The Constitution Always gets in the way...

By George F. Will Thursday, January 14, 2010; A19
Although Democrats think their health-care legislation faces smooth sailing to implementation, there is a rock dead ahead -- a constitutional challenge to the legislation's core. Democrats who assume it is constitutional to make it mandatory for Americans to purchase health insurance should answer some questions:
Would it be constitutional for the government to legislate compulsory calisthenics for all Americans? If not, why not? If it would be, in what sense does the nation still have constitutional, meaning limited, government?
Supporters of the mandate say Congress can impose the legislation under the enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce. Since the New Deal, courts have made this power capacious enough to include regulating intrastate activity that "substantially affects" interstate commerce. Hence Congress could constitutionally ban racial discrimination in "public accommodations" -- restaurants, motels, etc. -- as an impediment to interstate commercial activity.
Opponents of the mandate say: Unless the commerce clause is infinitely elastic -- in which case, Congress can do anything -- it does not authorize Congress to forbid the inactivity of not making a commercial transaction, of not purchasing a product (health insurance) from a private provider.
"Congress can regulate commercial activities in which people choose to engage, but cannot require that they engage in those commercial activities." So says Sen. Orrin Hatch, who also notes that if Congress can mandate particular purchases to help the economy, there was no need for Cash for Clunkers: Congress could have ordered people to buy cars (with subsidies, if necessary). Why not the Anti-Couch Potato Act to Make Calisthenics Mandatory and to Impose a $50 Excise Tax on Cheeseburgers Because Unhealthy Lifestyles Affect Interstate Commerce?
Many liberals, says Hatch, spent eight years insisting that "the Constitution sets definite and objective limits that the president must obey." There are, however, no constitutional controls on Congress if there are no limits on its power to declare all its preferences "necessary and proper" for the regulation of commerce.
Stuart Taylor, a judicious analyst of legal matters, says (in the National Journal) that the Supreme Court probably would uphold the constitutionality of the mandate, for two reasons: Because uninsured people create substantial economic effects by seeking free care from emergency rooms. And because the mandate is, in Congress's judgment, "necessary and proper" for financing health-care reform.
But if any activity, or inactivity, can be declared to have economic consequences, then anything can be regulated -- or required. Furthermore, judicial review -- and the Constitution itself -- is largely nullified by a doctrine of virtually unlimited judicial deference to Congress's estimates of what is "necessary and proper" for the regulation of commerce.
If Congress does something beyond its constitutional powers, that something does not become constitutional merely by Congress saying it is necessary for this or that.
Taylor also says that the alternative to upholding the mandate is for the court to strike down a president's "signature initiative -- something that no court has done in more than 70 years, for good reason." The reason is a general duty to respect government decisions arrived at democratically. Which brings us to what conservatives must believe in order to believe that the Supreme Court should declare the insurance mandate unconstitutional.
Judicial review -- let us be candid: judicial supervision of democracy -- troubles people who believe, mistakenly, that the Constitution's primary purpose is simply to provide the institutional architecture for democracy. Such people believe that having government by popular sovereignty is generally much more important than what government does; hence, courts should be broadly deferential to preferences expressed democratically. This is the doctrine of those conservatives who deplore, often with more vigor than precision, "judicial activism."
More truly conservative conservatives take their bearings from the proposition that government's primary purpose is not to organize the fulfillment of majority preferences but to protect preexisting rights of the individual -- basically, liberty. These conservatives favor judicial activism understood as unflinching performance of the courts' role in that protection.
That role includes disapproving congressional encroachments on liberty that are not exercises of enumerated powers. This obligatory engagement with the Constitution's text and logic supersedes any obligation to be deferential toward the actions of government merely because they reflect popular sovereignty.
The latter kind of conservatives are more truly conservative than the former kind because they have stronger principles for resisting the conscription of individuals, at a cost of diminished liberty, into government's collective projects. So a constitutional challenge to the mandate serves two purposes: It defies a pernicious idea and clarifies conservatism.
georgewill@washpost.com

Join the Resistance

America is at crossroads. There are two political ideals that are swirling around us continually. We have conservatism and liberalism. There can be no more compromise between the two. America must make a choice become a socialist state, or go back to the conservative values that this country was founded on. The road to serfdom is paved by liberal ideals and well mannered intentions. America is the greatest country on earth. The liberal ideals that are preached to us constantly will only destroy our great nation and place us in bondage. We have hope! We are the hope. We must choose.

