If Congress can reach out and command even those furthest removed from an interstate market to participate in the market, then the Commerce Clause becomes a font of unlimited power, or in Hamilton’s words, “the hideous monster whose devouring jaws . . . spare neither sex nor age, nor high nor low, nor sacred nor profane.” The Federalist No. 33, p. 202 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Quote of the Day
From the dissent:
National Review: John Roberts' Folly
National Review's editorial today says a lot:
In today’s deeply disappointing decision on Obamacare, a majority of the Supreme Court actually got the Constitution mostly right. The Commerce Clause — the part of the Constitution that grants Congress the authority to regulate commerce among the states — does not authorize the federal government to force Americans to buy health insurance. The Court, by a 5–4 margin, refused to join all the august legal experts who insisted that of course it granted that authorization, that only yahoos and Republican partisans could possibly doubt it. It then pretended that this requirement is constitutional anyway, because it is merely an application of the taxing authority. Rarely has the maxim that the power to tax is the power to destroy been so apt, a portion of liberty being the direct object in this case.
What the Court has done is not so much to declare the mandate constitutional as to declare that it is not a mandate at all, any more than the mortgage-interest deduction in the tax code is a mandate to buy a house. Congress would almost surely have been within its constitutional powers to tax the uninsured more than the insured. Very few people doubt that it could, for example, create a tax credit for the purchase of insurance, which would have precisely that effect. But Obamacare, as written, does more than that. The law repeatedly speaks in terms of a “requirement” to buy insurance, it says that individuals “shall” buy it, and it levies a “penalty” on those who refuse. As the conservative dissent points out, these are the hallmarks of a “regulatory penalty, not a tax.”
The law as written also cuts off all federal Medicaid funds for states that decline to expand the program in the ways the lawmakers sought. A majority of the Court, including two of the liberals, found this cut-off unconstitutionally coercive on the states. The Court’s solution was not to invalidate the law or the Medicaid expansion, but to rule that only the extra federal funds devoted to the expansion could be cut off. As the dissenters rightly point out, this solution rewrites the law — and arbitrarily, since Congress could have avoided the constitutional problem in many other ways.
The dissent acknowledges that if an ambiguous law can be read in a way that renders it constitutional, it should be. It distinguishes, though, between construing a law charitably and rewriting it. The latter is what Chief Justice John Roberts has done. If Roberts believes that this tactic avoids damage to the Constitution because it does not stretch the Commerce Clause to justify a mandate, he is mistaken. The Constitution does not give the Court the power to rewrite statutes, and Roberts and his colleagues have therefore done violence to it. If the law has been rendered less constitutionally obnoxious, the Court has rendered itself more so. Chief Justice Roberts cannot justly take pride in this legacy.
The Court has failed to do its duty. Conservatives should not follow its example — which is what they would do if they now gave up the fight against Obamacare. The law, as rewritten by judges, remains incompatible with the country’s tradition of limited government, the future strength of our health-care system, and the nation’s solvency. We are not among those who are convinced that we will be stuck with it forever if the next election goes wrong: The law is also so poorly structured that we think it may well unravel even if put fully into effect. But we would prefer not to take the risk.
It now falls to the Republicans, and especially to Mitt Romney, to make the case for the repeal of the law and for its replacement by something better than either it or the health-care policies that preceded it. Instead of trusting experts to use the federal government’s purchasing power to drive efficiency throughout the health sector — the vain hope of Obamacare’s Medicare-cutting board — they should replace Medicare with a new system in which individuals have incentives to get value for their dollar. Instead of having Washington establish a cartel for the insurance industry, they should give individuals tax credits and the ability to purchase insurance across state lines. Instead of further centralizing the health-care system, in short, they should give individuals more control over their insurance.
Opponents should take heart: The law remains unpopular. Let the president and his partisans ring their bells today, and let us work to make sure that they are wringing their hands come November.
Monday, May 21, 2012
It's Ellspermann
The speculation of recent days was correct.
Mike Pence will announce his pick for Lieutenant Governor at the YMCA in Ferdinand, Indiana, in just a few minutes. It will be freshman State Representative Sue Ellspermann (Ferdinand is her hometown).
The event will be followed by a next governor and lieutenant governor of Indiana barnstorming more than half a dozen announcement events statewide over the following two days.
