“No Man’s life liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session”.

- attributed to NY State Judge Gideon Tucker

Friday, April 9, 2010

Stupak Announces Retirement!

Michigan Democrat Representative and pro-life turncoat Bart Stupak announced his retirement today!

Sure, he claims not to have been driven out of office by the consequences of his flip-flop on the health care bill.


What did you expect him to say,

'After abandoning my pro life principles and caving for essentially nothing, the hailstorm of criticism convinced me that I'd be toast in November's election?'

No. But that's essentially the truth. And you won't see the liberal media push and probe Stupak to defend the timing and motivation behind his capitulation.

Congratulations Dr. Benishek!

Charles Krauthammer On Wonderboy's New Nuclear Weapons Policies

Earlier this week, on Fox News' evening program normally hosted by Brett Baier, Charles Krauthammer declared Wonderboy's new nuclear policy "either insane or ridiculous- I can't decide."

And a lot more. Here's the video.

As Krauthammer said, "you decide."

Thursday, April 8, 2010

Tea Party Candidates? I Don't Think So

Karl Rove wrote an interesting piece last week about Tea Party 'members' prospective roles and actions in the coming mid-term elections.

One thing I like about Rove's suggestions and perspective is that he wisely does not see a separate, third party style phenomenon from Tea Party activists.

Having attended two rallies at the Capitol since September, I can vouch for the movement not being simply a group of extremists, as Rove notes Wonderboy and his party attempt to portray Tea Party activists.

I'm not sure what 'membership' in the Tea Party means. Like the colleague with whom I attended those two rallies, I now receive tons of daily fund raising emails from Dick Armey's group, as well as the 'official' Tea Party organization.

But I don't see sufficient cohesion or structure to mount anything approaching a third party's effort to populate the Congress, or the White House.

Instead, from his political campaign management roots, Rove sagely offers five points which Tea Party activists could use to intensify their influence. Basically, Rove recommends educating oneself on candidates' stands on key issues, recruiting friends and neighbors, engaging them, and getting them to the voting booth in November.

Rove is coming out in the very same place that Glenn Beck started out last spring. Very reminiscent of the "Meet John Doe's" John Doe clubs. Grassroots activism and engagement on fundamental issues of liberty, government and spending.

One thing I surely do not see is Sarah Palin winding up on a Presidential Tea Party ticket. She's useful and effective, at present, as a cheerleader keeping up enthusiasm through the spring and summer, prior to the mid-term elections.

But she lacks depth for national office. And, honestly, I just don't see the various Tea Party and similar movements fielding large slates of candidates. Nor would that be desirable. Instead, given the large percentage of independents in the movements, it's better to simply gather and loosely confederate those voters around issues which both parties must address. The party, district by district, which more closely matches the values and stands of Tea Party voters, will win those districts.

My guess is, that will be the GOP in the House, resulting in a change of majority there. Short of a repeal of the health care monstrosity in January of 2013, a GOP-led House can, and has promised to de-fund whatever actions must begin now.

In 2012? Time will tell. But I don't think it will feature a three-party race.

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

The States' Health Care Constitutional Lawsuit

I'm very enthused by the broad movement of so many states joining a common lawsuit against the recent health care bill on Constitutional grounds.

Despite the mainstream media's refusal to acknowledge the legitimate bases, and its attempt to paint the effort as misguided and doomed, there really are solid reasons for the suit.

The most easily-understood basis is simply that government cannot force you to buy anything just because you are, well, living.

Auto insurance is in exchange for the privilege of driving on common, public roads. The military draft is not a product, and is clearly provided for in the Constitution for common defense.

States are correct in believing that, once allowed to choose health care as a compulsory purchase, there is nothing to prevent, say, government mandates to buy GM cars, or anything else, and set the price, too.

The other major basis, as I understand it, is the federal government's infringement upon the sovereignty of the states with respect to their fiscal decisions.

The example I've heard is from Florida. A state legislator noted that the health care bill saddles the state with an unaffordable mandate for Medicaid, forcing it to either raise taxes or cut other spending. States, you see, typically have balanced budget rules and are not allowed to run deficits.

Again, this is a slippery-slope issue. If the federal government, a creation of the (then 13) states, can turn the tables and become their master, what is left for states to control?

The tenth amendment becomes a joke.

There's also an interesting aspect to the suit that brings this recent post into play.

If the Supreme Court, to which this case will surely eventually come, decides for the states, it's back to the drawing board for Wonderboy's health care sector takeover. Sold, in part, on fiscal rectitude, it will be difficult for him to plunge ahead without the mandate. Sure, his minions are probably working on 'Plan B,' but that, too, will need to be legislated.

Good luck with that now.

If the Supreme Court decides in favor of the federal government, look for the states to turn to the Constitutional Convention alternative in a big way.

Already, nearly half the states are joining this lawsuit. Certainly the number is nearing 20.

If the suit fails, how hard will it be for those 20 or so states AGs to convince another 15 or so to join a common effort to rein in their joint creation, the federal government, and, by the way, the courts as well?

Not very hard.

This is a first in my life time and, I believe, really ever. A broad group of states suing the federal government for overstepping its bounds. The states have, however, the ultimate trump card.

Rewrite the Constitution to simply forbid the offending act, and a whole lot more.

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

More On Massachusetts' Heath Care Woes

On a weekend visit with my daughter in New Hampshire, I heard an interesting anecdote regarding Massachusetts's health care.

It seems my daughter has friends whose parents are both doctors. Under the new price control regime, the money they receive for treating the insured poor is regulated and, basically, below cost.

The doctors have the right to refuse treatment, but the husband of the couple, given his particular field, doesn't feel it is ethical to do so.

So he is losing his shirt, financially-speaking.

My daughter told me that with the coming new, more draconian Patrick price controls, the couple plans to move out of the state, in order to be able to earn a living practicing medicine.

When all 50 states are like that, where will doctors go?

That's the subject of my next post.....

Monday, April 5, 2010

Deval Patrick Becomes Massachusetts' Medical Czar

The weekend's edition of the Wall Street Journal carried an editorial detailing Massachusetts' governor Deval Patrick heavy-handed imposition of price controls on all aspects of the medical sector, including non-profit providers.

The Journal notes that the state's insurance regulators have had power over pricing since 1977. But, as the editorial points out, this time Patrick is going after and demonizing hospitals such as Blue Cross Blue Shield and Harvard Pilgrim, which are non-profits.

There's no ability to decry shareholders enriching themselves in these cases. But Patrick is still objecting to reasonable price increases.

It's instructive to the nation, as Obamacare gets rolling.

If a single state can't manage to contain costs, after passing a virtual blueprint for the recent federal law, without resorting to simple price controls, what do you think will happen to the nation's health care situation?

What do you suppose will happen to the availability of health care, the prices for which are held artificially low?

Now Massachusetts has both over-spent, and clamped down on provision of health care, via price-controls.

Precisely what critics of Wonderboy's health care fear.