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.
Obama and his fellow Communists in Congress have written illegal acts into the DeathCare bill. They’ve written in Senate “Rules” such as no Sentor is allowed to submit a bill that canels DeathCare.
These Communists fully beleive that they can do as they pelase and there is nothing you can or will do about it.
“You are comparing two things that are not even close to being the same.
“
FDR was a socialist and gave us socialist programs. He gave us Social Security and other programs that are clearly unconstitutional. His programs cost the US in a continued depression that lasted for 10 years.
It is all I have left.
But it would come a no surprise to me if God simply doesn't care. I go back to the most recurring theme in the Bible, that is, His people frequently turn their backs on Him. When this happens, bad things happen to the people. When the people turn back to God, things get better.
Second, actually, FDR did saddle the country, in real dollars, with every bit as big a debt as Obama has. He tripled the national debt in less than seven years.
Third, FDR put into place goon squad agencies that literally told tailors how much they could charge to sew a pair of pants, and put one in jail for charging TOO LITTLE, and told kosher chicken sellers that they had to sell tainted or sick chickens to customers, even though they didn't want to and the customers (of course) objected. FDR blatantly tried to pack the Supreme Court, tried to impose a tax of 100% (yep, that's right) on everything over $500,000 income, and used the IRS to destroy anyone who didn't go along with the New Deal.
FDR was every bit as bad as Obama, except he didn't hate the U.S. per se the way Zero does.
A year from now they will be taking credit for the greatest socialist bill in human history, and there won't be a tear shed on their side anywhere. They have achieved their goal.
NRA is a great comparison. They told tailors how much they HAD to charge to sew pants; told people they HAD to buy the first chicken in a pen that came by, or the seller would be shut down (the sellers finally won a Supreme Court battle). This will be the NRA applied to medicine.
This may not be true for several reasons.
1. If polls are to be believed that 85% of the public likes the health care that they have, then granny already has health care. 85% of the people will know who it is who is taking their health care away.
2. If news reports are to be believed that only 15 million (not 50 million) people have health care, and the rest are youths and people between jobs, then the people already have health care and will know who it is who is taking it away.
Let's not keep propping up that cannard that the Republicans will get blamed for everything every time as an excuse for just taking it and not fighting back.
-PJ
“voters were not against those programs at the time.”
Are you sure about that? I recall my grandparents saying many were, that there was no Constitutional establishment for a welfare state. They were poor at the time but knew any penny given to the government was a penny from their pockets.
I doubt it. Your piece doesn't even come close to addressing the anger and the energy and the determination to bring down 0bamma and his communist policies, that is sweeping the county right now.
“Second, actually, FDR did saddle the country, in real dollars, with every bit as big a debt as Obama has. He tripled the national debt in less than seven years. “
# 1, FDR wasn't going cap in hand to beg the Chinese to lend him even more money, just so he can run his own country. Big difference.
# It's one thing to borrow money from Americans to run the goverment. It's an entirely different matter to go to potentially our biggest military enemies, cap in hand, time after time, to borrow money from them so we can run the government.
# 3. 0bama has already more than tripled the annual deficits in less than a year, with even more massive deficits to come. You are going to compare that to FDR tripling the national debt in 8 years?
# 4. The point is moot anyway, because while FDR's New Deal had the support of the public, 0bamcare is staunchly opposed by most Americans. That is the crucial point you are missing here.
“Third, FDR put into place goon squad agencies that literally told tailors how much they could charge to sew a pair of pants, and put one in jail for “
Again, a government can take drastic action to deal with a perceived crisis, as long as the public is behind those actions.
For example, Bush was able to pass the Patriot Act after 9/11, because over 90% of the public was FOR whatever it took to crush Al Quaeda and Al Quaeda agents.
If Bush had even come close to trying to force a bill like the Patriot Act, WITHOUT 9/11 happening, most of the public would have been up in arms against it, and he would have been strictly a one term president, from public backlash against Bush being perceived m to be power drunk wannabe dictator, which is exactly the position 0bozo is in right now. There is absolute no crisis that demands draconian bills liken 0bamacre (80% of Americans are happy with their health care), and voters are incensed about 0bamacare, and they are gonna make 0bama and the Democrats pay a very HEAVY price in 2010.2012 for their arrogance, sleaze, corruption, and total disregard for what voters demand.
Yes.
“I recall my grandparents saying many were, that there was no Constitutional establishment for a welfare state. They were poor at the time but knew any penny given to the government was a penny from their pockets.”
Well, no less a person that Michael Barone, who knows more about US political history than any current analyst, has stated that the only other time, when the public was so adamantly against a bill, and the congress (Democrats) passed a bill against the wishes of most American voters was in 1854. I am sure that was before even your grandfather was grown up.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/reform_bill_likely_legacy_SejC2P2VSHtmAB1ZjygnnM
And as for the notion that people like their health care, that may be true, but the change in the health care policies themselves don't come for several years.
Like I was “talking nonsense” last year when I said this would pass? BWA HAHAHAHAH.
You cited Kelo, well, we now have the benefit of hindsight to throw back in the Court's face that they were playing the same speculation game that New London was playing by saying that it was okay to take private property, not for more "efficient" use as you said, but for more profitable use by way of increased taxes.
New London was speculating on a future proposed business deal, and the Court accepted the premise of betting on the future as just as good as a government plan to build a road or school. It turned out that the business backed out of the deal and New London was left with an abandoned property that was sanctioned by the highest Court in the land.
How do we throw that back at the Court and admonish them to not make the same mistake twice?
-PJ
The American people would sell themselves into slavery if they thought they could make a buck. Lenin understood them better than our own “leaders”.
FDR — a socialist supported four times by Ronald Reagan.
What is the absolute BEST congressional makeup we could hope for from the 2010 election?
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.