Afghanistan, which barely has a pot within which to piss, and – as in Iraq – American withdrawal risks further instability and the intervention by Afghanistan’s more malevolent neighbors.  The US should dedicate itself to make resources available to help Afghanistan educate its people and give them economic opportunity. 

But more importantly, President Obama closed with this: 

“As we emerge from a decade of conflict abroad and economic crisis at home, it is time to renew America. An America where our children live free from fear, and have the skills to claim their dreams. A united America of grit and resilience, where sunlight glistens off soaring new towers in downtown Manhattan, and we build our future as one people, as one nation.”

It’s also important that we stop fighting wars in Asia and start fixing our own problems here at home. 

A Democrat Not Playing Perpetual Defense?

16 comments

If you thought Obama 2012 was going to be like the Democrats of yore, who would forever be on defense and let the Republicans control the message, you’d be wrong. 

For instance, this ad is now airing in Ohio.  It should be called “boom goes the dynamite”. 

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5e0QoUdPJM]

And for those of you wondering whether Obama will run on his record, wonder no more. 

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WbQe-wVK9E]

Not the Whitey Tape

5 comments

Back in 1990, students and faculty at Harvard Law School protested and “went on strike” over the denial of tenure to an African American female professor, and the treatment of professor Derrick Bell, and the lack of faculty diversity at the school.  The editor of the Harvard Law Review at the time was Barack Obama, and he spoke at a rally on Bell’s behalf.  Frontline aired the footage in 2008, and Buzzfeed re-posted it yesterday as newly discovered. Typically, the domestic right-wing media claims that everyone involved – Buzzfeed, WGBH, Frontline, Obama, the Bilderbergs, the European Central Bank, Mossad, and the Tooth Fairy – have edited the tape to omit the part where Obama praises Stalin, dons a swastika, and publicly announces the murder of dead agent provocateur Andrew Breitbart. 

What it actually shows is a smart young guy who is already making his bones as a leader of people while still in school.  Pretty impressive stuff, and Obama’s role in that long-forgotten controversy was quite conciliatory – not at all confrontational or radical, as his haters would have you believe. 

http://www-tc.pbs.org/s3/pbs.videoportal-prod.cdn/media/swf/PBSPlayer.swf

Watch Obama Speaks at Harvard Law in ’90 on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.

Also, because it’s going to bear repeating, Obama’s speech in support of Bell’s fight against his own employer’s administration on behalf of faculty diversity does not mean that Obama somehow assumes responsibility for every view, theory, and opinion that Bell espoused or promoted as an academic.

News from a Failed State

Everything in the world is irretrievably broken!

1. An Illinois nazi is running for Congress as a Republican. He thinks that Obama is an “illegal alien”, and that the Holocaust is “the blackest lie in history“, and that it “never happened.” Congratulations, Illinois Republicans! (To be fair, insane cultist Lyndon LaRouche perennially appears on ballots as a Democrat).

2. While the WNY right wing establishment and its mouthpieces try desperately to try and embarrass Congresswoman Kathy Hochul’s poor response to a blatant Catholic-church-organized anti-contraception ambush, one should note that the whole anti-contraception thing didn’t do Rick Santorum (PA-Papist Party) any favors among Catholics in Michigan this week.  As for the constitutionality of a regulation requiring Catholic-owned entities to offer contraceptive services to their employees, there is no religious-based exemption from obeying laws of general applicability. Rastafarians don’t get a special exemption from anti-marijuana statutes just because it’s their sacrament. 

3. A federal judge sent an email to some friends suggesting that the President of the United States, Barack Obama was born as the result of intercourse between his mother, (who was white), and a dog.  Ha ha! That half-black Indo-Kenyan illegal communazi usurper came about as a result of BESTIALITY!  HAFUCKINGHA!  Luckily, his Honor has a perfectly reasonable explanation: 

I didn’t send it as racist, although that’s what it is. I sent it out because it’s anti-Obama.

Thanks for clearing that up!

4. Speaking of emails, Buffalo developer Carl Paladino sent out an email yesterday demanding that the Republicans in the state senate move immediately to remove Skelos from his post as majority leader, or else Carl and his band of tea party folks who led him to a sweeping 33% – 62% loss to Andrew Cuomo in 2010 would recruit candidates to replace every single one of them. 

