Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Did Obama Con the Republi-CONs?

As noted before, to balance the budget, do nothing, and now more than ever.

"In August, Republicans scored what they thought was a big win by persuading Democrats to accept a trigger that consisted only of spending cuts. The price they paid was 1) concentrating the cuts on the Pentagon while exempting Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare beneficiaries, and 2) delaying the cuts until January 1, 2013. That was, they figured, a win, as it eschewed taxes. Grover Norquist's pledge remained unbroken.

But 12 years earlier, George W. Bush had set a trigger of his own. In order to pass his tax cuts using the 51-vote budget reconciliation process, he had agreed to let them sunset in 2010. A last-minute deal extended them until the end of 2012.

So now there are two triggers. One is an extremely progressive spending trigger worth $1.2 trillion that goes off on January 1, 2013. The other is an extremely progressive tax trigger worth $3.8 trillion that goes off on...January 1, 2013. If you count reduced interest payments, the two policies alone would reduce future deficits by about $6 trillion. That's far more than anything the supercommittee came close to discussing. It's distributed far more progressively than anything the Democrats have even considered proposing. And all that needs to happen for it to pass is, well, nothing."

Read the Washington Post, The GOP's dual-trigger nightmare.

Also read the Washington Post, The GOP’s dual trigger nightmare in one graph, which notes, "[t]o get a sense of how progressive, here’s a graph comparing the spending cuts and tax increases in all of the major deficit-reduction packages proposed thus far":

A NoBullU Prediction: Romney-Cain in 2012

UPDATE VII: So much for this prediction. Read the Washington Post, Ginger White accuses Herman Cain of long affair.


UPDATE VI: "The Republican Party’s inevitable decision to nominate Mitt Romney for president is starting to look evitable after all.

That’s certainly not a consensus view among the Washington cognoscenti, who tend to see the yet-to-come primaries and caucuses as mere formalities. . .

But I’m less and less convinced. It’s hard for me to see how any of the other candidates can win the nomination — but it’s hard for me to see how Romney wins it, either.

Polls have told a consistent story: Between 20 percent and 30 percent of Republican voters support Romney, and the rest support somebody else. Actually, not somebody, anybody.

It was bad enough when Romney’s main challenger was Michele Bachmann, whose views are so extreme that she favored allowing the nation to go into default — thus triggering the possible collapse of the global financial system — rather than to raise the debt ceiling. It was bad enough when Rick Perry entered the race and vaulted into the lead, sight unseen. It was bad enough when Republicans, having actually made Perry’s acquaintance, practically offered New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie the nomination, along with a dog and pony, if he’d just say yes.

But the whole Herman Cain infatuation is much worse, from Romney’s point of view. Here’s a man with no experience in public office, no knowledge of international affairs and, from the evidence of his '9-9-9' tax plan, bizarre ideas about how arithmetic works. Yet before allegations of sexual harassment threatened to derail the Cain Train, he was leading in many polls.

It is safe to conclude that most Republicans are looking for an alternative. Clearly, they don’t see Romney as the inevitable nominee — and they’re the deciders."

Read the Washington Post, Is Romney really the GOP’s choice?

BTW, evitable (first sentence above) means possible to avoid.


UPDATE V: Of course not everyone is happy with The Inevitable Candidate.

One long time conservative columnist thinks "Romney, supposedly the Republican most electable next November, is a recidivist reviser of his principles who is not only becoming less electable; he might damage GOP chances of capturing the Senate. Republican successes down the ticket will depend on the energies of the Tea Party and other conservatives, who will be deflated by a nominee whose blurry profile in caution communicates only calculated trimming."

Read the Washington Post, Mitt Romney, the pretzel candidate.


UPDATE IV: For further proof that Romney has the eelction wrapped up, read the Washington Post, Perry goes into the fever swamp; Birtherism and secession and Rick Perry’s birther Parade, which notes that "political professionals expect more from a mainstream candidate such as Perry. After Perry’s birther Parade, strategist Karl Rove lectured his one-time friend Monday in a Fox News appearance. 'You associate yourself with a nutty view like that and you damage yourself,' he said. Rove added that the pandering to Trump 'starts to marginalize you in the minds of some of the people whom you need in order to get the election.'"


UPDATE III: After last week's blunder on abortion, Cain might not be the Republi-con VP nominee, but have no doubt, Romney's got it wrapped up.

"FOR the next three months, the political press will engage in an extended masquerade, designed to persuade credulous readers and excitable viewers that the Republican presidential nomination is actually up for grabs.

