Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Obamacare’
September 8th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
Don’t Read Too Much Into Today’s ObamaCare Ruling
Posted by Print

Today, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against challenges of ObamaCare by Virginia and Liberty University.

For several reasons, however, today’s ruling should be taken with a Jimmy Buffet-sized shaker of salt.  First, the ruling itself did not address the substantive merits or the primary Constitutional claim that ObamaCare exceeds the authority permitted by the interstate commerce clause.  Instead, the judges ruled that neither Virginia nor Liberty possessed procedural “standing,” the ability to demonstrate harm that has occurred or may imminently occur.  That is very different than a ruling that ObamaCare itself passes Constitutional muster, and at any rate is subject to change down the road as ObamaCare’s provisions are more fully implemented.  Second, two of the judges who ruled today were appointed by Barack Obama himself, and the other by Bill Clinton.  In the Fourth Circuit as a whole, however, there is an even split with seven judges appointed by Republican presidents and seven appointed by Democrats.  So the ideological makeup at an en banc hearing will be very different.  Third, the question of standing is not one within the unique expertise or authority of these three particular judges.  Quite the contrary, standing is an issue within the authority of every court in every case, because it is a requisite to move forward with any lawsuit in the first instance.  Accordingly, today’s particular ruling is at odds with not only the lower court’s standing determination, but that of the Eleventh Circuit in its recent ruling overturning ObamaCare.  Fourth, this particular panel’s decision wasn’t a surprise, as its line of questioning in May focused on the issue of standing, rather than the merits of ObamaCare.

In other words, the immediate overarching theme is that today’s ruling is not a game-changer, and certainly not a significant “W” for ObamaCare as it continues its inevitable course toward the United States Supreme Court.  Whether through the Supreme Court or through the next Congress, ObamaCare will be defeated.

September 8th, 2011 at 9:04 am
Ramirez Cartoon: Economic Headwinds
Posted by Print

Below is one of the latest cartoons from two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez.

View more of Michael Ramirez’s cartoons on CFIF’s website here.

August 26th, 2011 at 6:47 pm
No, America, You Can’t Keep Your Health Plan

Remember when in June 2009 President Barack Obama promised that under his health care reform bill, “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period.  If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.  No one will take it away, no matter what”?

Byron York makes this contradictory observation:

On the one hand, the new law orders the establishment of health care “exchanges” through which anyone can purchase government-subsidized coverage. On the other hand, the law levies fines on employers who fail to offer coverage to their employees — but sets the fine far below the cost of coverage. In 2010, the average employer paid $4,150 to cover a single employee and $9,773 for family coverage. (Both figures are about double what they were in 2000.) The new law sets fines for employers who don’t cover their workers at $2,000.

So when it takes effect in 2014, the law will give employers a choice: Continue to offer increasingly expensive health coverage, or pay a relatively small fine, save a lot of money, and let employees buy their own subsidized coverage on the exchange. The incentive seems pretty clear.

So too does the bold-faced lie Obama told (yet again) in the health care reform debate.  Whichever GOP candidate gets nominated for president should make this issue one of the main talking points of the general election.

August 22nd, 2011 at 3:10 pm
Clarence Thomas and the Tea Party

From a must-read profile in the New Yorker on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas:

The implications of Thomas’s leadership for the Court, and for the country, are profound. Thomas is probably the most conservative Justice to serve on the Court since the nineteen-thirties. More than virtually any of his colleagues, he has a fully wrought judicial philosophy that, if realized, would transform much of American government and society. Thomas’s views both reflect and inspire the Tea Party movement, which his wife has helped lead almost since its inception. The Tea Party is a diffuse operation, and it can be difficult to pin down its stand on any given issue. Still, the Tea Party is unusual among American political movements in its commitment to a specific view of the Constitution—one that accords, with great precision, with Thomas’s own approach. For decades, various branches of the conservative movement have called for a reduction in the size of the federal government, but for the Tea Party, and for Thomas, small government is a constitutional command.

Later on, the profiler notes that Thomas – along with other conservatives on the Supreme Court – is poised to overturn the clearest expression of government overreach in a generation: ObamaCare.  If that happens, Thomas’ judicial philosophy, and the Tea Party’s importance, will be vindicated.