These are two faces you're likely to see a lot of over the next eight to sixteen years:
A good pick, all in all. Sue Ellspermann will bring decades of valuable private sector jobs and economic development experience to the ticket.
(This information was embargoed until 10 a.m. on Monday, May 21. This post was written in advance and queued up to go live at 10.)
Mike Pence will announce his pick for Lieutenant Governor at the YMCA in Ferdinand, Indiana, in just a few minutes. It will be freshman State Representative Sue Ellspermann (Ferdinand is her hometown).
The event will be followed by a next governor and lieutenant governor of Indiana barnstorming more than half a dozen announcement events statewide over the following two days.
These are two faces you're likely to see a lot of over the next eight to sixteen years:
A good pick, all in all. Sue Ellspermann will bring decades of valuable private sector jobs and economic development experience to the ticket.
(This information was embargoed until 10 a.m. on Monday, May 21. This post was written in advance and queued up to go live at 10.)
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Pence Lieutenant Governor Pick Monday
Speculation is buzzing about who Congressman Mike Pence will pick as his lieutenant governor. Much buzz has centered around District 74 State Representative Sue Ellspermann of Ferdinand, who was first elected in 2010 by defeating then House Majority Whip Russ Stilwell and has a background in academia and economic development.
The campaign's announcement roll-out schedule gives considerable credence to such speculation.
Emails sent out to Republicans in Vanderburgh and Warrick County invite them to an announcement at Tri-State Aero at the Evansville Regional Airport (map here)at noon on Monday.
So far, the campaign has given no information about any event elsewhere in the state that is scheduled earlier than the event in Evansville at noon on Monday. The event in Indianapolis is at three later that afternoon and is at the Express Scripts Distribution Facility at the former United Airlines maintenance complex on the back side of the Indianapolis International Airport (map here).
Though speculation in Indianapolis has centered on State Representative and Professor Sue Ellspermann, Evansville is also home to District 76 State Representative Wendy McNamara, who was likewise elected in 2010. McNamara, however, has a background in education, not in economic development. She faces a tough reelection fight against former State Representative Trent Van Haaften, who left open the seat she won in order to run for (and lose) the 8th District Congressional seat (itself left open by Brad Ellsworth's failed run for United States Senate). Her reelection bid may also be made more complicated from baggage gained during legislative sessions over the past two years.
Ellspermann's old district was heavy with union activity (Stilwell himself was a political director for the United Mine Workers). She voted (PDF warning) for right-to-work in the previous legislative session, as did McNamara. Ellspermann's new district is neither substantively more Republican or substantively less union (it gained, for example, heavily union and Democratic parts of Perry and Crawford Counties) post-redistricting.
Ellspermann faces a particularly challenging reelection campaign (largely by virtue of the nature of her district, not so much on the strength of her opponent, who is a retired school administrator whose website contains a map of the old district and not the new district; I wonder if he is even campaigning in the right places), and a move to lieutenant governor would either leave the seat open to a Republican candidate that does not have right-to-work baggage or at least free the House Republican Campaign Committee from having to invest a lot of money defending an incumbent in a very tough situation.
Sue Ellspermann's background in economic development would certainly be an asset to Pence's campaign. She doesn't have an extensive legislative resume, which could be seen either as an asset or a liability, depending on the role Pence intends for her to play in a future administration. She does not have the decade-plus of General Assembly experience Becky Skillman had when she became lieutenant governor, for example, so it is difficult to see her being a "legislative quarterback" for Pence's agenda in the same way that Skillman was for Daniels. Her focus, instead, would probably be entirely on economic development, which is probably a net positive overall given the nature of the economy and the early outlines being seen from Pence's campaign (and the campaign of his opponent).
And, of course, the selection of Ellspermann would be yet another blow to Democratic rhetoric about a Republican "war on women," particularly if--as is widely expected--Democratic nominee John Gregg picks a male mayor from northern Indiana as his lieutenant governor pick.
I am certain that there will be snark from some quarters about Republicans picking yet another blonde female state legislator from southern Indiana as their lieutenant governor nominee, but it cannot be said that Ellspermann--who holds a doctorate in industrial engineering, has decades of experience in economic development, and got elected in a very tough district against a very tough opponent--is not more than capable of performing the job.