Last week the big story was Herman Cain’s rise to the top of the polls, and then Rick Perry’s combativeness at the Las Vegas debate. Next week, perhaps, it will be Newt Gingrich’s surprising resilience or Ron Paul’s potential strength in the early caucuses or the appeal of Perry’s flat-tax plan. Then there will come a debate in which Mitt Romney looks shabby instead of smooth, a poll that shows one of his rivals surging, a moment when all his many weaknesses are on every pundit’s lips.

Please do not listen to any of them. Ignore the Politico daily briefings, the Rasmussen tracking polls, the angst from conservative activists over Romney’s past deviations and present-day dishonesties. Please ignore me as well, should campaign fever inspire a column about the Santorum surge or the Huntsman scenario. Because barring an unprecedented suspension of the laws of American politics, Mitt Romney has this thing wrapped up."

Read The New York Times, The Inevitable Nominee.


UPDATE II: Though he's a teabagger Republi-con favorite, he's really a political insider.

"From 1996, when he left the pizza company, until 1999, Mr. Cain ran the National Restaurant Association, a once-sleepy trade group that he transformed into a lobbying powerhouse. He allied himself closely with cigarette makers fighting restaurant smoking bans, spoke out against lowering blood-alcohol limits as a way to prevent drunken driving, fought an increase in the minimum wage and opposed a patients’ bill of rights — all in keeping with the interests of the industry he represented." Read The New York Times, Cain, Now Running as Outsider, Came to Washington as Lobbyist.


UPDATE: Or Cain-Romney. Read the Washington Post, Herman Cain surges to front of GOP pack in new poll.

Tea Party supporters and conservatives prefer Cain by a 2-to-1 margin.

A Romney-Cain ticket would quiet Not-Mitt Republic-cons, and appeal to the base.

BTW, did you know that in "February 2008, Herman Cain used his syndicated column to endorse a candidate in the Republican primary." Read The Atlantic, When Herman Cain Endorsed Mitt Romney for President.

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Will the Tea Party Debate Pass the Test of 'Limited Government, Free Markets, and Fiscal Responsibility'

UPDATE IV: It's been almost three months since the questions was first posed, but Ron Paul finally said it: "the federal war on drugs is a total failure . . . it undermines our civil liberties, it magnifies our problems on the borders -- we spent like over the last 40 years a trillion dollars on this war and, believe me, the kids can still get the drugs. It just hasn't worked." Read Sentencing Law and Policy, GOP candidate Ron Paul assails Obama pot policy and garners applause calling federal drug war "a total failure".


UPDATE III: You might also ask about the federalization of law enforcement.

"For centuries, a bedrock principle of criminal law has held that people must know they are doing something wrong before they can be found guilty. The concept is known as mens rea, Latin for a 'guilty mind.'

This legal protection is now being eroded as the U.S. federal criminal code dramatically swells. In recent decades, Congress has repeatedly crafted laws that weaken or disregard the notion of criminal intent. Today not only are there thousands more criminal laws than before, but it is easier to fall afoul of them.

As a result, what once might have been considered simply a mistake is now sometimes punishable by jail time."

Read the Wall Street Journal, As Federal Crime List Grows, Threshold of Guilt Declines.


UPDATE II: Another GOP debate, another chance to ask questions "about incarceration policies and the drug war:

Instead of putting our tax dollars into prisons, why not put them into rehabilitation centers for those who get caught with drug possessions?

America has the largest prison population per capita of any country in the world. Do you believe that we are arresting too many people?

Would you back a law to make prison time mandatory for anyone that employs illegal aliens, no exceptions?

The Federal Government spends $500 per second on the war on drugs, adding to the 90% of federal prisoners incarcerated for non-violent crimes. This is overshadowed by the cost of The War on Terror. As President, would you let these costly wars go on?

What will it take to end, in a timely decisive manner, the Global Drug War; a scheme of American Prohibition and world-wide U.S. Imperialism, that funds not only domestic violence and international terrorism, but also the Prison-Industrial Complex?

I am not especially confident that any of these questions will get posed tonight or at any of the forthcoming GOP debates, but I will continue hoping these issues might eventually get some attention at some point in this political/election cycle."

Read Sentencing Law and Policy, Hoping (perhaps foolishly, yet again) latest GOP debate addresses crime and punishment.


UPDATE: Something to remember as you watch the debates:

"The tea party was described as the new kid on the block of American politics, when in fact it was the extension of forces long at work in the political system.

It was described by some of its grass-roots organizers as a movement driven by principle whose members swore no allegiance to either party. That, too, has been shown to be wrong as its roots in the Republican Party have become more evident."

Read the Washington Post, What the tea party is — and isn’t.

Interesting questions and commentary from Sentencing Law and Policy:

"[A]nyone with a truly serious and sustained commitment to 'limited government, free markets, and fiscal responsibility' must start asking a number of tough questions about huge federal and state government spending on the drug war and mass incarceration. Here, as just a couple of examples, is how these tough questions might find expression in the tonight's Tea Party Debate:

Do you support the bill introduced by Ron Paul and Barney Frank to get the federal government out of the marijuana regulation business (basics here)? Would you sign or veto such a bill as president if it came to your desk?

