Daily Archives: December 14, 2010
If you don’t have any principles it’s pretty easy to “get things done”. You just compromise on everything, never take a stand and presto, you have a mess of epic proportions.
That seems to be exactly what this latest astroturf project called “No Labels” is all about. No more “hyperpartisanship”. “Let’s get things done!”
On display at their roll out was the “Who’s Who” of the mushy middle:
And its speakers—who ranged from Republican moderates like ex-Virginia Rep. Tom Davis to liberal Democrats like New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand—sang the praises of cooperation and compromise.
But the only Republicans present at Columbia University’s modern, square Alfred Lerner Hall seemed to be those who had recently lost primary races, such as South Carolina Rep. Bob Inglis and Delaware Rep. Mike Castle, or former Republicans like Florida Gov. Charlie Crist and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. No other senior elected Republican officials were in attendance, though a range of Democrats were present, some of them seeming a bit mystified by the bipartisan cast of the event, like the reliably liberal Gillibrand, and others whose clashes with unions – like Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Newark Mayor Cory Booker – have put some distance between them and their parties.
One little ironic note – one of the co-founders, John Avlon is the author of a book called "Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America." Most who’ve spent more than a day in the blogosphere know that "wingnuts" is a lefty euphemism for just about anyone on the right they disagree with. The right uses "moonbats" in the same way. I’m sure Mr. Avalon, who was a Rudi Giuliani staffer, was just using the term, uh, "interchangeably" (*cough, cough*). And if so, one can only assume he’s referring to the fringe which actually believes in something enough to fight for it messing up the "No Labels" group’s "compromise till you drop/let’s get things done" mantra. Or is it "compromise till we’re broke". Oh, wait …
And, as the POLITICO notes, what few Republicans were there were losers in their most recent attempt at gaining public office.
Any guess as to why?
Last and certainly not least (well, except in most rating books) the event was hosted by MSNBC which has been looking for its own sort of "tea party" org to which it can hitch it’s wagon.
The events were moderated by MSNBC personalities Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, Dylan Ratigan, and Michael Smerconish. If Fox News seemed to be associated with the Tea Party, then No Labels was an MSNBC affair.
Bingo. If you can’t beat them at the same game, play the game on astroturf.
Yup – in today’s world standing and fighting for your principles is called "hyperpartisanship" and the mushy middle just isn’t going to stand for it anymore. And if you don’t quit it, they’re just going to have to call you names, stomp their feet and hold their breath. Oh, and sing their new anthem at you.
Meanwhile some t-shirt designs shown at the opening rally appear to have been ripped off without permission. Compromise that.
That is precisely the take that Josh Marshall and much of the left have, amusingly, expressed:
A year ago, no one took seriously the idea that a federal health care mandate was unconstitutional. And the idea that buying health care coverage does not amount to "economic activity" seems preposterous on its face.
I’m not sure how Marshall actually believes "no one" took seriously the idea that the health care mandate was unconstitutional, unless he really means "no one who matters". And even then he’s wrong. So let’s boil it down to its real meaning – no one on the left, who consistently ignore the Constitution and matters relating to constitutionality, took the idea seriously.
I’m shocked – shocked I tell you.
Obviously a whole lot of people in the middle and on the right took it very seriously. So much so that at least a plurality of states have initiated law suits against it and/or passed laws rejecting it.
Marshall also claims that the “idea that buying health care coverage does not amount to "economic activity" seems preposterous on its face.” Uh, OK, who exactly is claiming that? What is being discussed is not buying insurance. And the decision to not buy something has nothing to do with “economic activity” does it? So let’s turn Marshall’s sentence around: “the idea that not buying health care coverage does amount to “economic activity” seems preposterous on its face”.
Yes, I would agree – and so did Judge Hudson.
Speaking of Judge Hudson, Richard Epstein gives a pretty good summary of the key point in his ruling:
The key successful move for Virginia was that it found a way to sidestep the well known 1942 decision of the Supreme Court in Wickard v. Filburn, which held in effect that the power to regulate commerce among the several states extended to decisions of farmers to feed their own grain to their own cows. Wickard does not pass the laugh test if the issue is whether it bears any fidelity to the original constitutional design. It was put into place for the rather ignoble purpose of making sure that the federally sponsored cartel arrangements for agriculture could be properly administered.
At this point, no District Court judge dare turn his back on the ignoble and unprincipled decision in Wickard. But Virginia did not ask for radical therapy. It rather insisted that “all” Wickard stands for is the proposition that if a farmer decides to grow wheat, he cannot feed it to his own cows if a law of Congress says otherwise. It does not say that the farmer must grow wheat in order that the federal government will have something to regulate.
