Tax or Fine? Doesn't matter. Obamacare is Bad for America

The Romney campaign has spent the last week arguing over whether Obamacare is a fine or a tax.  I know I've been doing the same thing...but that is because I disagree with the Supreme Court's decision and I still believe Obamacare is Unconstitutional. Either way, the Obamacare Law needs to go. Obamacare is still bad for America.

I know I can hear you now..."All the other first world nations provide healthcare for their people!" Well, first of all, my friend, I think you should know what Obamacare is...because it doesn't expand coverage except for demanding you buy it. Might as well expand home ownership by demanding everyone buys a house. Secondly, please show me the nation that can AFFORD their massive socialized medicine? You can't. They're all going bankrupt.

Let's compare national debts, shall we?  As a baseline, the United States has a national debt that is 62% of our nation's Gross Domestic Product. Great Britian (who has socialized medicine) has a national debt that is 76% of GDP. Canada (who has socialized medicine) has a national debt of 84% of GDP. But wait, those countries have single-payer health care, right? Not the same as an insurance mandate.

Well, let's look at nations with Insurance Mandates, like Obamacare. How about Germany? Germany has a national debt of 83% of their GDP. Belgium has a national debt of 101% of their GDP. Greece has an Insurance Mandate, and their national debt is 143% of their GDP.

Let's talk about the cost of Obamacare. Real cost analysis of ten years of full implimentation is $1.76 Trillion. That's $176 Billion per year. Friends, that is massive. That translates into the second largest discretionary budget line in the Federal Budget, second only to defense. We were told originally the cost was only $940 billion...and then we were told the tax increases would cover it. We were also told this spending would be off set by the tax increases. Actually, not really. The taxes raised are not going to cover the costs, especially because, as always, static budgeting is used.

Bottom line remains: We cannot afford Obamacare. Doesn't matter if you call it a tax or a fee or a fine or a green lolipop. The money doesn't exist. Obamacare is bad for America. Just like the rest of this administration's excess spending.

Obama's Slight Bump Means Nothing in November

After the Obamacare Decision, President Obama's polling numbers against Mitt Romney have bumped a couple of points. That's really it, a couple points. We've seen these quick bumps for Obama before. We've also seen these quick bumps fall off the end of the Earth again.

We saw it when Barack Obama gave the order to kill Osama Bin Laden. He bumped up above 50% and stayed there...for about a week. Then he fell back down below 50% and to the doldrums. He's crept above Romney for now. He's even seen a couple of polls where his projected win is outside the margin for error (unfortunately for the President, except for a highly questionable and anomalous Bloomberg poll, they were all with Registered Voters not Likely Voters.) But really, that's all the bump the President has seen is a couple of points.

Obamacare remains unpopular. As has been the case for most of the law's life, about 10% more disapprove of the law than approve of it. Obama himself remains unpopular. Using the three Likely Voter Polls in the current Real Clear Politics Average, Obama has 46% approval and 51% disapproval. Even when we add in the two polls of Registered Voters, Obama only creeps up to 47% approval with 49% disapproval. Only when RCP adds in five polls of "adults" does Obama get over 50% approval...and as I've said before, if you're going to poll adults you might as well also poll Martians and kodiak bears, because they have absolutely as much say in elections as people who aren't registered to vote.

So what does Obama have to look forward to in a "bump?" Unless Obama convinces Hillary Clinton to be his running mate and dumps Joe Biden, he doesn't have THAT to boost him. (Meanwhile, unless Romney manages to completely and utterly screw it up, Romney can gain 5-10 points in the polls by his Vice Presidential pick.) The so-called "Convention Bump" might help Obama, but that bump rarely stays, an d since it comes after the Republican Convention, it can only really regain losses from the Republican Convention.

Friends, the President is still in trouble. Only Mitt Romney imploding (by being too moderate or too wimpy) can get Obama re-elected.  Otherwise, the recent Supreme Court decision on Obamacare will become academic, as the Republican Party is about to win the 2012 election. Game on.

Obamacare Still Can Be Overturned...At the Ballot Box

Friends, I know we all spent the last few days feeling bad about the Supreme Court's Obamacare Decision. I did too, I won't lie. It took me a few hours to realize that there is still a solution because We the People control this government.  And since Obamacare doesn't go into effect until January, we can absolutely get it out of the way before it can do real damage.

Now let's talk about this election, shall we? Romney and Obama have been basically tied in polls of likely voters for quite some time. Romney's biggest problem? A lack of enthusiasm. As I wrote last week, the Obamacare decision awoke the sleeping giant that is the Tea Party. We are now heavily behind Romney and will fight very hard for him.

