Posted on 12/24/2009 5:08:09 AM PST by LS
Folks, I hate to be a perpetual gloomster here, but anyone putting his faith in a Supreme Court reversal of any of this health non-care monstrosity has another think coming. First, the USSC seldom rules in favor of constitutionally limited government. Even in the Affirmative Action slapdown of the University of Michigan several years ago, the Court said in essence, “what you’re doing is wrong the way you’re doing it, but try other methods to reach racial balance.” In the notorious Kelo case, the Court affirmed the right of a local government to take land from one person and give it to another solely on the basis of efficient use of the land.
So prepare yourselves: the challenges to the health non-care bill will be on the grounds of inequality—that is, Nebraska got a special deal—or various “takings” that say that the Federal Government is taking money without constitutional authority. While valid in and of themselves, even if successful, they will result in a nit-picking approach that legitimates the entire premise that a) health care is a “right” and b) everyone else is forced to pay for your right.
Moreover, on the Fox Business Channel, a roundtable of analysts debated the impact on business, and this raises yet another danger of ever repealing this, namely it was argued that small businesses will simply pay the $750 fine rather than pick up the $9,000 health care tab for employees, foisting it on the federal government. I’d do the same if I was a small business owner, but this avoids the central point that the government will instantly adjust those fines to be $10,000. Once something is deemed illegal, the fine is the easiest thing to manipulate—just look at speeding fines.
The Republicans, both in the House and Senate, combined for a 256/257 votes against the bill (Cao, LA voting for the House version, but announcing he would vote against the conference bill). I don’t want to ever, ever again hear how the two parties are the same. You will never see such a stark difference in ideology, where even the limp-wristed RINOs voted against this horrid legislation. Elections do have consequences.
That said, the next election can swing dramatically the Republicans’ way, and make little difference. First, it’s darn near impossible to withdraw or repeal legislation once the bureaucracy starts to take root. Rush Limbaugh has explained this quite well. Second, the ideological commitment to take something away that has already been given requires an increased factor of two or more—look at how long it took to get rid of just some of the farm welfare programs, which lasted from the New Deal to 1994. No conservative president or congress has ever dismantled the Department of Education or Department of Energy.
But here’s the real genius of the Democrats’ plan, and it has even escaped some of our conservative commentators: Why did the Democrats put in place the taxes immediately, but the benefits only after 2014? Isn’t that the exact opposite of the FDR strategy of carrots first, sticks later?
In fact, the Democrats are well aware of the Tea Parties, which are now going to work against liberty. Here’s how: by passing the stimulus first and ballooning the deficits—which the Tea Parties and Liberty Groups became obsessed with (rightly so)—the Democrats will now run specifically on the tax increases as a means to battle the deficits and claim that any attempt to repeal any of this health non-care bill will be fiscally irresponsible and will result in higher deficits. I don’t know if it will work, but it’s the only play they have right now, and Republicans, running on dismantling the health non-care system will be fighting both the image of taking health care away from granny AND “spending more money.”
What’s the solution? There are only two avenues that I can see. One is to not only elect Republicans (and ONLY Republicans, because third parties are going to destroy any chance of repealing this by electing more Democrats), but to elect so many conservative Republicans that you actually get a massive majority in the House to the point that they can, and will, de-fund any and all parts of this. That’s a very, very tough row to hoe, because Newt tried it in 1995 and was permanently damaged by it. And we’re talking a very big majority—perhaps 60-100 new seats. Possible? Maybe. Likely? Not right now. The other alternative is a massive citizen strike, of such tremendous proportions that you pull a reverse “Piven-Cloward.” This is the radical Left strategy of so overloading the social welfare system that it breaks down and forces a radical revolution. (If no one gets their welfare checks, they take to the streets).
Lots of people have been blustering that they won’t pay their taxes, or will “go to jail” rather than follow parts of this bill—and absolutely a black market in medicine and drugs will appear—or otherwise refuse to comply with regulations. The problem with this approach is that the new legislation is going to be regulated and policed almost entirely either by the IRS or by employers. So it shifts the burden of civil disobedience from the many to the few who have the most to lose (owners), while at the same time taking the resolution of all protests out of the hands of citizen juries and into the hands of the government (the Tax Man).
If the Liberty Groups/Tea Parties were smart, they’d fold up their tents and attempt to get a two-thirds GOP majority in both houses, which is our last, best hope.
They repeat the cycle, rushing in to fill the void they created in the first place, using the scarcity as a pretext to abrogate more power for themselves. Socialism is planned poverty.
Cordially,
I am wondering just how long it will take them to drain every last bit of private assets. They are a swarm of locusts.