Do you consider the modern 'War on Drugs' — a federal government program started by Richard Nixon and increasingly funded at the federal level by every President since — to be a classic example of a failed big government program or a notable example of big government success?

According to a Pew Center report in 2009, state criminal correction spending has quadrupled in the past two decades, outpacing budget growth in education and transportation (basics here). Meanwhile, the Justice Department recently wrote to the US Sentencing Commission about federal prison spending and overcrowing (basics here). Does this data concern you and what do you think this nation's president can or should do about the pure economic costs to taxpayers of modern mass incarceration?

Though I would love to hear the GOP candidates' response to all of these questions, I will be pleasantly surprised if even a single question about the drug war or big-government criminal justice spending comes up tonight. If there are not any such questions during the Tea Party Debate, I will continue to [wonder] if the 'core principles and values of the tea party movement' really are 'limited government, free markets, and fiscal responsibility.'"

Friday, November 18, 2011

Corrupt Crony Capitalism and Congress

UPDATE VI: Read an interesting op-ed by Palin at the Wall Street Journal, How Congress Occupied Wall Street.

I posted the following comment:

The Tea Party protests government and the Occupy movement protest corporations. But they have a common 'enemy,' corrupt crony capitalism. It pervades government and businesses everywhere. I could give numerous examples in my home town. And I'm sure others could also.

I've been a critic of Palin in the past. She's become a rabid partisan with a group I call the Republi-CONs. She can also be thin-skinned and vindictive, not good qualities for a public figure. But at times as Governor of Alaska, she was a reformer. (See The Atlantic, The Tragedy of Sarah Palin )

The reformer Palin would see an opportunity to unite Tea Party and Occupy protestors to end the problem of corrupt crony capitalism. Lord knows that Obama and Gingrich and most of our other political 'leaders' will never do so.


UPDATE V: "Insider trading is illegal — except for members of Congress. A Wall Street executive who buys or sells stock based on insider information would face a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation and quite possibly a federal prosecutor. But senators and congressmen are free to legally trade stock based on nonpublic information they have obtained through their official positions as elected officials — and they do so on a regular basis." Read the Washington Post, Crony capitalism exposed.


UPDATE IV: "Disgraced ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff is out of jail. He was released in June. He now works as an accountant at a kosher pizza parlor. And he needs a literary agent. 'I was actually thinking of writing a book,' he told '60 Minutes.' 'The Idiot’s Guide to Buying a Congressman.'" Read the Washington Post, Jack Abramoff’s guide to buying congressmen.

Or watch the '60 Minutes' episode:



A sad commentary on our current political system.


UPDATE III: "[W]hen good chunks of the 1 percent come by their riches via clubby, rigged systems of CEO pay, or by peddling subprime securities that implode and wreck the economy, or by taking taxpayer bailouts and turning them into obscene bonuses, people know something is deeply, systemically corrupt. . .

Purge the crony capitalists!"

Read the Washington Post, Justice, inequality and the 99 percent.


UPDATE II: The title of the article says it all. Read the Washington Post, Wall Street is still playing us for suckers.

Isn't that what I've been saying for years, even as early as October 2008.


UPDATE: Want to know why the public has so little faith in Congress.

"Citigroup had to pay a $285 million fine to settle a case in which, with one hand, Citibank sold a package of toxic mortgage-backed securities to unsuspecting customers — securities that it knew were likely to go bust — and, with the other hand, shorted the same securities — that is, bet millions of dollars that they would go bust.

It doesn’t get any more immoral than this. . .

Our financial industry has grown so large and rich it has corrupted our real institutions through political donations. . .

Our Congress today is a forum for legalized bribery. One consumer group using information from Opensecrets.org calculates that the financial services industry, including real estate, spent $2.3 billion on federal campaign contributions from 1990 to 2010, which was more than the health care, energy, defense, agriculture and transportation industries combined. Why are there 61 members on the House Committee on Financial Services? So many congressmen want to be in a position to sell votes to Wall Street. . .

Capitalism and free markets are the best engines for generating growth and relieving poverty — provided they are balanced with meaningful transparency, regulation and oversight. We lost that balance in the last decade. If we don’t get it back — and there is now a tidal wave of money resisting that — we will have another crisis."

Read The New York Times, Did You Hear the One About the Bankers?

Palin was right about the "collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest — to the little guys."

Just listen to a former lobbyist, who argued at his sentencing that Congress operates "in a corrupt Washington environment controlled by people with money." Read CBS New, Ring sentenced to 20 months in lobbying scandal.

