3/18/2010
Federal Health Care Bill
Today I have introduced a Resolution urging our Minnesota Congressional Delegation to oppose the passage of HR3590, the federal health care bill, which Congress has titled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Below is a column I have written on this bill and why it should be strongly opposed by the members of Congress and our federal government. I encourage you to watch for this issue to develop more fully over the next few days, as Congress is expected to attempt to pass this bill on Saturday. I welcome any comments you have on this issue!
Minnesota Should Be Heard in Health Care Battle
By State Senator Julianne Ortman
The federal health care bill (HR 3590) is unconstitutional. The State of Minnesota has a responsibility to act now to protect and defend itself and its residents from an abuse of power by the federal government. The U.S. Constitution was designed to protect against congressional over-reaching by a separation of powers, not just between the three branches but also in the form of governmental powers divided between the federal government's limited set of enumerated powers and the States' more expansive powers.
The Tenth Amendment reserves to the States the right to exercise all governmental powers not specifically granted to the federal government: "The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states,
respectively, or to the people." The State of Minnesota has an evident and compelling interest in opposing an usurpation of its sovereignty by a federal government run wild. The federal health care bill contains two substantial and unconstitutional provisions that encroach on the rights of the people and the State of Minnesota.
First, the mandate in the bill that would force U.S. residents to buy health insurance is unconstitutional. The bill identifies for the source of authority, the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which authorizes Congress, in a limited role, to regulate commercial activity that affects interstate commerce.
While the Commerce Clause would allow regulation of health insurance companies and services, or the provision of healthcare, this is not what is proposed. Rather, the bill would compel private persons to buy insurance from a private insurance company. The Commerce Clause has never been used to force anyone to buy anything; it is used to regulate economic activity, not inactivity (i.e., not buying insurance).
In 1994, President Clinton proposed universal health care coverage; the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported that such a system likely would be unconstitutional under U.S. Supreme Court precedents interpreting the Commerce Clause, and warned that such an action by Congress would be unprecedented. "The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States." A Congressional Research Service Report in July, 2009 similarly questioned whether the Commerce Clause "will provide a solid constitutional foundation for legislation containing a requirement to have health insurance."
Second, the federal legislation imposes an unconstitutional tax on individuals who do not comply with the mandate to buy health insurance. It is called a "shared responsibility penalty," but it is a tax nonetheless, and will be imposed upon any non-exempt person in the U.S who fails, for one month or more, to maintain "minimum essential coverage."
This penalty is a "capitation tax" because it is imposed on a per-person basis (rather than on income), and thus is specifically prohibited by the Constitution in situations (such as this) where it cannot be applied proportionately among the States according to their population: "No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census…" and "direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states…according to their respective numbers." U.S. Const. Article I, Sections 8 and 3. Given the numerous exemptions in the bill (for example the poor, the incarcerated, and illegal aliens) which cannot affect all 50
States to exactly the same degree, this tax cannot be implemented proportionally in a way that meets the constitutional requirement. Moreover, the Supreme Court is unlikely to stretch the contours of the Constitution to suffer such an unlawful capitation tax when other financing and enforcement options are available that would not offend the Constitution.
There are many other flaws in this legislation, among the most obvious of which are: 1) the fact that the CBO projects a 10–13% increase in premium costs by 2016 as a result of the scheme; and 2) it is overwhelmingly unpopular (53% of respondents to a recent Rasmussen poll oppose the plan and 46% strongly oppose it, while only 43% favor it).
In our constitutionally divided government, the different divisions are expected to control each other at the same time that each unit controls itself. See Federalist No 51 (James
Madison). Evidently the federal government has neither the will nor the ability to control itself, so now is the time for the State of Minnesota to speak to the issue.
Members of the Minnesota House and Senate took the same solemn oath, "to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Minnesota." Fidelity to the Constitution is our highest obligation as elected officials. Now is the time for us to speak out to protect and defend our State and its residents against unconstitutional encroachment by the federal government.
Reasons to Oppose the Health Care Bill
1) The health care industry accounts for one-sixth (1/6) of the U.S. economy and (as of 2007) public and private health care spending in Minnesota totaled $32.5 billion (60% of which comes from private health insurance, consumer out of pocket, and other private spending).