It is just that line that controls this case. The opponents of the individual mandate say that they do not have to purchase insurance against their will. The federal government may regulate how people participate in the market, but it cannot make them participate in the market. For if it could be done in this case it could be done in all others.
Read all of Epstein’s opinion piece by the way. There’s a lot more to this than just the point I made and he explains it very well. The usual suspects disagree.
Anyway, assuming this somehow stands and makes it to the Supreme Court, where after a good breakfast and a good night’s sleep Justice Anthony Kennedy decides “what the hell, Judge Hudson is right” and the court rules the mandate unconstitutional, what would be the ramifications?
Without the individual mandate, the whole Obamacare edifice crumbles. The judge did not rule that the entire law must be invalidated. But if the individual mandate goes, the insurance regulations — and most especially the requirement that insurers must take all comers without regard to their health status — will never work. Patients could simply wait to enroll in health coverage until they needed some kind of expensive treatment or procedure, and thus pocket the premiums they would have paid when they were not in need of much medical attention.
Or said more simply – without the mandate the whole of the law is unworkable. Without the mandate, repeal will seem to be the best option.
Oh, and watch the GOP on that point. When it was first passed, all I heard was “repeal, repeal”. Now I’m hearing “repeal and replace”. Uh, no – no “replace”. Fix the government side of things that are in such horrendous shape and driving the cost of health care up, but stay out of people’s private insurance.
And should repeal actually happen the insurance industry better get their heads out of their posterior and get busy finding ways to insure more people more cheaply (like creating products where employers could indeed move their workers to that would be outside the work place making insurance portable (thus no “pre-existing conditions”), affordable (large pool) and deliver quality care. Because, as is obvious, if they don’t someone will again try to do it for them.
That’s a quote from Michelle Obama during the signing of the Healthy, Hunger-free Kids Act. It is also a quote out of context. So let’s be fair – here’s the entire quote:
“But when our kids spend so much of their time each day in school, and when many children get up to half their daily calories from school meals, it’s clear that we as a nation have a responsibility to meet as well,” Mrs. Obama said. “We can’t just leave it up to the parents. I think that parents have a right to expect that their efforts at home won’t be undone each day in the school cafeteria or in the vending machine in the hallway. I think that our parents have a right to expect that their kids will be served fresh, healthy food that meets high nutritional standards.”
Unlike it is being characterized in some places, she’s essentially claiming it is the job of government to aid parents in ensuring that children are properly fed at school.
Hate to be a party pooper, but in reality it isn’t the job of any government our founders envisioned. It is a job that government has assumed because a) it put itself in charge of schools and b) it decided it had to feed children while they are at school.
In fact, as benign as you may consider that, it is just another indication of the creeping reach of government. Michelle Obama is using the force of law to do what she and the legislators who approved this bill have decided constitutes “good nutrition” regardless of what parents think. The fact that it may actually be “good nutrition” and a benefit doesn’t change the fact that parents wishes or desires aren’t a part of this at all.
In fact, what most parents think they have a “right” to is deciding what their children will or won’t do, eat, participate in or undergo. Somehow government constantly wedges its way into this “right” and attempts to usurp a lot of those decisions. And it is when it finally establishes that position of power that it begins banning things like bake sales in schools and the like.
I know that most are going to view this law as a “good thing”. But looking at the following, you tell me what say parents are going to have concerning this program:
The law increases spending on school nutrition programs by $4.5 billion over ten years and encompasses a range of provisions, including offering qualified children breakfast, lunch and dinner at school, as well as meals during the summer. It also includes a pilot program for “organic foods.”
No one wants hungry or malnourished children. But for the most part, given the other food programs that are available to single mothers and low income families, I would guess the problem is vastly overstated. This is feel good legislation that lets the do-gooders pat themselves on the back and adds yet another layer of government intrusiveness. It also assumes more and more responsibility for the children of others while requiring less from the parents. In essence, and as we all know, there is going to be a certain segment of the population that abrogates their responsibility to feed their children – when they’re perfectly capable of doing it — to take advantage of such a program when in fact they could (and should) shoulder the responsibility themselves (not to mention the bonding benefits of the “family dinner”). And it thus becomes just another dependency welfare program at that point.
People who agree with this sort of interventionist government program are going to claim the usual – $4.5 billion is but a drop in the budgetary bucket and it is “for the children”.
Of course it takes many drops to fill a bucket, and no one said creeping tyranny wouldn’t come cloaked is seemingly benign programs. Personal responsibility, of course, is not one of the virtues this sort of a program encourages. And that is a virtue that government should be stressing instead of further inserting itself in our lives.