Now to the Senate. The Senate deck is stacked in the favor of the GOP just based on the number of elections. Currently the Democrat caucus (which includes 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats) hold a six seat lead in the Senate. For those of you who think this is tough to beat, look at the actual seats up for election.

There are a total of 33 Senate seats up for grabs in 2012.  Of those 33 seats, on 10 are part of the Republican caucus!  So 23 of 33 seats up for grabs in 2012 are part of the Democrat Caucus. Compare that to 2010 where there were 37 seats up for grab but with a nearly even split - 18 Republican and 19 Democrat. The Republicans had a +6 net gain out of that election. Translation, the GOP won approximately 65% of the seats in the election.

If the GOP can mirror 2012 (a reasonable possibility given the political climate) and win 65% of total seats up for grabs, that would mean a 9 seat swing and the Republicans taking back the Senate with a +3 margin of victory. I'll even tell you what I think the best 9 seats to pickup would be for the GOP: Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Pennyslyvania, North Dakota, Virginia, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Wisconsin are all swing states where Romney could conceivably win.  I would go so far as to say I feel comfortable about winning North Dakota, Virginia, and Wisconsin (because of how Scott Walker won his recall challenge). The others are all plausible pickups.

As far as the House of Representatives is concerned, as long as the GOP does no worse than a net loss of 48 seats, we can repeal Obamacare. This is really not a big concern. Then we need new President Romney to use the bully pulpit to get scare the tar out of Senators to vote on the the repeal. After that, Ding Dong the Law is Dead!

But all this is conditional. We need to fight the good fight and repeal Obamacare.

Obamacare Ruling Has Just Woken a Sleeping Giant

It's name is the Tea Party. Friends, do you know what caused the Tea Party? It was Obamacare. The Tea Party was kind of in a lull until yesterday's ruling by the Supreme Court. Now, friends, you've just made us angry. And we get organized when we're angry.

Mitt Romney's biggest problem...an excitement gap...just went bye bye. Because now conservatives are necessarily bent on getting rid of Obamacare at the ballot box. We always were, friends...it's just we were hoping the Supreme Court would stand up for liberty. They didn't. Well, Chief Justice Roberts didn't. (Still mad at you, buddy.) As conservatives, we believe in personal responsibility, and not the forced kind. If you want to purchase health insurance, fine. If you choose not to, that's fine too, but don't ask us to pay for it with our tax dollars. (We may be willing to pay for it in our churches and charities, just not through taxes.)

The Tea Party just woke up, friends. Mitt Romney just got huge boost. Because the Tea Party is once again awake and by the way, we're still mad as hell. We are not going to take this ruling lying down. If the Supreme Court is going to refuse to uphold the Constitution, then we're going to do it at the ballot box.

My fellow Tea Party patriots, get ready, because Election 2010: The Sequel is in post-production. Debuts on November 6, 2012. Game on.

Reactions to the SCOTUS Obamacare Decision

Today's post on the Supreme Court's upholding of Obamacare is simply my thoughts. I may post a more in-depth analysis later on. For now, let's all just mourn.

Today's blog is a little late, as I wanted to wait for the decision to be announced.  Then it came across the newswire first saying the Supreme Court had struck down the individual mandate. I breathed a sigh of relief...at least THAT's gone, I thought. Then it turned out that report was wrong, and this blogger's heart sank. All I could think of was a quote from the apocryphal Star Wars - Revenge of the Sith: "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause."

Ultimately, the Supreme Court has failed to uphold the Constitution of the United States. To be specific, Chief Justice John Roberts failed to uphold the Constitution. As sad as I was when I heard of the Supreme Court's decision to uphold forcing Americans to purchase a product (by calling it a tax and not a mandate), I was just as sad when I heard who the deciding vote was in this decision.  I figured it was probably the wishy-washy Anthony Kennedy. It wasn't. It was the Chief Justice.

Friends, I fully expected Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan to uphold the law. (Two Clinton appointees and two Obama appointees. Fine.) I also expected Justices  Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas to stand for the Constitution, which they did. I'm glad Justice Kennedy found the Constitution and read the darn thing before ruling on Obamacare.

Yet it was Chief Justice Roberts, who I believed to be a strong Constitutionalist, went and upheld the law. By calling the mandate what it ALWAYS was: a tax. Friends, this law never would have passed if it was presented to the nation by it's true nature: A massive tax increase. Very few people in Congress would have signed on for a bill that was such a massive tax increase. That's why Barack Obama said in 2009, and I quote:

For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. - Barack Obama, 2009 - Obama Interview with George Stephanopolus, ABC News

Friends, if you go read that link, which I won't quote, even George "Mister" Snuffleupagus didn't believe President Obama when he said it wasn't a tax. Neither did Chief Justice Roberts, apparently.