2) Minnesotans don't want the comprehensive overhaul contained in this 2,700-page, 10,000- section bill. Instead, they strongly prefer incremental improvements to the health care system. Policymakers should proceed slowly and deliberately, so as not to disrupt what Americans have and want to keep, and do not result in costly, damaging, and unintended consequences.
3) Minnesotans want consumer-driven reform, and they want health care programs to deliver value to the taxpayers. The GAMC reform is a great example.
4) Minnesotans want to be able to buy health care across state lines or to have more insurers in our market. We want improved access to health savings accounts and medical liability reform.
5) Minnesotans want reforms that focus on increased choice and competition, not by turning control over to Washington, but by empowering individuals and families to control their health care dollars and decisions.
6) A proposal with this wide a scope, with this strong of public opposition, and containing certain legal challenges should have greater transparency and accountability.
a. The bill contains more than 10,000 sections and 2,700 pages.
b. The bill imposes more than 100 new government mandates on private individuals and private businesses.
c. The bill creates a Health Care Czar to impose health care price control.
7) The process for passing this bill is broken. Congress plans to pass the bill only on a procedural voice vote on Saturday, with no debate and no roll-call recorded vote.
a. The bill should be available with sufficient time for review analysis
b. The bill should have public hearings with sufficient notice for interested parties to participate and share their expertise about the impacts and implementation.
c. Members of Congress should have sufficient opportunity to amend the bill and debate the bill in public.
d. Congress should act only with a roll call vote on the substantive provisions.
e. Congress should enact a non-severability provision (if one provision is found unconstitutional, the whole bill should be struck down) so as not to leave a chaotic mess of mandates for health care without the corresponding revenues to pay for them.
8) There are better, more straightforward ways to raise revenues to pay for health insurance subsidies or create incentives to buy insurance.
a. The income tax is the most straightforward way to raise revenues to pay for health care for those without coverage.
b. Income tax credits can be used as incentives.
c. Neither would be unconstitutional, but both are politically and fiscally disastrous. Politicians are attempting to avoid the truth (the truth being that those in power really want to raise taxes to pay for spending), and the product of this avoidance is an extremely distorted bill.
d. By attempting to force individuals to buy insurance contracts, the federal government is attempting 'off the books' spending that will not affect the deficit.
e. If they raised taxes, and/or issued tax credits, they would be committing to uncontrolled spending and uncontrollable costs. Instead they prefer to keep the program and the costs off the books by channeling money through private insurance companies in the form of 'premiums.' This will lead to a result of no accountability, no governmental oversight for the costs, and no responsibility for the success or failure of the program.
9) The big expansion in coverage comes about 4 years from now, allowing 30 million people to sign up for insurance with financial help from the government for most. Rising med costs and an aging population will keep squeezing the federal budget.
10) In Nov. 2009 the Congressional Budget Office reported that the Senate Health Care Bill would raise premiums by more than $200 on family policies compared to the cost if Congress did nothing.
a. This is a 10-13% increase for individuals and families for the cost of health insurance.
b. In 2016, the projections for health care costs under this bill are $5,800/year/individual and $15,200/year/family as opposed to $5,500/year/individual and $13,100/year/family under the status quo.
Rasmussen Poll Results
11) March 1, 2010
A – 76% of respondents say their own coverage is 'good' or 'excellent'.
B – 48% believe the quality of health care will get worse if the bill passes.
C – Voters over age 65 have the lowest level of support of the bill.
12) March 15, 2010
A – 53% of respondents oppose the bill, 43% favor it.
B – 46% strongly oppose it, 23% strongly favor it.
C – Just 21% of voters believe the federal government has the consent of the governed.
D – 51% of respondents fear the federal government more than they fear private insurers; 39% fear private insurers more.
13) March 12, 2010: Unhappiness with Congress reached its highest level ever, with 71% saying the legislature is doing a poor job.
14) Feb. 18, 2010
a. 75% of voters are angry at the politics of the federal government.
b. Nearly half of all voters believe that people randomly selected from the phone book could do as good a job as the current Congress.
Thank you for reading. I welcome your responses to H.R.3590 and to my response to this bill. I encourage you to watch my YouTube Channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/MNSenatorOrtman) for updates on Senate Floor debate, press conference clips, and other clips of the actions of the Senate!