“Many years ago in a volume entitled Beacon Lights of History, Dr. John Lord, referring to the discovery of America, said, after speaking of her great potential, “The world has witnessed many powerful empires which have passed away and left ‘not a rack behind.’ What remains of the antediluvian world? … What remains of Nineveh, of Babylon, of Thebes, of Tyre, of Carthage—those great centers of wealth and power? What remains of Roman greatness even, except in laws and literature and renovated statues? … What is the simple story of all the ages?—industry, wealth, corruption, decay, and ruin. What conservative power has been strong enough to arrest the ruin of the nations of antiquity?”“Now if this is to be the destiny of America—an unbounded material growth, followed by corruption and ruin—then Columbus has simply extended the realm for men to try material experiments. Make New York a second Carthage, and Boston a second Athens, and Philadelphia a second Antioch, and Washington a second Rome, and we simply repeat the old experiments.“But has America no higher destiny than to repeat the old experiments and improve upon them and become rich and powerful? Has she no higher and nobler mission? If America has a great mission to declare and to fulfil, she must put forth altogether new forces, and these not material. And these alone will save her and save the world. … The real glory of America is to be something entirely different from that of which the ancients boasted. And this is to be moral and spiritual—that which the ancients lacked.”We are all a part of America’s future. Our job is to learn and benefit from the past and to go forward in righteousness, keeping the commandments of God.”

Anthony W. Ivins, after discussing religious liberty and the Constitution, said, “I feel authorized to say, here this afternoon, that these liberties which have come to men, both religious and civil, have not been established by the Lord to be destroyed, but that they are here to remain until liberty shall prevail from the rivers to the ends of the earth, until God’s kingdom shall be established among men, and his will done upon earth as it is done in heaven. Until the universal Fatherhood of God, and brotherhood of man shall be recognized, and the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of Christ, who shall reign as Prince of Peace.” (Conference Report, April 1917, pp. 54–55.)
Taken from a talk by President N. Eldon Tanner of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Now you must make the choice. Will you allow apathy and indifference to take hold, or will you go forward with renewed determination to fight for the right?

Economists are getting it.

I think that people often times get hung up on the theories of how things are supposed to work and focus less on how they actually work. The theory of demand side economics sounds great, but in actual application we see that what looks good on paper doesn't always look good in the real world. Keynes' theory works on paper, but we are about to see that it doesn't work in real life.


6 double dip warning signs
The recovery from the Great Recession has likely started. But many economists are worried about falling into another downturn. Here's what has them concerned.

Most economists agree the U.S. economy is in recovery. The question is whether it will stay that way.
-[Government intervention in economics isn't a recovery. It's a bandaid on a slit jugular.]
The economy grew at a 3.5% annual rate in the third quarter. But even with that shot in the arm, there are plenty of worries about whether the economy could topple into another period of decline, or "double dip" recession, early next year.
-[3.5% annual growth is determined by what? Our economy grew 3.5% the 3rd quarter from the huge decline it saw last year? Well, how fantastic if we keep up the same growth rate we should be back to where we were in about 5-10 years. Wonderful.]

These concerns have some economists calling for yet another round of economic stimulus early next year to try to jump start the still struggling labor market. The fear is that if the economy heads into another downturn, the Federal Reserve and Congress will have few, if any, tools left to address the new problems.
-[Another "jump start" will only cause a continuation of the problems we are currently facing,inflation will soar if congress decides to give more money to pampered CEOs, we will see an increase in the national unemployment rate ,which is already at 10% and, the Fed will have to raise taxes only furthering the the economic slow down.Giving money away just doesn't work like John Keynes thought it would. Why can't we just realize that the stimulus didn't stimulate our economy and only prolonged the inevitable,cash for clunkers only stimulated Japan's economy and,economic melt down of the global market wasn't all our fault.]