This fight isn't over, friends. We can absolutely still get rid of this law. We have one chance: Fire President Obama on November 6, 2012. We'll talk about that more in days to come. In the meantime, this is just a plain sad day for America, for the Constitution, and for freedom.

Obama's Supreme Court Faux Pas Shows his Narcissism.

Last week I, and so many other individuals who understand the Constitution, took the President to the political woodshed on his attacks on the Supreme Court, essentially saying if they declare Obamacare Unconstitutional (which I believe the Left is telegraphing that they expect it to happen) it would be "judicial activism."  Last Tuesday I explained actually, no, that's the Supreme Court DOING IT'S JOB.

Now the President is backpeddling after realizing how much of a fool he made out of himself. Aside from that, however, the President has once again shown his most prominent character flaw: The man is a narcissist.  He believes the rules don't apply because he's so special. He believes himself to be some sort of political messiah. (For the record, I've got a Messiah already...the REAL Messiah...His name is Jesus Christ, the Son of God and my Savior and Lord). He believes his own PR.

This is honestly the best explanation for why a Constitutional Law professor would think it's perfectly fine to enact a law forcing people to purchase ANY product/service as a condition of living. It's the best explanation why a Constitutional Law professor would think it was "Judicial Activism" for the court to overturn a law as Unconstitutional when it was "passed by a democratically elected Congress."

This President has an attitude that "nobody would DARE overturn MY law, I'm Obama!" Now that reality is setting in, the President has thrown a tantrum. He's kicking and screaming and using terms that don't apply even a little bit like "Judicial Activism."

This isn't the first time the President has thrown a tantrum against the Supreme Court. Who can forget this moment in his 2010 State of the Union Address:

                    

This is who we elected President.  (Actually, not we...personally in 2008 I voted for the Sarah Palin/Her Boss ticket because I saw through Obama even then.)  In 2012, we must not make the same mistake. I firmly believe Obamacare is going to end in the hands of the Supreme Court this summer. The Obama Administration must similarly be ended at the ballot box in November

Dissecting the Liberal Talking Points: Striking Down Obamacare

The Obama Administration and the Drive-By Media must be seeing the writing on the wall as it pertains to Obamacare...they're already polishing their excuses. The President is now speaking out against the court "legislating from the bench."

If you know history at all, you're smacking your head against the wall because that hurts far less than trying to find the logic in the President's statement. For a Constititional Law professor, this President doesn't have a clue about legal history.  He had no issue with the Supreme Court invented a right to destroy one's unborn child in the womb and claim it has something to do with privacy.  That wasn't legislating from the bench.  The court potentially saying "No, you cannot force free people to buy a product" is somehow legislating from the bench?

Actually, Mr. President, that's called Judicial Review. You see, Congress doesn't have the right to pass whatever law they want, even by majority decision. We have rights, Mr. President, and those rights can't be legislated away with a law.  (The idea of legislating away people's rights isn't a new one, by the way.  You can see it in old newsreels.  Of course they're tough to understand...because the narration is in German.)The fact is, Mr. Obama, you never had the right to require people to purchase health insurance by law.  You also never had the right to force the individual states to expand Medicare and pay for it.

Not sure if you read that whole 10th Amendment thing in the Constitution, Mr. Constitutional Law Professor, but that exhaulted document states:

 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. - 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution

The power to decide what product to purchase has not been delegated to the Federal Government. It was delegated to the States or to We the People. (I'd argue this is delegated only to us individual people.) 

My friends, that is not Judicial Activism. This is Judicial Review. This is what the Supreme Court's job is...to review laws in question and decide if it's Constitutional.  If the Supreme Court strikes this law down, it's doing it's job, Mr. President.  Get over it.

Dissecting the Liberal Talking Points: If Obamacare is Overrulled, it WILL NOT Help Obama

Now that Obamacare's Supreme Court oral arguments are concluded, liberal journalists are already telegraphed their next talking point. Their newest claim? If Obamacare is overturned, it will help Obama's reelection campaign.

Before I start telling you WHY this claim is false, I'd like to point out that the Left is already setting up for precisely what I predicted yesterday: Obamacare will be declared Unconstitutional. They're expecting it, which is why they're now trying to preemptively spin the story. The person I saw make it most recently was liberal Fox News contributor Juan Williams.

