Trust SCOTUS?

So, Obamacare took a beating in the Supreme Court today. The mandate was battered even by liberals on the court. The odds now state that it is 55% likely the court rules the mandate unconstitutional. That does not comfort me. The Supreme Court has a history of failing to uphold the Constitution. The Kelo decision (2005) turned the 5th Amendment on its head, where it remains. The court upheld McCain-Feingold though it has corrected that with its Citizens' United ruling.

The notion that buying health insurance from an insurance company that is barred from selling insurance across state lines falls under the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce is silly on its face. If congress can require individuals to buy health insurance, what can they not force you to buy? Where is the line? One would think that advocates for Obamacare would have had an answer for that ready. Nope. One justice asked about requiring people to buy cell phones and the defense said that wasn't the same but couldn't explain why. Cuz. Oh, the 'Cuz' argument. Lovely.

If the court upholds the mandate, there will be no going back short of amending the Constitution. Once it has been determined that government can require citizens to buy something, there will be no end of things to buy.

Who's Unpatriotic Now?

The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.

Barak Obama, April 2008

Today, The US is $15.5 trillion in debt. That is $49,725 for every man, woman and child. Is that responsible? Is that patriotic? Bush took 8 years to accomplish his irresponsible and unpatriotic spending. Obama has already outdone him and it took less than 4 years. And spending on Obamacare hasn’t even begun. The path to insolvency is as clear as day and yet we are not taking action. No tax rate can pay for the promises that government has made. Government WILL renege on its promises because it is bankrupt. The debt is less than half the story.

The government has also promised to pay $15 trillion to retirees through Social Security, $20 trillion for prescription drugs, and $81 trillion for Medicare. A business is required to put these liabilities on its balance sheets but the government doesn’t; that would be a crime under the accounting rules that government has imposed on others. These bills cannot be paid and the longer we wait to reform the system the worse the disaster will be. But every president and congress decides to kick the can down the road. Let the next fellow deal with it.

Paul Ryan has a plan and has been repeatedly savaged for it. He wants to throw granny off a cliff according to a commercial. At least he has the courage to propose a fix. I also like Ron Paul’s plan of cutting a trillion dollars in his first budget. Everyone knows this must be done. MUST. There is no avoiding this. Either cut or go bankrupt. There is no other way.

Straw Poll

As predicted, the Straw Poll broke Pawlenty. Beyond that, nothing should really be taken away from it. As an Iowa native, Bachmann always had a big advantage. Her advantage will be less in the Caucus but still noteworthy. It is also interesting that Perry, as a write-in candidate who didn't participate in the recent debate, received more votes than Romney, who was on the ballot and acquitted himself well in the debate.

The conventional wisdom has already narrowed the field down to Romney and Perry. Both have the fund-raising power that the other candidates lack. Both have executive experience, unlike most of the field. I have reservations about both.

Romney: Of course, Romneycare is a lodestone, mostly because it nixes Obamacare as a line of attack. He also parrots the climate change nonsense. It is also troubling that his 'conservatism' has been a slow and politically-motivated conversion. However, he speaks very well, has had a private sector job, and plenty of executive experience. I suspect I will be disappointed by a President Romney though not as disappointed as I am with President Obama.

Perry: Ron Paul had it right when he noted that Perry is from a Right-to-work state with no income tax and a business-friendly environment; Perry would have to make an effort to screw up the economy in relation to the other states. I am troubled by his longevity in office: he is the longest serving governor in state history, having just been elected to an unprecedented third term. Plus, he had finished out the last two years of Bush's 2nd term. Reminds me of FDR. Career politicians are usually trouble. Another downside is that he is the Texas Governor so soon after another Texas Governor was president. But, like Romney, I'd be less disappointed by a President Perry than a President Obama.

Time will tell if the conventional wisdom is valid.

10 to 1 Cuts vs. "Revenue"

Much has been made of the question in last night's debate where the candidates were asked if they would walk away from a budget deal that promised $10 in cuts for every $1 in tax increases. The candidates unanimously walked away. And so they should. The cuts never happen, as Reagan discovered with TEFRA. He was promised $3 in cuts for every $1 in tax increase. He got the tax increase but future Congresses were not bound by the $3 in cuts which never materialized. No matter the ratio, the tax increase will come but the cuts won't. It's like that email where the Nigerian lawyer promises you a million dollars if you forward him $500. Sounds like a great deal. Do you walk away? What if it was $10 million? $100 million? The ratio is irrelevant.

If you change the tax code, the new tax structure continues until modified by some future Congress. On the other hand, cuts don't have that same structural longevity. If Congress cuts Program B by $1 billion this year, there is nothing to prevent them from restoring it next year. Worse still, the Congress can play the 'We would have spent' game. How does that work? Well, Congress was planning on spending $5 billion on Program C but instead only spent $4 billion. That's counted as a $1 billion cut. A cut should be when you look at what you spent last year and spend less than that amount. Such rarely happens. However, oddly enough, it happened last year. Lacking a new trillion dollar stimulus, 2010 saw a 2% reduction in federal spending. Before that, the last time spending was less was 1955.