The two parties are the same. McCain would've had a similar bill, with all of the GOP voting for it, and Dems opposing it because itmight bolster GOP popularity. Both sides want more revenues, both sides want more control, both sides want majorities, both sides want more popularity (and thus job security), both sides have voted to change election rules to make 3rd parties less likely to succeed, both sides continue to allow anti-Constitutional policies and Departments to continue... not too many differences there.
Bammer has been working the numbers on the economy and unemployment and the media have been covering.
I don’t think the “real thing”, actual revenue based on income tax has been reported yet, though there are some indicators in states like mine, Maryland and California and at the county levels that revenue is way off. There will be a time when Obama has to have his moment of discovery and he will have to take his medicine.
Unfortunately, we will all suffer together.
By "this" I assume you mean the leftist power grab. I don't think that an inconsistent or even hypocritical approach is going to help.
Some politicians like Obama lie, and I don't want to copy that approach. The GOP has cost conservatives have too much power by not living up to conservative principles (spending in general and pork). Some GOP lawmakers put pork into the recent defense bill, when they had a great opportunity to set an example by not doing so.
At the same time, we should fight against the leftist evil with all our might.
There are different kinds of war, and lots of ways of fighting a war.
This is a war for the very soul and the essence of this country, a war being waged by 0bama, Pelosi and Reid against the American people.
We have no alternative but to fight fire with fire.
We WILL CRUSH 0bama and the Democrats in 2010 and take away their majority in the House, then complete their destruction by taking the needed 60 seat majority in the US Senate and the White house in 2012, with just enough time to kill this bill before it comes into effect.
“Big difference today: there are not two “sections.” “
You have not been paying attention to the grassroots anti-0bama movement of the Tea Parties, which are currently polling better than the Democrats and even the Republicans?Remember, it was the outrageous vote for Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 ( aaginst overwhelming opposition from voters), that led to the creation of the Republican Party, exactly like how the Tea Parties have emerged out of nowhere in reaction to 0bama's dictatorial communist policies and garnered huge support from the American people in such a short time already.
This a war between normal Americans, and the lunatics lead by 0bama , Pelosi and Reid. There can be oly one victor in this battle: The American people.
Reed is not even going to win re-election in 2010, Pelosi will not be Speaker come Jan 2011, and 0bama will not be President come Jan 2013.
I choose to believe you’re wrong because if you’re right, I have to unscrew the Dim bulbs in the White House, the Capital, and the SCOTUS. That’s a lot of unscrewing!
Progresives include union thugs, communists, socialists, democrats. The divisions in this country will grow, taxes will become oppressive, food will be expensive and scarse. Crime will skyrocket. Riots will ensue.
And this will be what 2010 looks like, the coming years will be even bleaker.
Never happen in a million years.
And FDR was not president in 1952 . . . and it didn't matter. What you say is probably correct---but will be irrelevant.
BTW, were you one of the ones insisting that this bill “would never pass? Ever??”
The vote, and I repeat, was 256-257 combined House and Senate Republicans AGAINST the bill and not one single "conservative" Dem. There is no such thing, and you sir/madam are absolutely drinking kool aid if you think McCain would have had a similar bill---as bad as he was.
Nope.
The Democrats have always had the votes to pass this bill.
Thing is, the American people will also have the votes to remove Pelosi, Reid and (in 2012), 0bama from power, and eventually overturn this bill.
Michael Barone is right. This is Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 all over again, and the this fight is far from over.
A year from now, Pelosi and Reid will be shedding bitter tears. We will make sure of that.
..decades later, the National Recovery Administration wrapped in Christmas paper, with a label reading “Health Care” showed up under the tree this morning—there will be no Supreme Court to stop it this time—Peace on earth, goodwill toward men...
With people like Sandra Day O’Connor (departedm yes!) and Ruth Ginsburg, and this funny Sotomayor the American people can sleep safely at night, knowing their “liberties” are being protected by those “who care”.
Tom Daschle would object to that characterization of his often liberal SD. So would Kent Conrad of Democratic ND.
0bama is NOT FDR.
FDR didn't leavbe the country with (an estimated $16 Trillion in debt, a lot of it owed to the Chinese), by the time he left power, like 0bama will by 2012.
FDR did not go cap in hand begging the Chinese to buy our bends so we can afford to finance our government.
NONE of FDR's New Deal bills passed with such overwhelming majority of the public, angrily against it like 0bamacare is currently hated by most Americans.
You are comparing two things that are not even close to being the same.
I don't think you have any idea of the anger that is sweeping this country right now against 0bama, Pelosi and Reid, or of the effects of the Tea Parties.
Yes, more of the Reagan “legacy”.
Separation of powers applies only when Dan Rather and Katie Couric say it applies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.