"If we do slide back into recession, it will be very difficult to get out," said Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Economy.com.
-[I dont know if I can trust Moody's anymore. These are the guys that said it was a safe to invest in AIG, Citi bank, and ect. which all failed last year. I think that it's safe to say that getting out of any recession is difficult though so mabye we'll give them one more chance.]

So how can we tell if the economy is really at risk of double dipping? Here are six key economic indicators that bear watching. All have shown signs of improvement in recent months. But if they start moving in the wrong direction again, that could be bad news.

By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer


GDP
Jobs
Retail sales
Oil
Autos
Home sales


http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/news/0911/gallery.double_dip_warning_signs/index.html

Retail sales, Stocks, and Jobs have already seen dips. There will be larger longer dips in the coming months. We'll have to wait a few weeks to get better projections for the market after Thanksgiving....

i heart socialism, nationalism, and obamanism (Facebook cut paste)

Share
Friday, February 27, 2009 at 2:50pm | Edit Note | Delete
The idea that more government spending to increase employment and "jumps start" the economy is absolutely absured. Governments best bet at helping the economy is by helping the supply side of economics (companies, suppliers, and other producers) not through giving demanders (consumers and buyers) more money to spend. If government wanted to help our economy out it wouldnt tax the people that are making 250,000 a year more (they are already taxed 33 percent, and our wonderfully bright congress would have them pay 39 percent). The fact of it is that the top 20% in the US economy pay over 50% of the nations taxes. Where is the incentive? What most people dont realize is that when you taze these business owners they dont take the pay cut. We all do. The owner is always going to make more than the peon. So if the owner makes less, than the peon makes less. People always get mad that the business owner is making all this money and i only make so much. next time you catch yourself thinking like that ask yourself," when was the last time you worked for a poor guy?" There is a reason why the answer is never. taking money and resources from the rich guy doesnt give the poor guy any more, the rich guy just pays the poor guy less or lays him off. just think about it for a minute, Reganomics works. Trickle down economics might take some time, but its been proven to work. The Laffer curve is a real thing. if we want out of our little recession ,and i really do mean little its nothing like the media would have you beleive, raising taxes isnt the way to do it. Just think back to the 80's when Carter was in office and inflation was in double diggets and interest was in double diggets. what did we do to get out of that recession? Oh yeah, we didnt try to buy our way out.... With that in mind here is a great article you should read.