August 22nd, 2011 at 2:13 pm
TODAY’S RADIO SHOW LINEUP: CFIF’s Renee Giachino Hosts “Your Turn” on WEBY Radio 1330 AM
Posted by Print

Join CFIF Corporate Counsel and Senior Vice President Renee Giachino today from 4:00 p.m. CST to 6:00 p.m. CST (that’s 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. EST) on Northwest Florida’s 1330 AM WEBY, as she hosts her radio show, “Your Turn.”  Today’s guest lineup includes:

–  4:00 p.m. CST/5:00 p.m. EST:  George Landrith, President of Frontiers of Freedom – End of the Space Shuttle Age;

–  4:30 p.m. CST/5:30 p.m. EST:  Anna Rittgers, Senior Fellow, Independent Women’s Forum – Obamacare; and

–  5:00 p.m. CST/6:00 p.m. EST:  Greg Brown, Santa Rosa County Property Appraiser – TRIM Notices and Navarre Beach Lawsuit.

Listen live on the Internet here.   Call in to share your comments or ask questions of today’s guests at (850) 623-1330.

August 12th, 2011 at 1:28 pm
11th Circuit Rules ObamaCare “Individual Mandate” Unconstitutional
Posted by Print

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled, correctly, that the “individual mandate” of ObamaCare is unconstitutional.  That stands to reason.  The Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution to ensure liberty through a federal government of strictly limited powers.  One aspect of that effort was to restrict federal authority to regulating actual “interstate commerce.”  But since ObamaCare’s individual mandate effectively declares that a citizen’s inactivity somehow amounts to “interstate commerce,” upholding ObamaCare would have rendered the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause meaningless.  Accordingly, it follows that if one explicit portion of the Constitution can thus be rendered meaningless, what would be the logical limit restraining government from declaring any other Constitutional clause meaningless at whim?

This is a moment for grateful celebration, even if only temporary.  The broader battle continues, eventually at the Supreme Court level.

August 5th, 2011 at 9:35 am
Podcast: The Judicial Fate of ObamaCare
Posted by Print

In an interview with CFIF, Todd Gaziano, Director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, discusses the outlook for the 26-state lawsuit against ObamaCare, which is soon to be decided at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

Listen to the interview here.

August 5th, 2011 at 8:06 am
A Conservative Who Really is Pro CHOICE

Deroy Murdock throws the “pro-choice” label right back at the left. Wow. Good stuff.

August 3rd, 2011 at 10:09 am
Ramirez Cartoon: Obama and the Constitution
Posted by Print

Below is one of the latest cartoons from two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez.

View more of Michael Ramirez’s cartoons on CFIF’s website here.

July 22nd, 2011 at 1:18 pm
Obama Anniversaries Cause for Despair, Not Celebration

The Heritage Foundation has a helpful list of the Obama Administration’s many anniversaries this month:

The Obama Administration has seen its fair share of milestones this month. Yesterday marked the first anniversary of the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Protection Act, Obamacare is just over one year old, it has been more than 800 days since the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a budget, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau opened its doors on Thursday–the first new federal agency in nearly a decade. You’ll notice that no one is celebrating any of them.

Liberals are aghast that regulating the economic activity of millions of people is going so slow, while business owners and the unemployed are living in constant fear of growth-killing rules.

Happy Anniversaries, Mr. President!  Your laws are destroying America.

July 6th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Ohio to Vote on Repeal of ObamaCare, Collective Bargaining Ban

This week, the Ohio Liberty Council filed paperwork to place on a statewide ballot this November a state constitutional amendment to opt-out of ObamaCare’s individual mandate.  The Tea Party group delivered over half-a-million signatures, nearly two-hundred thousand more than needed.

On the Left, an assortment of Democratic and labor union groups claimed 1.3 million signatures in favor of repealing Ohio’s stripping of collective bargaining rights from public employee unions, known locally as Senate Bill 5.

While those who want to opt-out of ObamaCare should also support limiting public unions’ ability to bankrupt taxpayers, getting both results will require educating voters to tick ‘Yes’ for the opt-out, and ‘No’ for the repeal.  That may sound easy, but for anyone who’s tried to engineer an outcome with multiple decisions for a group (i.e. logistics for a high school reunion come to mind), it isn’t nearly as easy as it should be.

So far, momentum appears to favor both the ObamaCare opt-out and repealing the collective bargaining ban.  If those sentiments prevail, Ohioans may spare themselves a federal spending mandate while drowning themselves in a tsunami of local and state union benefits.

