Health Care Mandates Justified By The Commerce Clause ... HUH?

Two rather significant problems with Dems repeated claims that the Constitution's Commerce Clause gives them the authority to force citizens to comply with these new health care requirements:

1. ANY reading of what the founders intended that clause to cover proves the Democrats are incorrect in applying it the way they are. It is unconstitutional on that basis.
2. The Commerce Clause was created to 'make regular' interstate commerce. Problem is there is NO interstate commerce involved in the way health insurance companies operate. Congress long ago CREATED LAWS PREVENTING(!) insurance companies from competing across state lines. Therefore, the insurance industry is prevented from interstate commerce BY LAW! If they MAY NOT compete across state lines, then the Commerce Clause CANNOT POSSIBLY APPLY! It is unconstitutional on this basis also.

In addition, what they're requiring states to do via this health care bill is a complete violation of states rights as established by the constitution (again, via ANY reading of the founders' intentions). That is so clear to states that at least 38(!) states' attorney's general are prepared to sue Congress over this. 4 states' AG's said they were going to file suit immediately after Obama signs it. The rest will either join the suit or decide what to do based on the results of that.

By the way, our own US representative, Peter DeFazio, when asked in a town hall meeting what authority they have to do this, said their authority for this health care bill is the General Welfare Clause. So, not only can't they get their stories straight, but his claim is also incorrect. This health care reform is NOT covered under the General Welfare Clause either by ANY interpretation of the founders' written intentions. In fact, they made a point of excluding such application in multiple writings.

The ACTUAL constitution means nothing to these guys. They are completely out of control.

By the way, NO major legislation, especially big permanent social legislation, in our history has been rammed through by one party at the total exclusion of participation in its creation by the other and complete lack of yes votes. Social Security and Medicare were also controversial Democratic products but they involved Republicans. Those bills passed with bipartisan involvement, debate, support, and voting. The only thing bipartisan about this one is opposition to it (with some 35 or so Dems ... ie, 14%!!! ... voting against it).

Reality Check: Eliminating Pre-Existing Conditions Is Not Free

Let's be clear at the outset. I favor restricting insurance companies' ability to deny coverage based on existing bad health conditions. Note I said 'restricting'.

The problem insurance companies have (which is also our problem) is lots of people don't purchase health insurance so they'll have more money for other stuff. Then, when they get sick, they want to buy insurance to cover what they have so they don't have to pay so much for the care they need. What they're doing, of course, is forcing/expecting the rest of the insured pool of people to subsidize their care but they won't contribute to the pool to help others. What they want (ie, feel entitled to!) for themselves they're unwilling to do for others.

The whole point of 'group insurance', whether it be for health, death/dismemberment or other (there are hundreds of different forms of group insurance), is to protect everyone in the pool against some catastrophic event. We all pay a little so no one has to endure significant hardship due to one of life's vagaries. It's the humane thing to do.

When we were a more rural/agricultural society, it's how people lived because life, in general. was challenging if not usually hard. But it was a good kind of 'hard' life. It had its rewards. It was satisfying. Neighbor helping neighbor was often a matter of survival ... personally and for one's neighbors. Strongly knitted and supportive communities survived ... most thrived, in spite of extraordinary hardships. Group insurance is rooted in that kind of thinking/attitude and is successful because many more people still think that way than not.

Problem now is the increasing percentage of people who feel entitled to the good life or to 'stuff' regardless the impact on others. An increasing percentage of people in America have an increasing sense of entitlement and a decreasing sense of responsibility to be a good neighbor and contributor to the common good. What far too many people don't seem to understand is that to have the kind of good life that's truly satisfying, one needs to contribute to the greater good and work hard to 'make' a good life for one's self.

If you want more 'stuff' or a 'more comfortable life', you need to do whatever it takes to become qualified for higher-paying work. So that you can not only take care of yourself and your family but so you can contribute to the good of the community. We should all work to be a net contributor to society, not a net drag on it. It doesn't always work out well but that should be our goal. Otherwise, when the percentage of selfish individuals reaches a certain point, everyone loses including the selfish ones.