Washington Could Use Less Keynes and More Hayek
The late Austrian economist offered good reasons to be skeptical of government action.
• Article
MORE IN OPINION »
By DICK ARMEY
"In the long run, we are all dead," John Maynard Keynes once quipped. An influential British economist, Keynes used the line to dodge the problematic long-term implications of his policy proposals. His analysis of the Great Depression redefined economics in the 1930s and asserted that increased government spending during a downturn could revive the economy.
President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats (very few of whom likely have read Keynes's 1936 book "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money") have dug up the dead economist's convenient justification for deficit spending in defense of their bloated stimulus legislation. But none ask the most important question: Was Keynes right?
The Opinion Journal Widget
Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.
According to Nobel economist Friedrich Hayek, a contemporary of Keynes and perhaps his greatest critic, Keynes "was guided by one central idea . . . that general employment was always positively correlated with the aggregate demand for consumer goods." Keynes argued that government should intervene in the economy to maintain aggregate demand and full employment, with the goal of smoothing out business cycles. During recessions, he asserted, government should borrow money and spend it.
Keynes's thinking was a decisive departure from classical economics, because arbitrary "macro" constructs like aggregate demand had no basis in the microeconomic science of human action. As Hayek observed, "some of the most orthodox disciples of Keynes appear consistently to have thrown overboard all the traditional theory of price determination and of distribution, all that used to be the backbone of economic theory, and in consequence, in my opinion, to have ceased to understand any economics."
Classical economists up to that time had emphasized a balanced budget and government restraint as the primary goals of fiscal policy. The simplistic notion that "aggregate demand" drove investment and employment threw all of that out the window, but it had one particular convenience for policy makers. Government spending is, according to Keynes's construct, a key component in determining aggregate demand, so more spending, even to resod the Capitol Mall or distribute free contraception, drives the economy in the short run.
A father of public choice economics, Nobel laureate James Buchanan, argues that the great flaw in Keynesianism is that it ignores the obvious, self-interested incentives of government actors implementing fiscal policy and creates intellectual cover for what would otherwise be viewed as self-serving and irresponsible behavior by politicians. It is also very difficult to turn off the spigot in better economic times, and Keynes blithely ignored the long-term effects of financing an expanded deficit.
It's clear why Keynes's popularity endures in Congress. Intellectual cover for a spending spree will always be appreciated there. But it's harder to see any justification for the perverse form of fiscal child abuse that heaps massive debts on future generations.
Today, one problem with manipulating the economy through "discretionary" spending -- that part of the budget not mandated by one entitlement or another -- is that entitlements have grown large enough to influence the economy, a phenomenon unheard of when Keynes was alive. Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and other entitlements are becoming larger factors in economic decision making than what Congress spends on, say, roads. Discretionary spending is becoming irrelevant as a fiscal tool.
Of course, despite Mr. Obama's campaign promises to adhere to "Pay As You Go" budgeting, no one seems terribly worried about paying for what will likely be a trillion-dollar stimulus package. What everyone should agree on is that the money has to come from somewhere, either through higher taxes, borrowing or printing.
If the government borrows the money for the stimulus, then it will either have to print money later or raise taxes to pay it back. If the government raises taxes to pay for the stimulus, it will, in effect, be robbing Peter to pay Paul. If the government prints the money, it will increase inflation, which will decrease the value of the dollar. That would, in effect, rob Paul to pay Paul back with devalued currency.
Taking money out of the private economy -- either through taxes or inflation -- and spending it in a way that doesn't offset the loss of money with real economic gains is worse than doing nothing.
Years ago I developed the "Armey Curve" to explain the negative burden government has on prosperity. The idea, borrowing liberally from Arthur Laffer's curve (which demonstrates that tax revenues fall when the tax burden gets so high that it no longer pays to work), is that at some point the burden of government spending exceeds the private economy's ability to carry it. "Stimulus" spending often does more harm than good, because it takes more money out of the system than it creates and thereby destroys jobs and leads to stagnation and diminished prosperity for all.
Hayek, who famously debated Keynes in a series of articles after the release of "General Theory," gave what I believe to be the most devastating critique of government action to stimulate "aggregate demand." Hayek viewed the boom and bust of the business cycle as primarily a monetary phenomenon created by governments' artificial inflation of money and credit.
Sound money policy, conversely, allowed the disparate knowledge of millions of economic actors to be conveyed through the price system, rationally allocating capital and labor through relative prices. The problem with government attempts to manipulate the economy through fiscal policy -- spending that takes resources away from those who are productive and redistributes it to politically favored interests -- is that it is audacious. It assumes that government knows better how to spend and invest than individuals acting in their families' best interest.
"The real question," according to Hayek, "is not whether man is, or ought to be, guided by selfish motives but whether we can allow him to be guided in his actions by those immediate consequences which we can know and care for or whether he ought to be made to do what seems appropriate to somebody else who is supposed to possess a fuller comprehension of the significance of these actions to society as a whole."
In reality, no one spends someone else's money better than they spend their own. The charade of the current stimulus package, chockablock with earmarks to favored pet constituencies and virtually devoid of national policy considerations, is the logical consequence of Keynesianism in action. It is about politics and power, not sound economics, and I believe that the American people will reject it.
Mr. Armey, a former economics professor and former majority leader of the House of Representatives, is chairman of FreedomWorks Foundation.

GMC Bankrupt why? (Facebook cut paste)

There is a big question on a lot of peoples minds i am sure. "why did GMC just claim chapter 11 bankruptcy?" I mean they just got Billions from the government.