No wonder Congressional approval ratings are in single digits.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Holiday Break at NoBullU

Unfortunately, work calls, so this blog is suspending posting for three months. Until I return, read some of these recent posts:

On the economy and federal budget, et al.:

I'm waiting, where's the balanced budget, don't hold you breath because the Republi-CONs Con the Tea Party, there'll be no $100 billion budget cut, and let's admit the obvious, the Republi-CONs are not serious about deficits, and who's responsible for the debt

To balance the budget, do nothing

One way to reduce the deficit

Still no sign of those 'invisible [Republi-CON] bond vigilantes'

Our politically induced economic stagnation, part of the Republi-CON war on the middle class

Hello globalization, goodbye jobs

It's China, stupid

The Republi-CON zombie myth that the government forced the banks to make bad loans

Told ya so: economic stimulus

The Republi-CON stimulus myth

The myth of expansionary austerity

About the Republi-CON war on the middle class

More on the Republi-CON war on the middle class

Better, not just less, government

The Republi-CON 'taxes and regulations are killing business' myth, now it dwarf tossing, what next, baby juggling?

Republi-CONs in their Delusion-land

The Great Stagnation' and our broken political system

The EuroMess

Would Jesus occupy Wall Street?

On the 2012 election, politics, and those waskly Republi-CONs:

And the Republi-CON Race is cont., to find America’s Not-Mitt

The audacity of grope-gate

Still searching for the ideal Republican candidate: conservative, interested, electable

They're back, with another debate

A NoBullU prediction: Romney-Cain in 2012

A Republi-CON 'my family escaped communism' myth

Is the RepubliCON race a joke?

Obama in 2012?

Déjà vu all over again, what to expect if it is Obama v. Romney


The Republi-CON 'Obama's a socalist' myth

Spreading slanderous lies, and supporting a group that massacres and enslaves women and children

Other current events:

Health Care Lawsuit Update

After reading two of the appellate opinions, it doesn't look good for the Republi-CONs

Republi-CON 'it's not Judicial activism, it's judicial engagement' hypocrisy


Does Palin have a point about the corrupt crony capitalism

Corrupt crony capitalism and Congress


and

An Iraq What-Might-Have-Been, and was it worth it

Did Steve Jobs' faith in alternative remedies kill him?

So You Don't Believe in Global Warming, Then Explain What Happens to 35 Gigatons of CO2 Each Year

Those not so good ol' days

CSI Dog Poop, the trial

Big brother is watching you,

The myth of voter fraud


Fun stuff:

Why dogs hate Halloween

Just in time for Christmas

Humor for English majors, and

Punnies

I'll be back soon to deprogram you.

Friday, November 11, 2011

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Class Today at NoBullU on WEBY

Listen to the voice of wisdom and reason in a wilderness of partisan rhetoric -- no political insanity, no conservative hypocrisy, no liberal foolishness -- Just straight talk, straight at you, and that’s no bull!!

NoBullU will broadcast today from 4:05 to 6:00 p.m. at 1330 AM WEBY and on line.

Topics:

Local Business/Event Shout-Out: The 2011 Homecoming Air Show at Pensacola Naval Air Station,on Friday and Saturday, November 11 & 12, 2011. Gate admission is free. Gates open at 8 am each day. The show begins at 9 am, with the Blues scheduled to fly around 2 pm. The pilots do sign autographs after the show. Over 100,000 people are expected to view the show daily;


Follow-up: see below;


Fact-free fantasies of the shrieking hatemongers of right-wing rhetoric and partisan hackery: all part of the fundamentalist subculture of ignorance that embraces 'discredited, ridiculous and even dangerous ideas'

And America's preference for rhetorical fairy tales to unpleasant realities

One was gays in the military, funny thing, the world's still turning, not even a hurricane, earthquake or an oil well

Coincidentally enough it wasn't the end of the world, again, just after the Fact-Free Friday Show with our so-claimed viral Pastor.

And don't be duped by the Birthers, including our very own Pastor Dred Scott (you may remember the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857, which asserted that African Americans were "beings of an inferior order" who "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." That ruling declared that African Americans could never be U.S. citizens and therefore could never be President),

See The Fogbow, "your best resource for debunking the lies of the 'birther' movement and discussing the birther antics" and WhatsYourEvidence.com, there is even a Birther Case Scorecard, 0-80 for the birthers;


Local and regional: hasta la vista, when do I get my hurricane insurance refund, and
Public defenders or criminals?;


National and international: I'm waiting, where's the balanced budget, don't hold you breath because the Republi-CONs Con the Tea Party, there'll be no $100 billion budget cut, and let's admit the obvious, the Republi-CONs are not serious about deficits, and who's responsible for the debt

To balance the budget, do nothing

One way to reduce the deficit

Still no sign of those 'invisible [Republi-CON] bond vigilantes'

Our politically induced economic stagnation, part of the Republi-CON war on the middle class

Hello globalization, goodbye jobs

It's China, stupid

The Republi-CON zombie myth that the government forced the banks to make bad loans

Told ya so: economic stimulus

The Republi-CON stimulus myth

The myth of expansionary austerity

About the Republi-CON war on the middle class

More on the Republi-CON war on the middle class

Better, not just less, government

The Republi-CON 'taxes and regulations are killing business' myth, now it dwarf tossing, what next, baby juggling?