Sincerely,
Julianne Ortman
State Senator
District 34
Like usual, a conservative state senator using FOX talking points to make a case in which she offers no real solutions of her own.
ReplyDeleteThe bill isn't perfect. But it does aim to get 30 million more people covered. No republican plan comes close to that.
Anonymous...Sen. Ortman is not using Fox talking points; rather those are the talking points established by the Republican Party. Does that mean that Democrat Party talking points are also MSNBC talking points?
ReplyDeleteOutsidte of that, you assertion that no Republican has not developed a plan is unfounded. Rep. Ryan (R-WI) has for a long time offered an option, http://www.house.gov/ryan/PCA/PCA.htm, only to be rebuffed by the Democrats in the House. If you paid any attention to debate on the House floor you'd know that nearly every amendment that Republicans offered were struck down as "being out of order".
The Dem's, especially in the House, kept the Republicans out of the process. The kicker is that health care reform needs 0 Republican votes.
Are you talking about the plan to force people to buy insurance without regulating the insurance company abuses? Removing the employer based coverage? Forces low income families off medicaid?
ReplyDeleteI see why it was rebuffed....
The question was raised about Republicans offering a plan that would eliminate a majority of those uninsured.
ReplyDeleteDo you really think that what is currently being discussed in regards to the Senate reform bill does not translate to the elimination of employer based coverage? The penatly to the business owner is far cheaper than to continue to offer coverage. Our economy is attempting to re-emerge from a recession but this health care reform will only result in another round and potentially bankrupt America.
While I can understand why Socialists want to see the demise of America, I struggle with those that call them Americans - Conservative or Progressive.
That argument is unfounded and speculative. And now that you bring the dreaded S-word into the conversation your anger towards democrats is proven to be symbolic at best.
ReplyDeleteYou and the rest of America has no idea what this bill is going to do. For all you know, it will create a model healthcare system for the world to see.
Is it expensive? Yes. But it will be far more expensive for us to do nothing. And, the CBO calculated that it would save money in the long run.
Is it far reaching? Probably. But this plan basically funnels millions of people into the health insurance market.
My argument is not unfounded nor speculative. One thing we can agree on is that raising of taxes and the fact the implementation of the "reform" is four years out. Plus, as a small business owner, which I am, why would I offer health care benefits if the costs of paying the fine outweighs the costs of providing coverage?
ReplyDeleteMy anger is not toward Democrats; rather my words are directed at those that openly call themselves Americans while in secret promote ideals of Socialism.
And you agree that it is expensive, so who pays for that? We will need to see our taxes to rise and who does that hurt the most? The middle and lower class loses out here. The CBO also pointed out that the dollars used to pay for this is taken from other programs. Where is that money going to come from? Rep. Ryan displayed a graph, based on CBO data, that should the ripple effects on other programs and the double counting of dollars - to which the CBO acknowledges.
Blah blah blah blah blah. Viper, your arguments are old and tired. The same old crap recycled over and over. And to think, I actually checked your blog hoping to see a post about why health care reform should be supported. So much for you taking the contrarian view.
ReplyDeleteBlah blah Republican blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah bankrupt America. Socialists blah blah blah blah blah Progressive blah blah blah blah. Blah blah promote ideals of Socialism.
ReplyDeleteIt's scary. You sound so much like Glenn Beck and Fox News. He really must have convinced you that Progressive is the cool new pejorative to use when describing liberals. Well, if you want to progress, you must want to progress towards socialism and then fascism. That's really the only possible conclusion. We know you're not progressing to the right so you must be going as far left as you possibly can.
Is that supposed to be some sort of warning? That, if left to their own devices, "Progressives", "Liberals" or "Democrats" will inevitably turn the U.S. into a socialist, fascist, communist society? Really?
I'm over the entire health care debate. I've come to realize that things will not be as good as they promise nor as bad as they predict. They just won't. And don't think it's because the new bill will get repealed or the majority or even a portion of the states will reject it or tie it up in the courts. Those aren't the reasons at all. It's just that there's nothing more than grandstanding going on. That's it. We'll all wake up with ten fingers and ten toes; the sun will come up; doctors will still go to work; my employer will still provide a health insurance plan; and we'll live to see another day.