There is a plethera of reasons why GM failed as a company. Ill highlight just a few. I wont hide it from you. I think that they should have been allowed to fail back in August of 08. It seems heartless to say that a company that employs thousands of Americans should be allowed to fail. Not from my perspective. I understand that if the car industry where to fail and come to a complete stop there would be about 1 in 10 americans negetively affected by it. Rough numbers is about 60 million people. Would it be right though for the other 540 million americans should have to take on the responsibility of the 60 million? no.
We all understand as we enter the job market that there are going to be ups and downs, and with that we may have to find another job, move, change careers, retire early, and all the other risks that are involved with living a life. We all assume those risks. GM and other car dealers tried in (if i am correct) 1976 during the last big car strike to change that for their employees. a jobs bank was created. GM was forced by the union to create a system where you would never loose your job if you worked for GM. So if the factory closed down, and GM cant find you another job within 50 miles of the origanal factory doing the same job; its all ok just dont come into work and still get a check. I've been told that 880 million of the money given to GM was given to this jobs bank. 880million dollars going to people who arent working.
The idea of a union is 3 fold. Better wages, better working conditions, and better benefits. They have done great with car manufactures. In the early 70's the average employee of GM was getting $80,000 a year in pay and benefits. An MBA fresh out of school working for a bank like Wells Fargo received somewhere around $30,000 a year. Now of course those numbers have changed and have only gone up and more for the union worker than the MBA.
Another fun trivia question. How much money per car made does GM spend on health care for employees? $3,000 a car. Do you honestly think that any forgien car manufacturer does that? no.
Lastly, bad business cannot ever be solved by more money. All more money does is prolong the inevitable.
Now we can all understand why you cant buy GM stock on anymore and the stock was removed from the market today. No more GMC on the dow jones industrial. You cant be a car manufacture and have most of your income be through financing. You cant expect a company to ever be "too big too fail." Its a foolish idea. in capitolism the market never fails, people fail.

Nationalization of Healthcare

Complete and utter disapointment filled my soul when i heard the news that the House of Reps. passed the health care reform bill. We still might win out as a poeple because the senate has to pass it, and then go back through the house and senate with revisions. I only have some limited experience with socialized health care. The summer before my junior year in high school i had the chance to go to scandinavia. I visited Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Estonia. While i was in Sweden an older man was having heart pains. They took him to the hospitol to see what was wrong. the hospitol had to wait several hours to get the KEG machine (if i remember the equipment correctly) from a different hospitol. You see they didnt have it in their budget to have more than one for a specified region. KEG machines are common place here in America now, but that could change quickly. The man ended up calling his insurance company to find out what he should do. they told him to leave the country immidiately. The reasoning wasnt that they didnt want to pay for it, they wanted him to get the right care. Needless to say he took the first flight availible to England and then onward to the US where he could recieve adiquate care. I remembe walking by the hospitol. Seeing a building with such a delapidated exterior i couldnt imagine the inside being much better. i cant say that i want that for my family or me.I concur that health care costs are crazy. I just got a bill from the hospitol for my wife. 200 and some odd dollars for a pregnancy test. This is AFTER receiving a bill of 100 and some odd dollars from the doctor's office at the hospitol...For the same test! Now i can walk down the street and go and get the same prego test from rite aide and pay around 10 dollars. So i do agree that there could be some more control of cost. The current form of the healthcare bill that went through the house, from my understanding, doesnt try to cut costs. The idea of the bill is to cover more people and increase revenues covering the additional costs and then some. this will cause lower health care costs in the long run. A falacy. There wont be enough new revenues to cover new costs. The other challenge that i see is how do you pay for it all up front. there are some huge innitial costs, and face it social security cant be the save all forever. The other challenge that i see is that you will have people in my position. I dont want nationalized healthcare at all, but if we have it and i have to pay for it i wont be paying my 55 dollars a week in health insurance and additional healthcare taxes. the other challenge is trying to insure all the uninsured. That is the point of the reform, and it wont happen for axproimately another 10 years and even then not everyone will be insured. there will still be MILLIONS! of uninsured. All according to NPR and the news reports that i have heard. The fact is that there will be increase in government control over our personal lives. There are hundereds of unanswered questions too. Starting with things like how to pay for all of this to if the government has a data base of all these peoples healthcare records what about privacy? Costs need to be controled, but there are more options than complete takeover of an industry to cut costs. 31% of our GDP is in the health care industry. (double check that figure) Do you really want the government controlling your health care and economy in one swooping motion?! I know i dont. All i see is longer waits, less doctors, less qualified doctors, and less care. I hope we dont have to see what its like.