There's another dimension to picking Ellspermann that also deserves mention. She is a graduate of the 2008-2009 class of the Lugar Series. Her selection could be seen as Pence, who assumed de facto leadership of the state Republican Party after the May primary, moving to heal some lingering wounds from the Senate contest between Dick Lugar and Richard Mourdock. Lugar supporters might still smart at their man not being on the ballot, but they could support the entire ticket knowing his legacy lives on (among other ways) in the nomination and election of Sue Ellspermann if she is indeed Pence's LG pick.
I know Ellspermann endorsed Lugar in the Senate primary, but I haven't been able to find what statements, if any, she has made about Mourdock's win. I do know, however, that she campaigned alongside both Pence and Mourdock in Boonville at a political rally in late October of 2010 when she was running for state representative. It's hard to see her having problems campaigning alongside Mourdock now if she was willing to campaign alongside him then.
Of course, all of the above speculation (and that of a great many other people) could be entirely wrong. That would be provably true if Pence has another announcement scheduled somewhere else in Indiana earlier than noon on Monday. It seems highly unlikely that the announcement itself would be distant from the home of Pence's lieutenant governor pick. The geography of the announcement events is the biggest clue going forward in the next two days.
The campaign's announcement roll-out schedule gives considerable credence to such speculation.
Emails sent out to Republicans in Vanderburgh and Warrick County invite them to an announcement at Tri-State Aero at the Evansville Regional Airport (map here)at noon on Monday.
So far, the campaign has given no information about any event elsewhere in the state that is scheduled earlier than the event in Evansville at noon on Monday. The event in Indianapolis is at three later that afternoon and is at the Express Scripts Distribution Facility at the former United Airlines maintenance complex on the back side of the Indianapolis International Airport (map here).
Though speculation in Indianapolis has centered on State Representative and Professor Sue Ellspermann, Evansville is also home to District 76 State Representative Wendy McNamara, who was likewise elected in 2010. McNamara, however, has a background in education, not in economic development. She faces a tough reelection fight against former State Representative Trent Van Haaften, who left open the seat she won in order to run for (and lose) the 8th District Congressional seat (itself left open by Brad Ellsworth's failed run for United States Senate). Her reelection bid may also be made more complicated from baggage gained during legislative sessions over the past two years.
Ellspermann's old district was heavy with union activity (Stilwell himself was a political director for the United Mine Workers). She voted (PDF warning) for right-to-work in the previous legislative session, as did McNamara. Ellspermann's new district is neither substantively more Republican or substantively less union (it gained, for example, heavily union and Democratic parts of Perry and Crawford Counties) post-redistricting.
Ellspermann faces a particularly challenging reelection campaign (largely by virtue of the nature of her district, not so much on the strength of her opponent, who is a retired school administrator whose website contains a map of the old district and not the new district; I wonder if he is even campaigning in the right places), and a move to lieutenant governor would either leave the seat open to a Republican candidate that does not have right-to-work baggage or at least free the House Republican Campaign Committee from having to invest a lot of money defending an incumbent in a very tough situation.
Sue Ellspermann's background in economic development would certainly be an asset to Pence's campaign. She doesn't have an extensive legislative resume, which could be seen either as an asset or a liability, depending on the role Pence intends for her to play in a future administration. She does not have the decade-plus of General Assembly experience Becky Skillman had when she became lieutenant governor, for example, so it is difficult to see her being a "legislative quarterback" for Pence's agenda in the same way that Skillman was for Daniels. Her focus, instead, would probably be entirely on economic development, which is probably a net positive overall given the nature of the economy and the early outlines being seen from Pence's campaign (and the campaign of his opponent).
And, of course, the selection of Ellspermann would be yet another blow to Democratic rhetoric about a Republican "war on women," particularly if--as is widely expected--Democratic nominee John Gregg picks a male mayor from northern Indiana as his lieutenant governor pick.
I am certain that there will be snark from some quarters about Republicans picking yet another blonde female state legislator from southern Indiana as their lieutenant governor nominee, but it cannot be said that Ellspermann--who holds a doctorate in industrial engineering, has decades of experience in economic development, and got elected in a very tough district against a very tough opponent--is not more than capable of performing the job.