Republi-CONs in their Delusion-land

The Great Stagnation' and our broken political system

The EuroMess

Would Jesus occupy Wall Street?


Great quote on so-called government wisdom

And courtesy of Tammy, a great quote on politicians and their corporate overlords

Also courtesy of Tammy, New World Order, Inc.


And the Republi-CON Race is cont., to find America’s Not-Mitt

The audacity of grope-gate

Still searching for the ideal Republican candidate: conservative, interested, electable

They're back, with another debate

A NoBullU prediction: Romney-Cain in 2012

A Republi-CON 'my family escaped communism' myth

Is the RepubliCON race a joke?

Obama in 2012?

Déjà vu all over again, what to expect if it is Obama v. Romney


The Republi-CON 'Obama's a socalist' myth

Spreading slanderous lies, and supporting a group that massacres and enslaves women and children


Health Care Lawsuit Update

After reading two of the appellate opinions, it doesn't look good for the Republi-CONs

Republi-CON 'it's not Judicial activism, it's judicial engagement' hypocrisy


Does Palin have a point about the corrupt crony capitalism

Corrupt crony capitalism and Congress


and

An Iraq What-Might-Have-Been, and was it worth it

Did Steve Jobs' faith in alternative remedies kill him?

So You Don't Believe in Global Warming, Then Explain What Happens to 35 Gigatons of CO2 Each Year

Those not so good ol' days

CSI Dog Poop, the trial

Big brother is watching you,

The myth of voter fraud


Fun stuff: Why dogs hate Halloween, Just in time for Christmas, Humor for English majors, and Punnies


and


Donate to a good cause: read "the story of a 9-year-old girl who teaches us adults about maturity truly renews our faith in humanity" at The New York Times, Rachel’s Last Fund-Raiser.

I'll discuss anything, but expect a no mercy take-down if you are a shrieking hatemonger of right-wing rhetoric and partisan hackery, pandering to fear, anger and hatred, because the truth sure makes it hard out there for the party pimps.

So tune-in, call-in, but only if you can handle the truth and some ass kickin' discussion of politics and current events.

They're Back

UPDATE II: Read Politico, The GOP debate: 6 takeaways, which had this to say regarding the CNBC debate in Michigan:

"The 'oops' heard 'round the world . . .

The in-house crowd buoyed Herman Cain . . .

Mitt Romney’s good fortunes continue . . .

Newtmentum. Seriously . . .

Huntsman is inching up . . .

The candidates are still fine-tuning their messages on the issue of the day . . .

UPDATE: How truthfull were the candidates? Read the Washington Post, Fact checking the CNBC debate.

Also, check out their candidate Pinocchio Tracker.

"Debate season is back.

After a hiatus of several weeks, the Republican candidates for president will gather in Michigan on Wednesday night for a 90-minute exchange meant to focus on economic issues. . .

Wednesday night’s debate is likely to offer another critical stage moment for many of the candidates. With Mr. Cain’s scandal consuming a tremendous amount — if not all — of the recent media attention, the debate will be the first opportunity in almost two weeks for any of his rivals to break through with voters.

Here are five things to watch for as the night unfolds.

1. The Cain Accusations. . .

2. The Mitt Romney Pile-On. . .

3. The Obama Pile-On. . .

4. Perry’s Performance. . .

5. Where’s Huntsman? . ."

Read The New York Times, Five Things to Watch at Michigan Debate.

After Reading Two of the Health Care Lawsuit Appellate Opinions, It Doesn't Look Good For the Republi-CONs

UPDATE: From the D.C. circuit panel majority opinion, here are "key excerpts:

'The mandate, it should be recognized, is indeed somewhat novel, but so too, for all its elegance, is appellants’ argument. No Supreme Court case has ever held or implied that Congress’s Commerce Clause authority is limited to individuals who are presently engaging in an activity involving, or substantially affecting, interstate commerce. ... To be sure, a number of the Supreme Court’s Commerce Clause cases have used the word 'activity' to describe behavior that was either regarded as within or without Congress’s authority. But those cases did not purport to limit Congress to reach only existing activities. They were merely identifying the relevant conduct in a descriptive way, because the facts of those cases did not raise the question–presented here–of whether 'inactivity' can also be regulated. In short, we do not believe these cases endorse the view that an existing activity is some kind of touchstone or a necessary precursor to Commerce Clause regulation.