In your book, that will of course be the day that historians look back and say: "Geez, we really should have listened to that Ardent Viper guy. He was so smart. So prescient. He had it all figured out."
Wake up Viper. Stop dreaming. No one would ever say that about you. Ever.
Chris, did you just say the following:
ReplyDelete"Sen. Ortman is not using Fox talking points; rather those are the talking points established by the Republican Party."
Really? Even I will admit that Fox news isn't news as much as it is propaganda. Who is their president again? And what was his former occupation? Enough said.
And obviously fox news didn't cover the AMA statement in support of this bill or discuss the reasons why they felt that delaying the implementation was critical did they?
So I'll paraphrase a portion of their opinion in support. A major reason why the bill takes 4 years to implement actually has practical reasons. Currently the healthcare system is strained in many cities. Adding 30 million people to the healthcare system overnight could break it. That's not my opinion, that's the opinion of the AMA. The delay was in part due to their request for it to be delayed so that the system could be built up to better support an additional 20% more patients. From that perspective, the delay seems well thought out don't you think? So how exactly does your point make any sense given this fact?
Again, the devil is in the details.
Chris, I shudder at the constitutional rammifications of this bill. I truly do. But it's not socialism, I'll admit that. It's not communism, I'll admit that. And those programs that you point to that are losing funding (IE. Medicare) well that is socialism. So why aren't you ok with that fact? Personally I think medicare is a disgrace and am OK with it losing some of it's funding.
Here's the thing though in all of this that you seem to be missing. I have enough faith in our coutry and it's system of governance that I believe that if this is unconstitutional it will be struck down on appeal. You seem to not have faith in our system of government which makes me question what you are standing for then.
Here's the true issue that bothers me and it's not healthcare. I know you're a Tea partier and so my question to the tea party members is are they proud of their behavior during this debate? Was it the kind of debate they think moves this country forward or backwards?
Personally, I see them as nothing but right wing wacko's who had a podium to scream from for a few minutes of history but who offered nothing of substance. They'll be forgotten when the dust settles. But in the process they set those of us who truly tried to stand for the constitution back 20 years with their bile, hate and venom. And I despise them for that.
Yes, I did say that the talking points that Sen. Ortman highlighted are the Republican talking points and not using Fox talking points. Now, are the Republicans using Fox news pundits, like Democrats use MSNBC pundits, to spout their talking points; yes.
ReplyDeleteIf this bill stays intact and survives constitutional review, we will see companies moving away from offering health care coverage. The fine for a company that does not provide insurance will be far less than what it would be if they provided it.
Kevin..the passing of the bill lays the groundwork for Medicare expansion to all. I agree with you that Medicare needs to go. The passing of this bill also grows the IRS by 16K and expands their powers, how does that not push us toward Socialism?
Could you show me what section of this bill increases the IRS and how their powers are expanded?
ReplyDeleteAlso, is Medicare to blame or is it the Congress who runs and funds it to blame. I get a sense that the program has been quite successful. It was never intended to be a slush fund for members of Congress to fund wars with.
I would also like to know how you believe that companies are going to move away from coverage. Is your implication that small businesses who don't have coverage now are simply not going to be interested in supplying it and pay the fine instead? How are large companies who do supply healthcare going to care?
A statement released last week by Rep. Brady, member of the House Ways & Means Committee, stated that "a new analysis by the Joint Economic Committee and the House Ways & Means Committee minority staff estimates 16,500 new IRS personnel is needed to collect, examine and audit new tax information mandated on families and small businesses..."
ReplyDeleteThe trouble with any entitlement program, the greedy Congress members cannot leave it alone which is why it is best left to the private sector. Looks at SSN as another example and the TARP fund is being used as a slush fund as well.
Ask your HR person, check that because they won't come out and say it, but do the math. When I was laid off and offered Cobra I found out how much my former employer was paying to cover me and my family. The amount they paid was three to four times, depending on which number is being applied, more than the fine they'd have to pay if they did not offer it. Are you really trying to say that companies that are looking to cut costs will not turn to this? Besides if they do the health care entitlement will become portable.
As a small business owner, here are 3 reasons I would comply.
ReplyDelete1) You understand and accept that in order to live in a civilized society you have to comply with all of the laws, even the ones you don’t agree with.