So, back to the Pre-Existing Conditions challenge. If we eliminate insurance companies' ability to use that, those of us who do have insurance will pay A LOT MORE IN PREMIUMS. Insurance companies won't exist if they don't make a profit, right? What WILL happen if we eliminate their ability to disallow coverage of people who come into it with the condition they want to get covered? The SIMPLE answer is it will cost them A LOT MORE MONEY because people will tend not to buy insurance until they're sick so they'll be a huge net consumer of the available health care dollars. Eliminating pre-existing conditions WILL cost the insurance companies a lot more money so what will they do? Maybe increase everyone's premiums? Well, duh!!!

The 'simple' solution is to require everyone to have insurance. Then we could eliminate insurance companies' use of pre-existing conditions. People wouldn't come into insurance pools only when they're sick. We cannot have it both ways. If people aren't required to buy insurance AND we eliminate pre-existing condition clauses our insurance rates WILL GO UP, probably a lot.

I prefer another solution because I don't think requiring Americans to buy a particular product is constitutional. It's at least inconsistent with constitutional principles and principles that make a Republic possible. What I'd do is restrict (not eliminate) the use of pre-existing conditions and to apply conditions on people who start insurance for the purpose of treating an existing condition. They should be required to remain in the pool long after they've gottent the care they seek and they should pay an above average premium until some time after they're cured. People who have insurance while healthy should receive a discount for a healthy lifestyle. Probably several other things make sense to do but you probably get my point.

Bankrupt USA Possible? Our Arrogance And Irrational Economic Policies Make It Nearly Certain.

Greece is on the verge of bankruptcy and several other EU countries are not far behind. Three big problems there. First, their national debt is around 10% of the GDP. Also, approximately 10% of their citizens work for the government. And total cost to employers of unionized employees has grown dramatically.

Our national debt ratio in America is also around 10%. 8% of Americans worked in government in 2007. Since government employment has grown dramatically in the past two years, it's safe to say it's approaching 9% in America. Total cost of unionized employees has grown dramatically over the past 20 years. To assess whether the cost of unionized employees is causing economic problems, check which employers and states are in financial trouble and why.

The reason a large percentage of government workers is a problem for any economy is that government doesn't create wealth. It ONLY consumes wealth. The larger government becomes, the less economic resources are available to grow or sustain an economy. That black hole like sucking sound you hear is the health of our economy being sucked right into oblivion.

Financial commitments to unions in America (that the average American can't even dream of having) have put two of our biggest companies, GM and Chrysler, as well as many, many others in trouble. In fact, without major concessions by unions last year those auto companies would likely have folded. Several state governments are in danger of various defaults or even bankruptcy, the worst example being California with a mind-boggling $540 Billion of debt. Most of their financial burdens are financial concessions and obligations to unions that are completely unsustainable and totally irrational in retrospect.

America is in nearly as bad a condition financially and economically as several other countries that are on the verge of bankruptcy. Think it can't happen here? Wake up! It CAN! Our arrogance thinking it can't happen here will prevent us from doing what we need to do in order to prevent it. If we don't SOON shrink all governments by a large amount, reverse irrational surrender to union demands and reverse the trend toward astronomical debt our economy can and WILL collapse.

KSM Trial In New York City: Irrational Rationalization

If KSM were to go on trial in NYC, wouldn't ANY competent defense attorney immediately request a change of venue? And is there any doubt that it would HAVE to be granted?

I've heard liberals say on TV they think he should be tried at the Twin Towers site to send him a message and to give those killed there the last word so to speak. Talk about a biased environment!

Also, we've all heard the Obama administration (both the top guy in our judicial system AND the office of the military's Commander In Chief!) assure(!) The American People KSM and other Twin Towers terrorists will be convicted and will most likely get the death penalty under our civilian judicial system as justification for it being okay to try them in NYC.