Williams is the quintisential Neighborhood Liberal, friends. He tries to talk like an Activist Liberal, but he's basically regurgitating what genuine Activist Liberals like Bob Beckel are saying.  And today he's saying that Obamacare's overturn is good for Obama.

Williams is claiming that essentially if Obamacare is gone, the GOP has to go from simply being opposed to Obamacare and actually have to bring up solutions. It's a common talking point. It's also, like most liberal talking points, centered on a highly eroneous premise.

Conservatives and Republicans DO have solutions to the Health Care problems we see in our country.  Here's the thing, friends: They aren't centered on government. Unfortunately, that means ignoring the liberal solution to every problem (do one or more of the following: Pass a law, form a committee, spend more money, problem solved).

The GOP solution is far more centered on removing government barriers and free market solutions. Such things has true health savings accounts, making it possible for individuals to buy insurance across state lines, and allowing smaller groups and individuals to bond together into a large group to buy insurance at a larger group rate. In other words, remove the government barriers and let people solve their own problems.

Of course, it doesn't involve big press conferences and monumental laws being passed, because common sense is rarely trumpeted by the Drive-By Media like passing a law or spending more money.  But it does involve actually solving the problem.

Now as to this being good for Obama: To use an old-man word, hogwash. It requires a complete absence of logic to claim that a President seeing his signature legislation declared Unconstitutional is good for that President. Do you think Lincoln was dying to see the Emancipation Proclamation declared unconstitutional?  Do you think Jefferson was dying to have the Louisiana Purchase struck down?  If Reagan's 1981 Tax Cuts were struck down, how do you think that'd have looked?  FDR was so afraid his New Deal would be struck down, so much so he had to stack the court and create new justices just to avoid it.

No, friends, Obamacare being declared unconstitutional isn't bad for Obama. It's just another spin job of falsehood from the Left.  Don't buy it.

Obamacare in Trouble at the Supreme Court

As all people who don't live under rocks, the President's signature Obamacare legislation is before the Supreme Court this week. The Drive-By Media has spent the preceeding weeks trying to essentially convince justices like Scalia and Roberts to go against their personal judgement and history and consider this law Constitutional. So far, oral arguments and the questions posed by the justices are not backing this theory.  Thank you, God.

All people living in the Real World are pretty much penciling Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts under the Unconstitutional side and similarly penciling Ginsberg, Kegan, Breyer and Sotomeyer under the Constitutional side. Anthony Kennedy is presumed the swing vote, but his questions thus far do not back that claim.  The Drive-Bys have told you otherwise, but their track record of being right is pretty sad.

Yesterday, CNN claimed that the court seemed to be willing to let the law stand. This shows the level of dellusion of the Drive-By Media in a nutshell. Read the article, friends, you'll find they quote Ginsberg, Kegan, and also throw-away lines from Alito and Kennedy.  They're deliberately obfuscating, friends, to try to make their case seem plausible.

But when you read quotes from Justice Kennedy, it becoems clear that he's incredibly skeptical about the authority of the government to create commerce. When you read the transcript from the Oral Arguments, you see Kennedy asking questions like:

"Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?"

 And here:
"The reason this is concerning is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts, our tradition, our law has been that you don't have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him, absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that's generally the rule.

"And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases, and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in a very fundamental way."

The most telling statement from Chief Justice Roberts is this:

"Can the government require you to buy a cell phone because that would facilitate responding when you need emergency services? You can just dial 911 no matter where you are?
The reason this is concerning is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts, our tradition, our law has been that you don't have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The 

And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases, and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in a very fundamental way.


"It seems to me that's the same as in my hypothetical. You don't know when you're going to need police assistance. You can't predict the extent to emergency response that you'll need, but when you do -- and the government provides it. I thought that was an important part of your argument, that when you need health care, the government will make sure you get it.

Irregardless of what the Drive-By Media is telling you and dreaming of conservative justices floating over to support Obamacare while wearing their Happy Imagination Hats, the evidence is against them. I have about as much fear of Chief Justice Roberts supporting this bill as I have expectations of the Mets winning the World Series this year. (So basically none.)

As far as Justice Kennedy, it seems like he's falling on the side of freedom and the Constitution in this case. The left can dream, of course, but the truth is his questions do not sound like someone who believes it's okay to force people to purchase any product.