In effect, the judges are dismissing the distinction between "activity" and "inactivity" as meaningless. That distinction, of course, is the foundation of the lawsuit. The relevant issue, Silberman goes on to say, is whether the mandate affects commerce that crosses state lines. It clearly does.

Elsewhere, Silberman cites precedents giving Congress broad powers over interstate commerce, including decisions that upheld parts of the New Deal and civil rights laws:

'That a direct requirement for most Americans to purchase any product or service seems an intrusive exercise of legislative power surely explains why Congress has not used this authority before–but that seems to us a political judgment rather than a recognition of constitutional limitations. It certainly is an encroachment on individual liberty, but it is no more so than a command that restaurants or hotels are obliged to serve all customers regardless of race, that gravely ill individuals cannot use a substance their doctors described as the only effective palliative for excruciating pain, or that a farmer cannot grow enough wheat to support his own family. The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local–or seemingly passive–their individual origins.'"

Read The New Republic, Obamacare Wins Another Round in Court.

You might not know it, given that "rulings in support of the law generally received scant attention from the Washington Post, New York Times, Politico, and the Associated Press, while rulings against the law were literally treated as front-page news," but it is now 3-1 for Obama Care in the appellate courts.

And two opinions are worth note, the 6th circuit panel majority opinion by a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and D.C. circuit panel majority opinion by a judge with a lengthy history of conservative legal thought, "[c]hief among them is his opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller , the case that found the District’s handgun ban to violate the Second Amendment. That opinion was upheld by the Supreme Court in a landmark 2008 ruling."

From Time, A Closer Look at Obama’s Big Legal Win on Health Reform:

"The majority opinion by a 6th circuit panel Wednesday upholding Obama’s health care reform law is a victory for the administration on its face. But to understand just how big a victory it is, you have to read the concurring opinion by Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton. Sutton, a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and a powerful figure on the right wing of the 6th circuit, meticulously destroys the central and essential argument of the opponents of Obama’s healthcare law. . .

[Judger Sutton writes] a 21-page proof that the Constitution doesn’t limit Congress power to regulate inaction the same way it regulates action. First, he says, 'the relevant text of the Constitution does not contain such a limitation.' Second, distinguishing between inaction and action under the healthcare law is harder than it seems. What if someone previously had healthcare and then dropped it so he could free-ride on the system? Under the plaintiff’s own argument, it would be constitutional to make him buy healthcare because he had already 'entered the stream of commerce'. Third, precedent exists for regulating people who aren’t actively participating in a market: one of them, a case outlawing growing marijuana for personal use, was written by Scalia. Fourth, everyone agrees Congress could force someone to buy health insurance the moment they seek care at an emergency room because they would then be entering the market; 'Requiring insurance today and requiring it at a future point of sale amount to policy differences in degree, not kind,' says Sutton. Fifth, the breadth of the challenge to the law means that some cases where it might be constitutional would be thrown out with others that the opponents say are unconstitutional: better to let the law go forward and have the individual cases come up rather than issue a broad opinion that overstates a constitutional limit. Sixth, Sutton argues, the 10th amendment protection of state and personal power doesn’t overrule Congress’ enumerated power under the commerce clause."

And from the Washington Post, The conservative judge who upheld health reform:

"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has just ruled the health reform law constitutional in a 2-1 decision . . . What’s more notable than the verdict, however, is its author. Justice Laurence Silberman, who wrote a full-throated defense of the health reform law, has a lengthy history of conservative legal thought. . .

What makes this even more notable is Silberman’s previously rulings, which have been both influential and conservative. Chief among them is his opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller , the case that found the District’s handgun ban to violate the Second Amendment. That opinion was upheld by the Supreme Court in a landmark 2008 ruling, the first time the court had taken up the issue of whether the Second Amendment protects rights to bear arms for self-defense.

What Silberman wrote in today’s opinion hews very closely to the legal argument that the Obama administration has pushed in the courts: The federal government has a constitutional right to regulate an individual’s choice not to purchase insurance, because that decision has an economic effect on others. Here’s what Silberman writes on that issue:

'It suffices for this case to recognize, as noted earlier, that the health insurance market is a rather unique one, both because virtually everyone will enter or affect it, and because the uninsured inflict a disproportionate harm on the rest of the market as a result of their later consumption of health care services.'

Silberman goes on to compare the individual mandate to issues of civil rights. He concedes that the mandated purchase of health insurance 'certainly is an encroachment' on freedom, but 'no more so than a command that restaurants or hotels are obliged to serve all customers regardless of race.'"