I'm sitting here scratching my head over all this, saying to myself "what's wrong with this picture?" There's something about these statements that seems like warped reasoning to me. Consider the following.

• If we want him to be tried in NYC under our civilian system of justice, don't we have to deny him the right to a change of venue? Can anyone doubt that, if requested, a change of venue would HAVE to be granted? If ever there were a case where the jury pool is undeniably biased, wouldn't this qualify as the 'poster child' for when a judge would have to grant a change of venue? What are the chances that there are any potential jurors in NYC who haven't heard about the Twin Towers event and have no particular opinion or bias about it?
• If we deny him the right to a change of venue, doesn't that do the exact opposite of what the supporters of a NYC trial want? How can one say a trial there in a civilian court validates and demonstrates the superiority of our civilian judicial system if we deny KSM ANY rights normal to that system? Doesn't forcing him to be tried there in spite of our normal judicial rights prove our judicial system isn't fair in the absolute sense?
• Isn't it absolutely clear that, if his right to a change of venue is not denied, his lawyer would request a change of venue? Any lawyer in this country seeking justice who considers getting his client as fair a trial as possible to be his primary responsibility (ie, wants to keep his license to practice) must(!) request a change of venue in this case. Wouldn't it be malpractice not to request it?
• If KSM is denied the right to request a change of venue OR his lawyer requests it and it is denied, is there any doubt that would be a good basis for appeal? Is there ANY doubt that the original verdict would absolutely be thrown out on appeal on that basis?
• Is there any doubt a change of venue would be granted? That means, if we give him all the normal rights a defendant MUST have under our judicial system, he won't even be tried in NYC anyway. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of, the whole justification for, putting him on trial there in the first place?
• There's another reason why he now CANNOT get a fair trial in NYC. The White House, various Democratic leaders and even the Attorney General of the United States(!) have tried to assure us that NYC is an acceptable location to try KSM and other Twin Towers terrorists because they're certain those guys WILL be convicted and will probably get the death penalty. Talk about biasing the trial! What lawyer worth his salt wouldn't appeal KSM's guilty verdict on that basis and what judge worth his salt would not grant it? If our civilian judicial system is in fact completely fair, is there any doubt that KSM's verdict would be overturned on the basis of such bias?
• Even if it were now switched to a military tribunal trial we may have just guaranteed the verdicts will be overturned on appeal because the ultimate boss of the military people (the office of the Commander In Chief!) has biased THAT kind of trial too by declaring these guys will be found guilty. It is easy to imagine that these guys will now go free no matter what we do.

So, either we deny him his right to a change of venue which would guarantee the verdict would be appealed on the basis of denial of his right to a fair trial or he'll get a change of venue which makes this whole effort for a NYC trial moot and a complete waste of time. In fact, haven't we now guaranteed that whatever guilty verdict comes about (wherever he goes on trial) will not only be appealed on the basis of prejudice to convict but most certainly will be overturned?

The only option is to try KSM and the other terrorists in a military tribunal. It may be that even that would allow them to go free now that representatives of the Commander In Chief, the top dog in the military chain of command, have said they will be found guilty.

Does any of this make any sense whatsoever to you? I completely don't get it. Either I'm not making sense of it correctly or our Democratic leaders aren't. It seems to me like incompetence and irrationality to an extent that makes no sense whatsoever.

National Debt: Bush vs Democrats ... The Truth This Time

The truth is in short supply regarding the increase in the national debt under "W" Bush.

Politicians are adept at misdirection. Say a few things that are more or less factual and make an irrational link to the other guy so it looks like he screwed up.

I'm no fan of how Congressional Republicans under President Bush spent themselves silly in spite of demands by their constituents not to. Democrats' criticism of it is completely valid and most Republicans I know are at least as unhappy with it which is a big reason why Democrats have been winning big in national elections for the past three years.