Friends, the more I read these transcripts the more confident I am that, at the very least, the Individual Mandate will be going bye-bye; and likely the entire law on the grounds that government may not force people to purchase anything and the rest on the backs of defense of the 10th Amendment and of the rights of the individual states.  And by the way, the law barely matters minus the mandate and the forced expansion of Medicare.  I still have a problem with legally requiring insurance companies to insure 27 year old adults, but it's small potatoes in the scheme of things.

I'll make it an official prediction. Obamacare struck down, 5-4. We'll find out this summer if I'm correct.

Understanding the Supreme Court Obamacare Review

The news came down earlier this week:  the Supreme Court will take up President Obama's signature piece of legislation, Obamacare, during this current session, meaning a ruling can be expected by summer of 2012.  (1) Conservatives are celebrating, and for some odd reason so is the Obama Administration. 

The former I understand, the latter I do not, save for one possibility: Obama knows Obamacare is bad for his re-election, and hopes it is overturned so he can get credit for trying without experiencing the bad effects of having the law pinned to him.  When Obamacare is brought up he can simply say "it's a dead issue, the Supreme Court overturned it, but hey, we tried."  It's classic liberalism: compassion of intent matters, compassion of result does not.

How this will play out is an interesting question.  I believe we can expect Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito to vote Obamacare as Unconstitutional and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Steven Bryer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan ((hopefully she’ll recuse herself due to her previous involvement with the law) to vote that Obamacare is Constitutional.  So the swing vote is Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Personally, I expect Kennedy to join his fellow Republican appointees in striking down Obamacare.  First and foremost, Kennedy has a strong history of being in favor of states' rights and individual liberty.  So this bodes well for those of us who want to see Obamacare struck down. Although Kennedy has had moments of breaking with the conservative movement, but these are on issues centered around personal liberty over traditional conservative morality.  Honestly, I would be very surprised to see Kennedy vote to uphold Obamacare based on his history. 

There are multiple discussions scheduled for this review.  I think Kennedy is likely to vote against the law on three of the four, meaning the law is overturned. From SCOTUSBlog.com, here are the Writs of Certiorari to be reviewed:

* The issue of “severability” of the insurance mandate from the other provisions of the law, if the mandate is nullified (the only question in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius [docket 11-393] and question 3 in Florida, et al., v. Department of Health & Human Services [11-400]).
For those of you from Palm Beach County, this means judging whether or not the Individual Mandate, which requires all Americans to buy health insurance, is required for the law to exist.

Gun to my head I'd predict that Kennedy will join the other Justices who were appointed by Republicans to see that, without the individual mandate, the law is basically useless based upon it's own intentions, but I cannot predict that with certainty.

* The constitutionality of the insurance mandate (question 1 in the government case, Department of Health & Human Services v. Florida, et al.)

For those of you from Palm Beach County, that means, regardless of whether or not the Individual Mandate is "severable" from the law, whether or not government can force people to purchase ANYTHING.

Given Justice Kennedy's history of supporting individual liberty over all else, I doubt he will consider this Constitutional.  For those who are still wondering why government can "require" us to purchase auto insurance, please understand this is a requirement to use the public roads, just like a driver's license is also required to use the public roads.  This is very different from requiring a purchase to live in the country.  As so many have said before, you might as well mandate purchase of a house to solve the homelessness problem.

Whether the lawsuit brought by the states challenging the insurance mandate is barred by the (Tax) Anti-Injunction Act (an added question in the government case, 11-398), one hour of oral argument.

The Tax Anti-Injunction Act says that Federal Courts may not stop collection of a tax by either Federal or State governments that were duly passed by Congress or the legislatures of the States. Of course, the President repeatedly stated when attempting to pass the law that Obamacare was not a tax, yet now they are arguing that the individual mandate is within the Congressional authority to levy taxes.  But it is not a tax, they said so themselves, stating that it was just like requiring people to purchase auto insurance. 

I expect Kennedy to vote this part of the law down again, citing the President's own statements on the law, thus meaning the Tax Anti Injunction Act has zero bearing on the case.

Finally,

Granted, the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion (question 1 in the Florida, et al., v. Department of Health and Human Services case, 11-400).

The specific challenge here is whether or not the Federal government has the authority to require states to expand Medicaid.  Again, given Kennedy's long history of supporting states' rights, I do not see him voting it Constitutional at all.

In short, I expect Justice Kennedy to join Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito and Chief Justice Roberts in voting three of the four Writs of Certiorari as Unconstitutional, and as for the fourth, if the law is Unconstitutional, who cares if the Individual Mandate is severable?

Long story short, I believe Obamacare's days are numbered.  Thank God.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) ObamaCare reaches the Supreme Court