Suggested slogan: Ohioans Want Freedom, Not Mandates

June 13th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Federal Bureaucrats Have No Clue

Actually, it’s not the bureaucrats who individually are necessarily incompetent; it’s the system that causes so much rigmarole that truly idiotic mistakes get made. Whatever the reason, the truth is that private companies that consistently screw up rarely stay in business, whereas bureaucracies that screw up not only stay in business, but often add more bureaucrats to try to “correct” the problems that themselves are caused by too many hands in the pie and too many regulations being promulgated by too many people already.

What brings on all these musings? Here’s the latest: People whose entire houses have been blown away by tornadoes who nevertheless are denied FEMA aid because their houses supposedly showed “insufficient damage.” FEMA continues to make these sorts of mistakes even though “A pending lawsuit accusing FEMA of improperly denying thousands of farm workers in Texas money to repair their homes after Hurricane Dolly struck in 2008 based on the insufficient damage finding claims that FEMA used a concept called ‘deferred maintenance’ to back the rejections.”

Note, too, that it wasn’t an American establishment media outlet which outed this story; it was a British paper.  Don’t look to the MSM to question bureaucratic incompetence when the administration is Democratic.

Anyway, the question should arise: What happens if mistaken denials like this do not apply to somebody’s health, but to somebody’s life-saving surgery or life-saving drug treatment?  Hello, Obamacare.

June 7th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Obamacare at the Dep’t of Motor Vehicles

I’ll write more about this locally, because it is a scandal of incompetence, but…. if ANYbody wonders why most Americans don’t want government functionaries controlling access to medical care or insurance, I had a perfect reminder this morning.  Having just relocated back to my wife’s home city of Mobile, AL, I went this morning (with her) to the driver’s license office, run by the state Department of Motor Vehicles, just to transfer my license from Virginia back to Alabama. Since they still had my old Alabama license on file in their computer system from five years ago, and I moved back to the same address, it should have been a snap.

Think again.

Amidst some of the worst-organized, most inefficient, most confusing, most inattentive “service” I have EVER seen in any government office (and boy oh boy, is THAT saying a lot!), I watched as they processed about six people per hour in my little area (simple license transfers rather than new drivers who needed driving tests, etc.) for the first two hours.  Eventually, my wife and I made it out of there after THREE HOURS AND THIRTY-NINE MINUTES.

This is what happens when there is NO incentive for service people to actually provide decent service.  I watched as noly one window of four went unserviced for more than an hour; I watched as “workers” who had sat at their windows for no more than about 90 minutes then picked up their purses and left the building for extended breaks; and I sat there, agape, as the one thing nobody ever asked me was to show any sign of Alabama residency: Just about the only info they SHOULD require (for something that establishes, among other things, voting eligibility) was the one thing they didn’t ask for.  (No wonder we conservatives worry about vote fraud!)

This is what happens when government entities run things. This is why government shouldn’t run much of anything.  It is certainly why government functionaries in far-flung locales shouldn’t be making decisions about whether we do or don’t qualify for certain medical treatments.

June 3rd, 2011 at 11:04 am
Podcast: ObamaCare in the Courts
Posted by Print

In an interview with CFIF, Erik S. Jaffe, a sole practitioner in Washington, D.C. and U.S. Supreme Court expert, discusses the multiple legal challenges to President Obama’s health care reform law and lays out the possible scenarios for the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on the constitutionality of its mandates.

Listen to the interview here.

May 19th, 2011 at 2:59 pm
Obama Previews RomneyCare Attacks

Byron York relays why nominating Mitt Romney for president is so distasteful for Republican voters.

“With a little assist from the former governor of Massachusetts, we said that health care should no longer be a privilege in this country,” Obama said.  “It should be affordable and available for every American.”

A short time later, at a smaller fundraiser in a private home in Brookline, Obama said, “Our work isn’t done.  Yes, we passed health care, with an assist from a former Massachusetts governor.”  The crowd, which had paid $35,800 per couple to attend, broke into laughter and applause.  “Great idea,” Obama added.  “But we still have to implement it.”

May 17th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Obamacare Waiver Corruption Continues
Posted by Print

Ever since its inception, it’s been clear that the waiver program being run by the Obama Administration’s Department of Health and Human Services represents that age-old liberal trend: suffering for thee, but not for me. The waivers allow certain institutions to bypass the onerous requirements put in place by Obamacare. But since they are dispensed according to the whims of the Obama HHS, the recipients tend to be interests favored by the White House — a process that makes a mockery of the rule of law.