Democrats have had a field day with it and hardly a week goes by that Democratic leaders don't slam Bush for the debt he created which in turn contributed in some measure to the financial crisis in which we find ourselves. Most Americans think that part of it was totally Bush's doing but the facts, if you're interested in truth at all, tell a different story.

Check out these facts:

1. According to the Constitution, Congress has primary(!) authority over and responsibility for taxing and spending. (They also have primary oversight responsibility over the federal financial institutions/bureaucracies that failed us in this crisis but that's a subject for another blog.) Note that the president does NOT have responsibility for taxing and spending. He may propose taxes and spending. If he doesn't like what Congress implemented relative to what he wanted he can also veto Congress' taxes and spending bills. But Congress has the last word and can override his veto if they feel strongly enough about it and can muster the necessary votes. Bottom line: ultimate/final authority and responsibility for taxing and spending rests with the legislature ... period. (To be absolutely clear, that means Bush wasn't. NO president is!)
2. Democrats were in control of the House AND Senate during Bush's last two years in office. That means Democrats(!) had primary authority and responsibility during that time over whatever debt was created. They had both the authority and responsibility to spend and tax as they saw fit, regardless of what Bush wanted. It's therefore completely(!) illogical and irrational to argue that debt created during Bush's last two years was his doing.
3. The average increase in the national debt under Bush before Democrats had full control and responsibility over it was about $450B per year (ie, for 6 years) and it never increased more than $600B in any of those years.
4. The increase in the national debt after Democrats took control of the legislature and were therefore responsible for debt (or surplus): $1.0 Trillion the first year and $1.9 Trillion the second year for an average that was TRIPLE what happened under Bush.
5. Of the total increase in national debt while Bush was president, 47% of the increase or nearly half(!) of the debt increase occurred while Democrats had total control over and responsibility for the debt (or surplus if one had existed).
6. During Bush's 7th year in office, the Democratic legislature's debt increase was TWICE what Republicans averaged under Bush.
7. During Bush's last year in office, the Democratic legislature's debt increase was FOUR TIMES(!) what Republicans averaged under Bush.
8. Is it any surprise that the first year after Bush was gone is going to be far, far worse than even that?
9. By the way, President Obama was a member of that Democratic-controlled legislature that spent itself even sillier than those from whom they took power. Isn't it arguably true that Obama was more part of the debt problem Bush's last two years than Bush since Obama had more control over it than Bush? Oh my!)

So, the bottom line is that nearly HALF of the debt increase Democrats say "Bush caused" during his eight years in office was actually created by a Democratic-controlled Congress, not by Bush at all, much less Republicans in general.

Democrats controlled the legislature and, therefore, our debt and significant aspects of our financial health for two years before the current financial crisis befell us. They had plenty of time and ALL the power/control necessary to blunt or even avoid the financial crisis. While Republicans AND President Bush deserve lots of credit for making bad fiscal and financial decisions for the first 6 years of Bush's administration, the Democrat legislature had sufficient opportunity and, arguably, responsibility to avoid or at least diminish the impact of the financial crisis. In my opinion ALL our elected representatives in the executive and legislative branches failed us ... miserably. For sure they ALL share significant measures of blame. (Makes one question the competency of our current 'leaders' to fix it doesn't it?)

Folks, if we're to do the right thing to correct problems in our governments, we MUST get our facts straight. We can't fix (properly at least) what we don't understand. Take responsibility to understand the truth and push your representatives to do a better job.

Haiti Heartbreak

(Image from the AP)

Oh My! I found myself mesmerized by this picture. Just kept staring at it trying to grasp in my pea brain what it must be like. I failed completely. I still don't get it. Pictures like this (and there are MANY more) express what words cannot.

The magnitude of the devastation is incomprehensible isn't it? So is the amount of suffering. They need so much ... relief agencies of any and all kinds, our most generous donations and our prayers. And they'll need it for, literally, years ahead.