2) Individuals have to pay fines if they don’t have coverage. Who is going to work for a company that disregards their legal obligation? Coverage will be necessary to attract and retain top talent, resulting in a more profitable and better business.
3) Do you really think the IRS cares much about the individuals fines? It will audit the heck out of you going back, and every year forward, resulting in financial costs to defend the audit plus possible other fines and interest related to those returns. Plus, I think they can send you to jail for tax fraud. Basically, failure to do so is dropping your pants and inviting the IRS to have its way with you.
I agree that we need to comply with the laws of the land no matter how unconstitutional they may be. The bill also provides for people, as high as $80K, to recieve assistance if their employer does not provide insurance. These people would not face a fine as you allude to above; rather the only ones that will are those that flat out reject the notion. As for the IRS, it will give them more power and it will give the President temptation to use that power to beat down his opponents.
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line is that our Constitution does not allow for Congress or the President through executive order to mandate Americans purchase a specific product(Congress) or restrict the use of taxpayer money on aborition (Executive Order).Then again Obama has proven one thing in regards to change in Washington, that the US Constitution need not apply.
Please provide the US Supreme Court case that specifically rules in your favor? The mandate might not have happened yet in our history, but that doesn't mean it's automatically unconstitutional. Until the Supreme Court rules, it's only a matter of opinion that the mandate is unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteThis is why the Implied Consent Clause established by the US Supreme Court is so damaging. The US Constitution does not give Congress the power to mandate that Americans buy a certain product. The US Consitution does clearly list out powers that Congress can engage in and mandating anything is not on the list.
ReplyDeleteWhy is that concept so difficult to understand?
I've taken multiple courses in Con Law and we've never talked about an Implied Consent Clause. What are you referring to?
ReplyDeleteOne of those powers is the Necessary and Proper clause, which you are aware of.
There is a difference between not undestanding and disagreeing about constitutional interpretation.
Do you mean implied powers? The concept that Washington asked Hamilton to come up with that helps give flexibility to the Constitution. Two of those Founding Fathers you are fond of invoking. . .
ReplyDeleteI refer to McCulloch v. Maryland as what I am talking about.
ReplyDeleteWhat specific text from that decision? The word "implied" is used several times but the word "consent" is never used. Please cite the specific text in the decision that sets forth the "implied consent clause".
ReplyDeleteChris, I struggle to see how increasing the IRS is socialism but I'm sure you'll tell me.
ReplyDeleteI wish you could read what you're writing from an outsiders perspective Chris. You sound like chicken little squacking that the sky is about to fall. Here's the thing though, it's not. This type of "world ending" demagoguery has been around since John Adam's said that the nation would fail should Jefferson take the Presidential office. It didn't happen then, it didn't happen when Social Security passed, it didn't happen when Bush passed his tax cuts. Its just not going to happen.
You seem to only see the world in black and white. And if you are white, and someone disagrees with you then they must be black. I hate to tell you this though, but the world is grey and nothing is as simple or cut and dry as you seem to want it to be. There are constitutional scholars who have studied that document for 40+ years who disagree on it's meaning. I will leave it to my betters to determine what is constitutional about this bill and what is not. In the end, the supreme court will rule on this, I have no doubt.
But here's the thing you need to consider. Much of this bill was touted by the Republicans prior to Obama taking office. Only after he adopted these stances did they turn against them. This is all for political theater to get more seats in the fall. Once they get those seats do you really think they're going to repeal this bill? It's highly unlikely. The theater paid off. They will see no value in dredging up old legislations in order to look like complete obstructionists. At best, they'll pass amending legislation to appease the anti-abortion contingent of their base. I might point out that doing this goes against the libertarian principals you seem to stand for since it infringes on personal liberties.
So the question is, why are you running around like a chicken with your head cut off squacking about this bill? It passsed and will likely be signed just like Bush passed his tax cuts and prescription drug plan. The world won't end tomorrow and ranting about this won't change the outcome. So why expend all the energies on it?
What I find more interesting is that you seem to have ignored a point I made addressing the 4 year delay in implementation. Care to go back and address that? Delaying 4 years is a practical decision isn't it - based upon what I put forth?
Oh, and a point I find reprehensible on your part is the following type of commentary.
ReplyDelete"My anger is not toward Democrats; rather my words are directed at those that openly call themselves Americans while in secret promote ideals of Socialism."