If someone offers 10 to 1, one should skip the taxes and just take the $9 in cuts. Same difference, right? If someone offered you $10 if you paid them a dollar, wouldn't it be easier if they just gave you $9? Should give you the same balance, right? But that's not the point. That's not the goal of the person offering 'cuts' for taxes. A tax for cuts deal is doomed from the start and should never be accepted, no matter what ratio is offered.

The Debate

It was a mildly entertaining and sometimes fiery debate. Not easy to declare a winner.

- Romney did well though his defense of Romney-care as consistent with the 10th Amendment was weak. It is hard to believe in small government on the federal level while supporting large government at the state level. Still, he is correct. There were established state churches when the Bill of Rights was approved, though no one mentions that. The Bill of Rights exists to limit the federal government, not the states. Other than that, he came off well.

- Bachman was mired in defending herself from repeated attacks from Pawlenty. It was often distracting how much she had to reply to attacks. One attack stuck, in that she has a limited list of accomplishment but Congressmen seldom have much in that regard, especially if you believe in limiting government. Even so, it was massively unfair of Pawlenty to pin anything the Congress did on her, since she is but 1 vote among 535 Congressmen. She may not be on the winning side but she votes right, even Pawlenty would have to admit that.

- Pawlenty was desperate. I found him generally annoying, too often jumping on opponents very directly. Though he was on attack, he lost his battle with Bachman. Very difficult for a man to attack a woman and come away the winner; ask Rick Lazio. Worse, no one attacked him except in response to his attacks. When Pawlenty spoke, he either attacked someone or defended his record. Not a good impression.

- Paul was sometimes brilliant and sometimes obtuse. The liberty agenda is great but at times Paul saw no difference between war and crime. A foreign terrorist is not a criminal who should get the benefits of US trial. Geneva convention says we can stand them against a wall and shoot them. Let's go with that. Still, I'd be willing to try Paul's isolationist foreign policy if I could get his domestic policy. Abolish the Fed!

- Huntsman was better than I expected. Of course, that doesn't say a lot. And, though it has only been a short time, I can recall nothing memorable about what he had to say. But he left a good impression.

- Santorum was overlooked. He got irritated by the lack of questions that came his way. It did seem that Romney and Bachman had an unusually high portion of the time. Santorum was probably the most socially conservative person there. He jousted with Paul several times, notably on states rights (Paul would let the states do as they please where Santorum held there were limits, mentioning polygamy). Well-spoken and passionate.

- Cain was good on economics but less so on everything else. He needlessly announced that he had studied up on foreign policy, thereby revealing to a new audience an earlier gaffe. After prefacing his comment with that, he gave an adequate answer about Afghanistan.

- Gingrich was strong. He jumped down Chris Wallace's throat in response to a question about his resigning campaign staff, calling it a gotcha question. His answers were often the most thoughtful. He and Paul were the only ones who proposed that the entirety of US foreign policy needed rethinking. He and Romney were the best debaters.

Most of these candidates have very little riding on the Straw Poll. However, it could be a make or break for Pawlenty. I'm leaning toward break.

Debt Ceiling Failure

There is much rejoicing in Washington over the Debt Ceiling compromise. There is much talk that the Tea Party has won, getting cuts but no tax increases. Please! This is a failure. The debt ceiling will rise more than $2 trillion, the largest increase to date. Notice, that was a DEBT ceiling. Debt is increasing under this plan. Oh, but there are cuts, right? No, not really. The promised cuts are in some distant future and, even if they all come to pass, it is a pittance. We have a deficit of more than a trillion dollars but plan to cut a trillion over the next ten years? So, we'll only have deficits of $900 billion? Failure. Epic failure.

The government brings in $200 billion a month but spends $300 billion. That cannot continue. The spending must drop to meet income, the sooner the better. This deal makes it unlikely to happen in the next year and a half. DC is in denial. Bankruptcy looms and the politicians refuse to recognize the obvious. Those few who have tried to honestly address the problem have been attacked by rivals who know it is true. We are on the road to Greece but can't seem to change course.

Difference in Standards

Remember a few months back when Christopher Lee - the Republican Congressman from New York - was discovered to have posted a shirtless picture of himself online? What happened? Oh yeah, he resigned the very night that it came to light. His fellow Republicans weren't going to accept this sort of behavior or the distraction that would be associated with it. The Republicans have since lost Representative Lee's seat to the Democrats in the recent special election.

Now, what about Congressman Weiner. The night the issue appeared, he lied. Then as the scandal festered, he lied some more. Then it was starting to boil so he called in all the networks and lied again. As the lies inevitably failed, Weiner came out and admitted it. See, he's taking responsibility for his bad behavior. Well, only because he couldn't avoid it any longer. So, did the Democrats follow the Republican standard and demand Weiner resign posthaste? No. They're going with an ethics investigation. Even if Weiner did resign, the Democrats are unlikely to lose the seat.

Which party is holding its members to a higher standard of behavior?