Read the decisions and some of the other court documents.

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Told Ya So: Economic Stimulus

UPDATE VII: On a related note, a "financial planner recounts how he and his family fell victim to the housing boom and bust and how they survived the ordeal." Read The New York Times, How a Financial Pro Lost His House.


UPDATE VI: More proof that we should have addressed housing, I suggested Remortgage America.

Read The New York Times, Gloom Grips Consumers, and It May Be Home Prices.

Also read the Washington Post, How much would mass refinancing do for the economy?

But thank Bush, Obama, and all you suckers out there -- we saved the Banksters and their bonuses.


UPDATE V: Maybe yes again.

A "bipartisan consensus for mass refinancing may be emerging. " Read the Washington Post, How about Refi.gov?, which notes that homeowners "could use the lower rates engineered by the Federal Reserve to reduce annual payments by an average of $2,500 a year. . . [by ordering] Fannie and Freddie to reduce its fee [and refinance] any fully paid-up loan that it already guarantees. The process would be streamlined, eliminating appraisals and income verification."


UPDATE IV: Then again, maybe not.

"President Obama’s $447 billion jobs plan got generally good reviews from economists on Friday, though several noted one glaring omission: The plan does not include a comprehensive way to address mortgage debt, which many see as the central drag on the U.S. economy." Read the Washington Post, Obama jobs plan: Economists give good reviews but say more needed on mortgage debt.


UPDATE III: FINALLY! Years after we first discussed it, "[t]he Obama administration is considering a program to let millions of homeowners refinance at today’s rates." Read The New York Times, U.S. May Back Refinance Plan for Mortgage.


UPDATE II: 'Cash for clunkers' is/was a great stimulus for the auto industry. Imagine what Remortgage America might have done for housing.

But thank Bush, Obama, and all you suckers out there -- we saved the Banksters and their bonuses.


UPDATE: Read the Washington Post, Mortgage Delinquency Reaches Record High.

Read The New York Times, More Homeowners Facing Foreclosure.

Then reread my solution for the economic mess

I think that the economy would be better off if the government had spent the money used to bail out Wall Street financial institutions (some call them banks, but I think that using the term banks when referring to those institutions is a misnomer), and instead had spent it on stabilizing the housing market with a program like Remortgage America, as we discussed at length on several programs.

Of course, all the government officials who own stock in Government Sachs would be poorer, ergo, the looting of the treasury by the robber financial institutions.

Health Care Lawsuit Update

UPDATE V: "An appeals court on Tuesday upheld a lower court decision that had dismissed a challenge to President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law and found the minimum coverage requirement was constitutional." Read The New York Times, Appeals Court Backs Health Care Law.

That make it 3-1 for Obama Care in the appellate courts.

And remember you can check the status of any of the "26 federal lawsuits seeking to overturn the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" at the Kaiser Health News scoreboard.


UPDATE IV: From The New York Times, Court Blocks Suit Against Health Law:

"The Fourth Circuit confronted two opposing lower-court decisions. One, in a case filed by Virginia’s attorney general, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, had overturned the law’s insurance requirement. The other, in a case filed by Liberty University, a Christian college in Lynchburg, Va., upheld the same provision, which is considered central to the act.

In a unanimous opinion written by Judge Diana Gribbon Motz, the Fourth Circuit panel concluded that Mr. Cuccinelli did not have standing to sue because Virginia’s case relied on a state law intended to undermine the federal act. Unlike in the Liberty case, which included individual plaintiffs who might someday be directly affected by the mandate, Mr. Cuccinelli structured his complaint as a conflict between state and federal law.

The Virginia Health Care Freedom Act, enacted one day after Mr. Obama signed the Affordable Care Act, declares that no Virginia resident 'shall be required to obtain or maintain a policy of individual insurance coverage.'

But Judge Motz wrote that states cannot grant themselves standing to challenge federal laws simply by passing legislation that declares those laws invalid. A state, she wrote, does not 'acquire some special stake in the relationship between its citizens and the federal government merely by memorializing its litigation position in a statute.' Mr. Cuccinelli said Thursday that he would appeal to the Supreme Court.

In the Liberty case, Judge Motz wrote for a 2-to-1 majority in rejecting the appeal on entirely different grounds. In that case, she wrote that Liberty could not seek to strike down the individual mandate before it took effect because doing so would, in effect, usurp the government’s right to collect a tax.

That, she said, would run afoul of the long-established federal Anti-Injunction Act, which bars litigation seeking to restrain the assessment or collection of a tax.