While you may not like socialism, you were raised in it. Your education through high school was government funded and managed which is socialism. Your parents probably partake in social security or medicare and if they don't they will that's socialism. Hell, if you took unemployment ever, or collected any type of social assistance that's socialism. How again is socialism this big bad evil monster?
How is someone unpatriotic because they don't agree with your interpretation of "american ideals"?
The whole point of america is that I can think the way I choose, live the way I choose and believe the way I choose. So how again is socialism un-american and what gives you the right to define it as such?
Again, you are a product of "socialist" mechanisms in society. It seems more than a little hypocritic to suddenly decry them as "un-american".
Just some food for thought.
Kevin..why do you lump the decision of the Republicans to pass anti-abortion with my view? While I personally do not approve of abortion, I do acknowledge that people have the right to do so. At the same time, I do not see where the government should provide money for someone to have one as part of those dollars being spent is mine.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the world won't end tomorrow, partly because the changes do not get implemented for 4 years down the road. I do acknowledge that certain aspect of the changes will take time to implement; like training 16,000 IRS agents to ensure everyone has health insurance.
You asked what give me the right to define socialism as unamerican; the US Constitution does that.
Stop invoking the U.S. Constitution when its blatantly obvious that you have no detailed knowledge or understanding of its contents.
ReplyDeleteI'm still waiting for an answer to my question on the exact citation for the establishment of the "implied consent" clause in McCulloch v. Maryland. I find your statement interesting in an of itself since it sounds like a bit of judicial activism to "establish" something so foundational.
By the way Kevin, I'm a big fan. I was waiting for the Viper to respond with something to the effect of "without people like me to call attention to these issues we'd all be doomed to a socialist, fascist, communist nightmare of an existence." It's the Glenn Beck style. "I don't want to tell you this, but I feel I have to."
I find it interesting that you find a right to abortion in the constitution but yet rail against implied powers and reading into the constitution things that are not explicitly stated. Where in the constitution is abortion found? Only through an expanded reading do we find that right to privacy. As they say, in the penumbras of rights.
ReplyDeleteAnd to the other annon, pretty sure you know this, but you won't find implied consent because there is no such doctrine in constitutional interpretation. Implied powers, yes.
It's far less of leap to conclude that the necessary and proper clause gives congress the ability to pass this legislation than the a right of privacy existing that includes the right to abortion.
"You asked what give me the right to define socialism as unamerican; the US Constitution does that."
ReplyDeleteWow, just wow. I'm shocked beyond belief. May I point out that you are acting as judge to the adulterer even though you too are an adulterer in your Gods eyes? Or are you only principled when judging others? I suspect we both know the answer to this question?
Now, please cite precisely where in the constitution it states that socialism is unconstitutional and unamerican? I'm just DYING to hear this one from you because your statement above is indefensible.
You sound like a McCarthy'ist which makes you nothing more than a fascist since you believe that there is only one truth and you hold it and anyone that disagrees with you is a "traitor" and "unamerican". That's very telling about where you stand on these issues.
But it begs the question - who made you judge, jury and arbiter of what the constitution means and doesn't mean? Where does your plethora of expertise come from? Sadly I suspect it's Glenn Beck.
The fact is, you are not the arbiter of what is or is not american. Moreover, your hypocrisy of railing against socialism all the while attempting to profit from it tells of just how principled you are on this regard. I'm referencing your support for the state paying for the waste treatment upgrades in Hamburg. You want it upgraded, pay the taxes yourself. Dont ask me to pay for you to have something - that's socialism.
Or didn't you know that?
And to the "fan" I'm not trying to be mean here. But my issue is this. Most tea partiers claim to be libertarians and as a card carrying libertarian I'm disgusted by them for the most part. They make those of us who truly believe the ideology to look like right wing nutjobs when we're not. Chris said something above that scares the crap outa me. It means that people who are completely rational (which Chris is) can believe that they have the right to judge my patriotism since I disagree with him. Mind you I don't support socialism, but I do disagree with his constitutional interpretation of it being unamerican.
Twisting my ideology to suit your own distorted political ends is disgusting and I wish all of the tea partiers would go back to their crappy Republican party where they belong. They're hypocrites.