There's another dimension to picking Ellspermann that also deserves mention. She is a graduate of the 2008-2009 class of the Lugar Series. Her selection could be seen as Pence, who assumed de facto leadership of the state Republican Party after the May primary, moving to heal some lingering wounds from the Senate contest between Dick Lugar and Richard Mourdock. Lugar supporters might still smart at their man not being on the ballot, but they could support the entire ticket knowing his legacy lives on (among other ways) in the nomination and election of Sue Ellspermann if she is indeed Pence's LG pick.
I know Ellspermann endorsed Lugar in the Senate primary, but I haven't been able to find what statements, if any, she has made about Mourdock's win. I do know, however, that she campaigned alongside both Pence and Mourdock in Boonville at a political rally in late October of 2010 when she was running for state representative. It's hard to see her having problems campaigning alongside Mourdock now if she was willing to campaign alongside him then.
Of course, all of the above speculation (and that of a great many other people) could be entirely wrong. That would be provably true if Pence has another announcement scheduled somewhere else in Indiana earlier than noon on Monday. It seems highly unlikely that the announcement itself would be distant from the home of Pence's lieutenant governor pick. The geography of the announcement events is the biggest clue going forward in the next two days.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Middle of the Road is for Roadkill.
It seems that the silly season of presidential politics has arrived right on time. Just like Spring bringing on the green grass and banishing the gloomy grey from the sky, the race to Pennsylvania Avenue has brightened my world like a shot of vitamin D. I must admit, I love this stuff. Straw polls and exploratory committees are my fix. This election cycle and season are no different....right? Let's run the numbers. The current president has done little to correct a down economy, spending is out of control, and the GOP spanked the donkeys last November in a major way. So why am I still feeling the winter doldrums? Why is the current field of hopefuls less than stellar? Am I the only one that sees Obama as vulnerable? Am I asking too many questions?
As a leader in the conservative movement once said, "Get right or get left. The middle of the road is for roadkill." Conventional wisdom will tell us that a candidate will have to move to the middle to get elected. In the past this may have been true. But I don't believe this holds true in America today. I see this as a liability to potential candidates. America is a center-right nation. Now more than ever, voters want someone to follow through on what they promise. They want someone that will preserve the greatness of America, that will return our dollar to a strong currency, and that will preserve the freedoms and liberty given to us by our Maker and Constitution. All candidates on the right have issues. Not one will be everything to all voters. With that said, let's take a look.
The front runner for now seems to be Mitt Romney. Mitt is currently walking back his health care reform in Massachusetts which served as a precursor to Obamacare. Health care costs in that state have risen 5% more than the national average since Romneycare was implemented. This is his major obstacle and one that I believe he cannot overcome. He has the look, the charisma, the fund raising, and the speaking ability to be elected. What he does not have is a conservative history.
Ron Paul is the darling of the Libertarian party. Now I will admit to having a small streak of Libertarianism, I cannot and will not endorse the legalization of heroin or the closing of military bases in strategic countries. Paul may be able to raise money, but he cannot raise his poll numbers over 12%. He is great for ideas and to further the debate, but not for the oval office.
Newt Gingrich is another ideas man. His "Contract with America" was pivotal in returning a majority of republicans to the house. However, Newt has issues, many issues. Let's start with his personal life. He was overseeing the impeachment of a president for an affair while having his own. He is on his third marriage. He has temperament issues and a history of joining progressives on environment issues.
Now to those who may be in, haven't decided yet, and those that some wish would get in. Michelle Bachmann has been contemplating a run for some time. With Trump and Huckabee out, her fate seems all but certain. She is the founder of the Tea Party Caucus in the house and a true conservative. Her record proves it. Her main problem is the press. They portray her as a know nothing light weight and are usually more concerned about her wardrobe or camera angle than her ideas or voting record. Mitch Daniels is seen by many as the saviour of the party and would likely become the instant front runner if he chooses to get in. The main concerns are on social issues, which he took a stand on during this legislative session, and the fire and fund raising ability to get the job done. Some even say he is dull. I have heard Rick Perry's name thrown out this past week as well. His aspirations are no secret. He is slick, well spoken, and looks the part. But conservatives aren't interested in outward appearances.
