The politics of the battle over the Supreme Court decision that upheld some of the Democrats' historic health care reform legislation remains as complicated as the bill at the center of the argument. You would be remiss to expect anything less of a bill with 2,733 pages that exacted blood from the turnip of the democratic process that brought it to final passage in 2010.
Democrats cautiously celebrated, as is the Democratic style. Former Speaker Pelosi threw a party, President Obama was able to walk down "I Killed Bin Laden Lane" as Jon Stewart called the hallway to the East Room, to proclaim a victory as he put away another Republican onslaught and others on the left, including the host of this show, worried about the long term effect the Court striking the Medicaid expansion will have on millions of uninsured Americans. Hey, they're Democrats!
The House Republican Majority leader Rep. Eric Cantor was so eager to lead the Republican cause that he actually anounced not one but two votes to repeal the bill in the month of July. First his office tweeted that the vote would be on July 11th, then the Majority leader announced it would be on July 9th. (Later at a press conference that was consolodated into just one vote during the week of July 9th.) With Democrats still in control the U.S. Senate the house vote will be a waste of tax dollars to air condition the house chamber in the middle of July just to show us all how much Republicans really hate this bill.
Mitt Romney beat the other Republicans to the microphone to tell the cameras he would work to repeal the bill on "day 1". Forget that Mitt Romney's day one is going to be the longest day in the history of the human race but what makes his statement completely farcical is that the President, no matter the party, is painfully impotent to pass or repeal legislation. (Again, remember the bleeding turnip.)
But some Republicans see the Supreme Court decision as a silver lining bigger than the cloud. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli first reacted that " This is a dark day for the American people." After reading the decision he changed his tune. Erick Erickson of Redstate.com and George Will however waited to write after reading the decision and found the positives for conservatives. The Medicare expansion is at the mercy of many Republican Governors and the federal government's power over the states is not expanded under another commerce clause argument, loathsome to constructionist conservatives. George Will's column on WashingtonPost.com actually reads "Conservatives Long Term Victory." But its Kathleen Parker, who I never miss reading, who has the most stinging assessment of Democratic praise of the victory handed them by the Chief Justice "Liberals laud him - even though they didn't actually win."
Conservatives are great at this, Declaring Victory. Even if the win is muddled at best, it's still a win. Democrats not so much. Is it any wonder that "Democrat Victory Lap" turns up such disappointing Google Search results. (Seriously... exactly one story used the word "Gleeful") Apparently blood isn't the only thing you can't squeeze from turnips.
Leave a Comment:
The Democrat Party in Congress (that band of borrow, tax, and spend would be do gooders who are really fiscal policy illiterates) were the big winners, as they had the monstrosity they conceived two years ago constitutionally sound law, of not financially good law for individuals, the states, and the nation. Lots of losers: premiums will be going up for individuals and employers, employers will be dropping empyees insurance coverage for the less expensive penalties. States will have to decide on whether or not to take on sure huge future increases in Medicaid costs for federally mandated immediate expansion of that underfunded program, or have their state's federal tax payers dollars go to the other states that poneyup to the federal feeding trough in the short run. And millions of healthy individuals will have to take on expensive new insurance policies or face IRS harrassments, and penalties and fines. $800 billion in new taxes (75% of which will be paid by middle class taxpayers with incomes under $200,000), which will only cover a small portion of the CBO estimated $2.5 trillion cost of this program for the next 10 years are sure losers. And Medicare or future Medicare recepients are losers as they will have $500 billion taken from their tax and premium paid health care program to fund the new entitlement insurance program for the "poor".
Other losers in this decision are the Democrat Party Senatorial and Congressional candidates running for election or reelection, as the Obama Administration "(Un)affordable Care Act will be now a focal point along with the lagging economy for their election or reelection campaigns. And with the Tea Party surely going to be reenergized with this bizzare ruling that denied the government's main argument for constitutiionality (regulation of interstate commerce clause) but found for constitutionality under the taxing power. So prepare for the town halls and the rallies folks, and the probability that 2010 will look like a picnic when the campaigns and voting are over on Novemver 6th.
At risk as losers the American People: with this ruling precedent is established. The Federal Government may not under the regulation of interstate commerce mandate that individuals buy and use a proscribed cell phone, for example, but they can provide for a penalty tax if you do not if a majority in Congress decide in their infinite wisdom (NOT) that this will enable you to be reached for national or local emergency notifications, including weather or traffic or health emergencies (or their all important polls or campaign calls?). Or any other of a number of possible "do good" enterprises in the legidslators wish list.
Oh, accountants/lawyers with a desire for federal civil service are winners, as up to 15,000 new IRS tax agents are going to have to be hired to enforce this new law now by 2014, but the privacy of individuals will be a certain loser, as this new army of tax enforcers will now have access to your individual meidal records and physicians, hospitals/clinics, and provision of services, all constitutional under the the broadened taxing authority of the Federal Government. Remember Rhode vs. Wade? The right of a woman to privacy? That's a loser now too, it would seem at first blush!
Geeze Louise, Folks!
Sorry for the typos. That was "medical", not "meidal" records, in the first sentence of the last para, and "Rowe" vs Wade, not "Rhode" vs. Wade in the 2nd sentence.
Also, it appears today that now up to 10 governors have come forward from the 26 states that sued the federal government and had the penalty of having all their Medicaid funds cut off ruled unconstitutional if they refused to enact the extensions of Medicaid that the (Un)affordable Care Act calls for. Somebody still has a lot of work to do to make this law workable, apparently