A piece in today’s Daily Caller reports yet another suspicious trend:

Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district.

Pelosi’s district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide, and the companies that won them didn’t have much in common with companies throughout the rest of the country that have received Obamacare waivers.

Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments. But Pelosi’s district’s waivers are the first major examples of luxurious, gourmet restaurants and hotels getting a year-long pass from Obamacare.

All hail the Democrats, party of the working man — assuming he works in a San Francisco bistro.

May 16th, 2011 at 11:45 am
TODAY’S RADIO SHOW LINEUP: CFIF’s Renee Giachino Hosts “Your Turn” on WEBY Radio 1330 AM
Posted by Print

Join CFIF Corporate Counsel and Senior Vice President Renee Giachino today from 4:00 p.m. CST to 6:00 p.m. CST (that’s 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. EST) on Northwest Florida’s 1330 AM WEBY, as she hosts her radio show, “Your Turn.”  Today’s guest lineup includes:

  • 4:00 p.m. CST/5:00 p.m. EST:  Jed Babbin, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense in President George H.W. Bush’s administration – foreign affairs;
  • 4:30 p.m. CST/5:30 p.m. EST:  Rep. Doug Broxson, Florida House of Representatives – Florida’s 2011 Legislative Session;
  • 5:00 p.m. CST/6:00 p.m. EST:  Mitchell Zuckoff, author of “Lost in Shangri-La: A True Story of Survival, Adventure, and the Most Incredible Rescue Mission of World War II”; and
  • 5:30 p.m. CST/6:30 p.m. EST:  Erik S. Jaffe, United States Supreme Court expert – ObamaCare Cases.

Listen live on the Internet here.   Call in to share your comments or ask questions of today’s guests at (850) 623-1330.

May 14th, 2011 at 10:49 am
Romney Fizzles on Substance, Misfires on Style

By now, you’ve probably heard that the Wall Street Journal will not be endorsing Mitt Romney or his Massachusetts health care plan for the presidency next year.  The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, however, has other observations about the businessman-turned-politician’s recent flop as speechmaker:

Romney has what might be called an Al Gore problem: Even if he’s being genuine, he seems ersatz. He assumed a professorial air by delivering a 25-page PowerPoint presentation in an amphitheater lecture hall – but the university issued a statement saying it had nothing to do with the event, for which the sponsoring college Republicans failed to fill all seats. His very appearance – a suit worn without a necktie – shouted equivocation. His hair was so slick that only a few strands defied the product.

Idea for a bumpersticker: Pity Mitt Romney.

May 10th, 2011 at 11:30 am
The Lindsey Graham Pro-Obamacare Panel

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli seems destined to lose the next round of his lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare, and he can blame South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham for it.

At the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Cuccinelli drew a horribly liberal three-judge panel to hear his case. Two of the judges are Obama appointees, and one is a Clinton appointee. The two Obama appointees should not even be on the court — but they are because of failures by, or the outright underhandedness, of Graham.  If Graham had worked harder to force approval of GW Bush judicial nominees for his own Fourth Circuit, the Circuit would remain among the most conservative in the nation, rather than now trending liberal.

Both of the Obama appointees came for seats that stood vacant during the entire eight years of the Bush presidency. Yes, eight whole years. Maryland’s Andre Davis filled a seat to which US Attorney Rod Rosenstein had been nominated by Bush. So solid were Rosenstein’s credentials that even the liberal Washington Post editorialized not just in his favor, but impassionedly in his favor, several times. Yet he never even received a vote.  North Carolina’s James Wynn came from a state that for two of those eight years enjoyed two Republican senators — thus, no “blue slip” problem — while Republicans held a strong 55-45 majority in the Senate. In short, there should have been no reason at all not to fill that seat.

Meanwhile, a South Carolina seat (Graham’s home state!) and a Virginia seat also went unfilled for years, with the Virginia seat also open during the two years of highest Republican ascendancy and with two GOP home-state senators.

Why is this in large part Graham’s fault? Several reasons.