The Religion of Enviromentalism

Isnt it ironic that the worst thing for the enviroment is enviromentalists? Dont get me wrong I dont think that we should burn the rain forest and make the Atlantic Ocean a landfill. I dont however think that enviromentalists go way too far. Between the EPA anda the Seirra Club they would have the world devoid of human life. I recently read a letter to the editor from a man who was part of the national parks services. He basically stated that he didnt care what the cost of any material to save the Earth! money human life whatever it may be! It would be worth it, because it was here first and therefore is better than us all. I was caught off gaurd by this mans remarks, i should find it again and post it here. i am sorry to say but there are more people that have these sympathies and thoughts than there should be and they are rather vocal. Lets face it. "Going Green" is in the same category of "organic" foods, both marketing schemes that get you nothing different than what you already had. well i shouldnt say nothing different, because i do have to admit that the packaging is a little cooler. On the point of enviromentalist i just dont have much evidence that they think about what they say and do before they say it and do it. Its just in their history. Take a moment and think about my favorite case against enviromentalism. Look at Glenn Canyon Dam. It provides Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Mexico with a constant flow of water. This Dam provides Utah, Arizona, Nevada, and most of all California with CLEAN REUSEABLE engery that will NEVER go away. Little known is that there where 2 other dams that where planned. The states already had the land and the funding to build these dams. Now who on Earth wouldnt say that these dams wouldnt be a great asset to have? All their selling points are the fact of being enviromentally friendly! Well, then ask yourself "why dont we have these dams?" Ill tell you why. The Seirra Club got involved and stopped the project. Thousands of jobs lost, Millions of tax payer dollars gone, and Billions of megawatts of clean power gone. Now i am here to tell you that California is going to have power, it can be from Dams or coal but they will have it. Vegas isnt going to turn out lights anytime soon. Enviromentalists are worried about the long lasting affects of carbon based fuels being put in the atmosphere, and then they essentially push for carbon based fuel consumption. Unfortunately this isnt the only contradiction that enviromentalists put themselves in. i heard another one on the radio just recently. The was some humanitarian group in india i think it was part of The world health organization. Part of their "going green" policy was to go to the locals and tell them that the local power plant would be producing energy with coal and poluting the air. So they didnt want people to use light bulbs and suppor the local power plant. So what was the alternative for the people? Kerosene lamps. I want you to think about it. One hand you have people using light bulbs and have one power plant that has to under go high standards in air polution, or on the other hand you can have thousands of people burning kerosene lamps which have health hazaards and polute the air. Yeah its regressive. the enviromentalist movement is killing our enviroment, costing us thousands of dollars, and killing jobs for americans. My father-in-law is a farmer and the EPA is making him build a new manuer pit. Mind you that there have been millions of cows in America for the past 200 years. Now all of their crap now needs to be treaded like toxic waste? It is a hug burden on the farmer. Now you want to put a cap and trade limit on Carbon emitions?! They want to tax me for living? I thought that what my income tax was all about, and when i die they have inheritance taxes. Sooner or later the enviro-movement will stop. It will come to a grinding screech, and the rules and regulations that are stopping progression will be repealed. It cant go on forever. It will get worse before it gets better. Until then i will continue to leave my "carbon foot print" and so will you and so will they. Just remember that the world is much older than them and their contradictory studies and statistics. All will be fine just like it has been.