It's The Constitution Speaking Through The People

It's interesting to me that so many people are surprised by the outcome of the Massachusetts senatorial special election last night in which a seat to which Democrats felt entitled was won by a Republican. Democrats have been having their way ... completely ... on The Hill for the past year and in the process not only ignored what anyone else wanted done legislatively, but even showed disrespect and disdain toward anyone who dared oppose their juggernaut.

Massachusetts is only some 35% registered Democrats. When you disrespect the other 65% of the state's citizens by telling them "we won ... we get to do it OUR way" and then proceed to do exactly that, how do you expect them to react? It demonstrates a degree of arrogance on the part of Democrats to ignore and otherwise disrespect 65% of a state's citizens and expect them to just shut up and take it. Even the president SAID(!) early last year to anyone who opposed the Democrats' unilateral actions: "be quiet and get out of the way". Think how incredible a demand that is by a president of ALL the people.

This is a democracy. The president should be encouraging all Americans' involvement, not telling half of them to be quiet and get out of his way. Those so-called representatives in the legislature and executive branches have no right to disenfranchise nearly half of Americans. In fact, they have a duty to ensure all Americans have equal opportunity to participate in and/or contribute to the process. Shutting off the voice of half of Americans is arguably unconstitutional.

The representatives doing this claim to be smarter than most Americans. They keep half of Americans from having a voice in government and think there won't be a strong reaction? That doesn't sound smart to me. They're clearly full of themselves, not wisdom.

Granted, a Republic can be a messy thing. It's all supposed to be about compromise and incorporating a balance of all the best ideas from all corners of the political spectrum ... based on the will and interests of The People. Autocracies are most certainly an easier way to govern. Just do it the current leaders' way and ignore or punish the opposition. However, this is a government of, by and for THE PEOPLE, not of, by and for one party. It's called Freedom which is, by definition, for ALL The People. One-party rule as we've had for the past year is the antithesis of Freedom. Last night's election result suggests that maybe the majority of Americans do understand we either embrace Freedom (and accept the messiness inherent in it) or lose it.

Mr. Reid and Democrats In Congress: Your Hypocracy Is Showing!

So Mr. Reid can say during last year's presidential race that then senator Obama is a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one" and it's no big deal, huh? It's okay to say "negro" and that Senator Obama turns his "Negro dialect" on and off? I say, huh? Is that extraordinary that anyone, especially one of the three most politically powerful people in our country would say that? By the way, isn't it really, REALLY easy to imagine how Democrats would react if a Republican Senate Majority Leader had said something racially insensitive? Wait a minute, we already have an example in the Trent Lott affair. Hmmmm.

At least three huge problems with what's going on. First, condemnation should be universal and universally immediate and unqualified. Regardless of one's politics, this cannot be excused. Second, could the hypocracy of Democrats in Congress be any more clear? Third, the ease with which Democrats are capable of both saying such things and excusing them(!) is shocking to every fair-minded American who, to a man/woman, ought to expect contriteness, not spin. The subject and fact of racism in America begs we do better and hold EVERYONE accountable for screwing up. Especially our leaders!

Will we see any outrage from the African American community? I hope we will because they lose credibility that racism is a matter of conscience and principle instead of politics if they won't stand on those ideals when Democrats do it.

Ohio State Simply Outplayed Our Oregon Team

Gotta give kudo's to Ohio State and their fans. They simply outplayed our boys. Our boys' heart and desire and even talent was evident but on that day they made too many mistakes and the quality of play just wasn't up to their usual level. Ohio State was clearly on top of their game and deserved the win so congratulations to Ohio State, their fans and the Big Ten for a job well done.

We hope to meet you again in the same contest next year to even the score. ;-)

Game On!

DUCKS 'N BUCKS

- 2010 ROSE BOWL -

GO DUCKS! BEAT THE BUCKS!