Your self-serving and weak demeanor and participation in illusion and theatrics in dealing with the Governor, Sheldon Silver and the establishment cabal in Albany are an affront to the people who worked so hard to elect a Republican senate majority only to be thrown under the bus. 

You are either incompetent or diabolical in your indifference to what was expected of you in leading the opposition and highlighting and bargaining for issues vital to your party and the taxpayers. Your inability to demand government transparency or to adopt it as required process in senate deliberations was unacceptable.  

This memo shall serve as my demand, on behalf of the Republican Party rank and file, for your immediate resignation as majority leader of the N.Y. State Senate. 

The Free Republican Caucus Initiative will deal with those other treacherous Republican Senators who with you sold out their integrity and abrogated their pledges to the taxpayers.

I think it’s precious that Mr. Paladino presumes to speak, “on behalf of the Republican Party rank and file” despite having been elected to no office whatsoever. As for “Free Republican Caucus Initiative”, it should be henceforth known by the acronym, “FREECCI”.  FREECCI released a demand that any Republican senator who doesn’t wish to face a tea party primary sign some pledge or another, enumerating Carl Paladino’s demands. Aside from Skelos, however, only a certain number of senators are singled out: 

We will support republican candidates who agree to a simple pledge stated at the end of this memo. Included are a slate of republican primary candidates to oppose Mark Grisanti, James Alessi, Roy McDonald and Stephen Saland, all of whom showed a lack of integrity and respect for those who elected them.

What do they all have in common? They were the four Republican state senators who voted in favor of same sex marriage last year. Although Paladino never mentions it once in yesterday’s release, covering up all his fury with angry rhetoric about Medicaid, the deficit, transparency, and the media – this all comes down to the fact that these guys voted to let the gays marry, and Skelos let them do it. 

5. A farm in Nevada recently tried to hold a farm-to-fork dinner, featuring meat, fruit, and vegetables grown on small farms in the region. The Southern Nevada Health District at first tried to throw roadblocks in they way of the event. When the organizers went above and beyond what was demanded, what amounted to a SWAT team descended on the dinner, declared everything to be unsafe for human consumption, and ordered that everything be bleached and disposed-of. This is an outrage that deserves nationwide attention. 

6. The contents of Valenti’s restaurant were auctioned off yesterday to satisfy a debt of over $5,000. In other news, Mighty Taco announced yesterday that it will be opening up in the location on Division Street in North Tonawanda that most recently housed Valenti’s. 

7. A woman living in a huge mansion north of Albany was arrested after investigators found that she was keeping a woman from India as a virtual slave, paying her what amounts to $0.85/hour for the past 5-6 years. Annie George paid the worker only $29,000 since she had worked there at all hours as a servant, starting in 2005. Prosecutors say the worker, who is unnamed, is entitled to back wages of at least $206,000. Recordings of phone calls between George and the worker’s son in India reveal that George knew what she was doing was a “big crime.” 

8. Warren Buffet, whose Berkshire Hathaway owns the Buffalo News, is a huge fan of paywalls. A paywall at the Buffalo News is under consideration, and its implementation would only do further harm to it. 

9. Insane southwest Sheriff who finds himself the target of a federal abuse allegation, will today release the findings that a “posse” he organized with respect to President Obama’s birth certificate. At long last, we’ll have a crazy elected official’s opinion on this huge controversy!

Vocabulary

10 comments

Photo: Los Angeles Times

Everyone knows the old adage that there are “two sides to every story”. So, when you write a book in which you mother-eff the Presidentas being rude, but the President doesn’t see it that way, you might expect a bit of blowback from that.

Especially when you have a track record of making stuff up out of whole cloth for political gain or sympathy. A person who has abandoned SCHIP health care coverage for the kids of the working poor, a person who used federal education funds to battle immigrants, a person who is virulently homophobic – her character is called into question by virtue of her opening her mouth.

So, when the subject of your mischaracterization calls you out on it, privately and to your face, that’s not being “thin skinned”, that’s called “defending oneself against untrue and unfair attacks”, and with Ms. Brewer running to the closest cameras to moan about how mean the President was to confront her politely about her lies, it is she who is the thin-skinned one, as evidenced by the picture shown above, which, as another old adage goes, tells a thousand words.

1 2 3 4 5