For the sake of brevity, I will wrap up my thoughts. The bad news is that not one conservative has stepped up to the plate to take a strong stand and move this process forward. The good news is that there is still plenty of time. Please don't take my words as slamming fellow republicans. I am simply stating what my fellow conservatives are thinking. We took a major step in the mid-term elections to install some true conservatives. These statesmen know that if they go back on their word, they will be fired. Politics as usual is a thing of the past. I am not willing to endorse anyone at this time, only offer words of wisdom.... Do not try to run from the middle. You will be called out. You will be exposed. RINOs are not welcome in this tent. We want a true constitutional conservative with the backbone to stand up for us. The other features are icing on the cake. Be careful, we don't want to see someone hit on the road.
As a leader in the conservative movement once said, "Get right or get left. The middle of the road is for roadkill." Conventional wisdom will tell us that a candidate will have to move to the middle to get elected. In the past this may have been true. But I don't believe this holds true in America today. I see this as a liability to potential candidates. America is a center-right nation. Now more than ever, voters want someone to follow through on what they promise. They want someone that will preserve the greatness of America, that will return our dollar to a strong currency, and that will preserve the freedoms and liberty given to us by our Maker and Constitution. All candidates on the right have issues. Not one will be everything to all voters. With that said, let's take a look.
The front runner for now seems to be Mitt Romney. Mitt is currently walking back his health care reform in Massachusetts which served as a precursor to Obamacare. Health care costs in that state have risen 5% more than the national average since Romneycare was implemented. This is his major obstacle and one that I believe he cannot overcome. He has the look, the charisma, the fund raising, and the speaking ability to be elected. What he does not have is a conservative history.
Ron Paul is the darling of the Libertarian party. Now I will admit to having a small streak of Libertarianism, I cannot and will not endorse the legalization of heroin or the closing of military bases in strategic countries. Paul may be able to raise money, but he cannot raise his poll numbers over 12%. He is great for ideas and to further the debate, but not for the oval office.
Newt Gingrich is another ideas man. His "Contract with America" was pivotal in returning a majority of republicans to the house. However, Newt has issues, many issues. Let's start with his personal life. He was overseeing the impeachment of a president for an affair while having his own. He is on his third marriage. He has temperament issues and a history of joining progressives on environment issues.
Now to those who may be in, haven't decided yet, and those that some wish would get in. Michelle Bachmann has been contemplating a run for some time. With Trump and Huckabee out, her fate seems all but certain. She is the founder of the Tea Party Caucus in the house and a true conservative. Her record proves it. Her main problem is the press. They portray her as a know nothing light weight and are usually more concerned about her wardrobe or camera angle than her ideas or voting record. Mitch Daniels is seen by many as the saviour of the party and would likely become the instant front runner if he chooses to get in. The main concerns are on social issues, which he took a stand on during this legislative session, and the fire and fund raising ability to get the job done. Some even say he is dull. I have heard Rick Perry's name thrown out this past week as well. His aspirations are no secret. He is slick, well spoken, and looks the part. But conservatives aren't interested in outward appearances.
For the sake of brevity, I will wrap up my thoughts. The bad news is that not one conservative has stepped up to the plate to take a strong stand and move this process forward. The good news is that there is still plenty of time. Please don't take my words as slamming fellow republicans. I am simply stating what my fellow conservatives are thinking. We took a major step in the mid-term elections to install some true conservatives. These statesmen know that if they go back on their word, they will be fired. Politics as usual is a thing of the past. I am not willing to endorse anyone at this time, only offer words of wisdom.... Do not try to run from the middle. You will be called out. You will be exposed. RINOs are not welcome in this tent. We want a true constitutional conservative with the backbone to stand up for us. The other features are icing on the cake. Be careful, we don't want to see someone hit on the road.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
A Tax is a Tax!
Until now, I have not expressed my views openly about the Bridges Project and the tolling associated with it. I am pro-business and low tax kind of guy. That is why I am solidly against tolling existing bridges in our community.
If we build an east end bridge and put a toll on that bridge alone, that is a user fee. While this situation is not ideal, it is tolerable. However, if we toll bridges that already exist and are paid for, that is a TAX. As a conservative, I cannot support that. If this is truly the only way to build a bridge or bridges, then I say don't build them at all.
If we build an east end bridge and put a toll on that bridge alone, that is a user fee. While this situation is not ideal, it is tolerable. However, if we toll bridges that already exist and are paid for, that is a TAX. As a conservative, I cannot support that. If this is truly the only way to build a bridge or bridges, then I say don't build them at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)