The question of whether the law’s penalties constitute a tax has been considered in a number of the court challenges because the Constitution grants Congress broad authority to levy taxes to support the nation’s general welfare. On Thursday, the Fourth Circuit panel ruled that while the health care act refers frequently to penalties, the fines for noncompliance are in fact taxes.

The dismissal of the appeal on the tax question blocked the panel from fully considering the constitutionality of the individual mandate. But Judge Motz’s colleagues offered personal opinions.

Judge James A. Wynn Jr. wrote in a concurring opinion that he would have upheld the act based on Congress’s authority under its taxing powers. Judge Andre M. Davis, who dissented from the conclusion that the federal courts did not have jurisdiction, wrote that he would have upheld the mandate under Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.

All three randomly selected judges on the panel were appointed by Democratic presidents, including two by Mr. Obama himself."

UPDATE III: "In a surprise move, a three-judge panel of a federal appeals court based in Virginia has tossed out one of the most prominent challenges to the health reform law.

This is the first appeals court to toss out a case for lack of standing after a lower court had ruled on the merits. It leaves the Affordable Care Act with an even scorecard in the courts, with one appeals court ruling in favor of health reform’s constitutionality and one against it."

Read the Washington Post, Appeals court tosses health reform challenge.

Or read the decisions and some of the other court documents.

That make it 2-1 for Obama Care in the appellate courts.

P.S.

You may remember, more than two years ago, "I predict[ed] the most likely outcome in the district court is dismissal, with court declining to rule in the case because the matter in controversy is a political question."

The political question doctrine is related to the issue of standing.


UPDATE II: "A three-judge panel of the federal appeals court based in Atlanta on Friday ruled the health-care overhaul law’s individual mandate is unconstitutional, in one of the largest legal challenges to the Obama administration’s signature achievement. . .

The appellate court, did, however, overturn part of the lower court’s ruling by declaring that the rest of the law could continue to stand without the individual mandate." Read the Washington Post, Health-care law individual mandate ruled unconstitutional by 11th Circuit appeals court.

Read all 304 pages of the court decision, or some of the other court documents in the Florida district court case.

And as for what might happen next, read the Washington Post, Three possible futures for health-care reform.


UPDATE: "In the first ruling by a federal appeals court on President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, a panel in Cincinnati affirmed Wednesday that Congress can require Americans to have minimum insurance coverage." Read the Washington Post, Federal appeals court in Cincinnati upholds Obama health care law, becoming 1st to rule.

And read The New York Times, Appeals Court Upholds Obama’s Health Care Law.

Better yet, read the court decision.

"Lawyers for the 26 states challenging the constitutionality of the nation’s new health-care law squared off against the Obama administration in an appeals court in Atlanta on Wednesday, where a panel of three judges asked tough questions of both sides." Read the Washington Post, Legal battle over Obama’s health-care law moves to Atlanta courtroom.

Thursday, November 3, 2011

Sub Today at NoBullU on WEBY

Usually on Thursdays you can listen to me, the voice of wisdom and reason in a wilderness of partisan rhetoric -- no political insanity, no conservative hypocrisy, no liberal foolishness -- just straight talk, straight at you, and that’s no bull!!

But the FSU game begins at 7 pm CT and the pre-game begins at 5 pm, so Mike will sub today. But I plan to call in.

And I'll be back next week to deprogram you.

Americans Prefer Rhetorical Fairy Tales to Unpleasant Realities

UPDATE: A cartoon recommended by Tammy:




Regarding federal budget deficits and debt, "[t]here’s no culture of moral accountability. There’s no sense that political leaders, retired from office seeking, should come clean with the public. The essential nature of the country’s budget problem — the dominance of spending on retirement benefits and uncontrolled health costs — was no secret to either Clinton or Bush. It would be healthy for the country if they confessed that their dodging of unpopular choices helped create today’s mess.

Their silence contributes to continued public confusion and political stalemate. Polls consistently show that Americans want budget deficits closed but dislike the policies that would close them: higher taxes on much of the public; cuts in retirement benefits; reductions in other government programs. On both left and right, myths persist of painless solutions: “eliminating waste” or 'taxing millionaires.'

It’s true, as Democrats charge, that Republican rigidity on taxes obstructs agreement. But that’s not the only obstacle. Democrats’ intransigent defense of Social Security and Medicare reflects the programs’ utility as a partisan vote-getter. Republicans 'have launched an all-out war on Medicare and Social Security' says a new fundraising mailer from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Why sacrifice this pitch even if it’s untrue?

Congress’s 'supercommittee' — charged with reducing budget deficits — is reportedly floundering. Small wonder. Our political system prefers rhetorical fairy tales to unpleasant budget realities."

Read the Washington Post, Where are the Clinton and Bush apologies for our budget crisis?

That last sentence is worth repeating: Our political system prefers rhetorical fairy tales to unpleasant budget realities.