First, he was a key player on the Judiciary Committee. Judiciary Committee members worth their salt will at least usually be able to push through the nominees from their own state, especially when both senators from the state approve. Graham in particular, if his own boasting were to be believed, should have been especially able to secure approval for nominee Steve Matthews — because his vaunted “outreach” to Democrats, via the “Gang of Fourteen” (about which more in a moment) and otherwise, should have given him even more sway with Demo committee members than an ordinary GOP committee member would have had. Instead, for all of his bipartisanship (or actual defections to the Dems), Graham was powerless to gain the approval for Matthews — if he even tried. It is highly possible that he didn’t really try, because he was trying to screw over the Bush administration for not nominating some lackey of his own. Either way, that South Carolina vacancy, later filled by Obama nominee Albert Diaz, can be laid at Graham’s door.

Then there is the Gang of Fourteen in general. The alternative to the Gang of Fourteen deal was to employ a parliamentary maneuver called the “constitutional option” that would have ruled a permanent filibuster out of order if used to kill a judicial nomination (and only if used against a judicial nomination). It was Graham, more than any other single member, who negotiated the Gang of Fourteen deal that killed the constitutional option. After the deal, all nominees were supposed to get final floor votes (without filibuster) unless they represented “extraordinary circumstances.” Gee, that didn’t work. After the Gang deal, fewer Bush nominees made it through the Senate during a time of GOP majority than the number of CLINTON nominees who made it through the Senate while the GOP held a majority. In other words, a Republican Senate was kinder to Clinton than it was to Bush. That’s hardly a triumph for Graham and his Gang.

Then there is the Virginia seat. Not one but three Bush nominees were serially blocked, two of them while Republicans held total sway. (Ironically, one of them, E. Duncan Getchell, is now the Virginia Solicitor General who will argue Cuccinelli’s case before the Fourth Circuit.) One of them was not just a failure of Graham to effectively support, but instead a victim of Graham’s deliberate sabotage. William J. Haynes was a superb nominee and was senior counsel at the Pentagon. Graham joined the Dems in effectively accusing Haynes of being responsible for “torture” of enemy detainees, even though the plain truth is that Haynes was instead responsible for reining in the amount and intensity of “enhanced interrogation” that was used. The real story was that Graham blocked Haynes because of a personal vendetta involving Air Force JAG rivalries against civilian Air Force attorneys. It was a petty vendetta, and one for which Haynes really was a mere stand-in for Graham’s ire, not even a real party to the dispute.

Publicly, for a long time, Graham refused to acknowledge responsibility for blocking Virginia’s Haynes (who originally also hailed from his home state of South Carolina, and who attended college in North Carolina, so he had ties to three of the four Fourth Circuit states), but then Graham bragged about it at a primarily liberal event (if my sources are accurate).

The reason all this is important is because a three-judge panel is chosen randomly by computer. But if there are more conservative judges to choose from, the odds of the computer assigning conservative judges to a particular case are obviously much higher. The leftist panel selected for the Cuccinelli case would almost assuredly not have been chosen (heck, two of them would not even have been on the court) if the Fourth Circuit remained a stalwart conservative bench — which it would have if Republicans, led by Graham, had fought harder and smarter to get Bush’s nominees approved.

Instead, the Fourth Circuit now leans left. Even if Cuccinelli appeals a bad three-judge panel decision to the whole circuit court en banc, the odds are at least slightly against him winning at that level. (Of course, he’ll still have a decent shot at winning at the U.S. Supreme Court, but that’s another story.)

And it really is Lindsey Graham’s fault.

April 29th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
Gallup: 73%-22% Majority Blames Deficit on Too Much Spending, Not Insufficient Taxes
Posted by Print

Here’s more encouraging news:  Americans are “getting it” on the issue of federal deficits and debt.  According to a new Gallup survey, an overwhelming 73% to 22% majority blames excess spending for the deficit, not insufficient taxation.  Barack Obama and his liberal apologists seek to blame “tax cuts for the rich” and insufficient revenues as the problem.  But as illustrated by the Heritage Foundation’s newly-released 2011 Budget Chart Book, our budget would still be approximately balanced if spending merely returned to early 2000s levels.  Does any serious person contend that government was too small in the first half of the 2000s, that government didn’t spend enough, that the poor and hungry were somehow cast out on the cold streets, that bureaucrats went unpaid?  Of course not.  The problem is explosive spending growth.  Obama oversaw an 84% increase in domestic discretionary spending, including his failed “stimulus,” in just his first two years.

Fortunately, Americans see through his attempt to demand even more taxpayer dollars to feed the insatiable leviathan he hopes to enlarge.