Kevin...this is the beauty of the US Consititution. I can define, frame, and say my view on socialism being unamerican just as you or anyone else can argue against my interpretation. What we are doing is exactly what the US Consitution allows us to do.
ReplyDeleteHow am I being an adulterer? I acknowledge that socialism has every right to exist in America as any other view. I can speak out against socialism without risking being hypocritical.
As for the reference to state paying for Hamburg's I/I problem dives deeper than simply state. The deal with our I/I problem is a direct result of unfunded mandates places upon cities by the State and Federal Government. If the State and Federal Government is going to dictate to cities of what they must do then, I feel, they best establish a way to assist cities to accomplish the new unfunded mandate.
This is no different then the Medicare and Medicaid mandates that the Federal Government has and will be putting on the States. The new Senate bill puts unfunded mandates with expansion of Medicare on the States which is partly why nearly 30 Attorney State Generals are looking into suing the Federal Government.
Part of the reason I consider myself an Independant is because I do not fit the mold of a Republican, Tea Party, Coffee Party or a Libertarian or even a Democrat.
Anon..who asked about Implied Power clause..I did write a bit about it on Jan 7th of 2010. See my blog entry McCullough vs. Maryland: Implied Power Clause Established – Constitutional?
ReplyDelete"I acknowledge that socialism has every right to exist in America as any other view. " If socialsim has every right to exist in America, and America is about the rights we have, then socialism isn't unamerican.
ReplyDeleteAnon...Yes, the US Consititution does allow for those that subscribe to Socialism to assemble and participate in America. Now, one who believes in Capitalism and Democracy also has the right to consider Socialism unamerican too.
ReplyDeletePerhaps we need to define what is "American".
If the document that defines American gives me the right to do it, how is doing so unamerican?
ReplyDeleteFeel free to consider what you want, but it doesn't mean it's right. You might think it's bad for American, but that doesn't mean others agree and that it's unamerican.
Chris, remember how I told you I like to play devil's advocate? Here we go, I'm going to try to follow your logic.
ReplyDeleteYou stated above that you're for a the government paying for Hamburg's waste treatment fix because it's mandated by the government. This makes your partaking in a socialist behavior ok, because as stated above, it's mandated. I think I paraphrased that right.
So therefore, by that logic, you are for this healthcare bill because it is government mandated socialist program. I say that because your stance on issue #1 is pro-socialist as long as it's government mandated. Therefore, if #1 is true, as you stated it, then logically #2 would also be true.
Unless of course your willing to admit that principals change depending upon the circumstances. And you're only willing to accept government aid if it benefits you and unwilling to contribute when it doesn't.
Which is it? I'm dying to know.
You see, I want to agree with you on this one, I really do. I don't like this healthcare bill and I question it's constitutionality. But what you said above I find reprehensible (your having the right to determine americanism) and feel a need to call you out on it. Combine that with the blatantly contradictory nature of your stance on socialist programs I pointed out above and you have what I'd call a connundrum.
I just wonder how you can reconcile it and stay principled.
Kevin..I love the devil’s advocate as I have am one two. The logic you attempt to apply, as I see it, is flawed because you are comparing two different types of unfunded mandates. Actually the health care mandate is partially funded depending on your income level but I digress.
ReplyDeleteThe issue before Hamburg is that we cannot increase our tax base - either through new housing or business - because our I/I ratio is maxed out. Now the Government as mandated that all cities must meet certain I/I ratios or face fines if they go beyond the threshold. That being said, the Government is placing a burden upon the city that is different than the burden the Government is placing on the individual in regards to health care.
Since the mandate restricts the city’s ability to grow and I can leave the city at any time, I do not see funding from the Government to assist or pay for the entire improvement as a socialist program. I see this unfunded mandate assistance no different than Federal funds used for interstate roads.
Now, in regards to health care mandate. Although for the most part it is unfunded, I as an individual cannot leave my current location for another within the United States to avoid the health care mandate. To require the citizenry, by the Government, to purchase a single product goes against the very fabric of freedom, liberty and the pursuit of justice. Once we allow the Government to dictate to us what we have to buy then we lose our freedoms and start down a slippery slope. What will be the next item the Government will tell us we must buy or face a fine and/or imprisonment?
So that is how I rationalize it and stay principled to my ideals of freedom and the American way.