Fortunately, the obstacle that the Supreme Court raised to a state’s standing to sue has already been breached. In Massachusetts v. EPA—the notorious 2007 decision allowing the EPA to treat carbon dioxide as a pollutant—the Supreme Court recognized that the state had standing to sue to protect its own coastline from the supposed ravages of excess CO2. The Supreme Court should likewise also recognize a state’s standing to sue when the federal government seeks to command its resources to serve federal objectives. In New York v. United States (1992), the Court prevented the U.S. from forcing states to take title to nuclear waste. It can surely prevent the federal government from mandating massive expenditures of scarce state resources.
Under the Constitution the states are not wards of the federal government. Clever federal tax and spending statutes must not be allowed to reduce states to a servile status that allows the federal government to force massive wealth shifts among them.
The federal government should be told either to refund to the states their citizens’ Medicaid tax dollars when they pull out of the program or to drop the new mandates to expand Medicaid coverage as the price the states must pay to escape ObamaCare-created duties.
Sure, it would be nice if the Tea Partiers went line-by-line through the budget and found things to cut, or if they forecast tax revenues generated by changes in our code. But these people are doctors, and bus drivers, and store owners, and inn-keepers, and zoologists, and barbers … and it’s important that they perform their jobs, and raise their kids, and pay their bills, and pay their taxes. That these people do all these things doesn’t make their opinions on government less important—it makes them more important.You don’t have to be a policy wonk to know that:
1. Obama violated his promise not to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000.
2. Obama violated his promises concerning lobbyists.
3. Obama violated his promise of no mandate.
4. Obama violated his promise of televised negotiations.
5. Obama violated his promise to post bills for five days before signing.
6. Obama violated his promise that there would be no taxing of health care benefits.
7. Obama violated his promise of a deficit-neutral budget.
8. Obama violated his promise to veto any legislation that included earmarks.
These are not minor transgressions—they are betrayals of some of the central promises Obama made during his campaign. And you don’t have to develop your own health care proposal or government budget to be upset about these things.
“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” ~ Barack Obama
That promise has clearly been broken:
“Healthcare law to sock middle class with a $3.9 billion tax increase in 2019”—headline, The Hill
‘It is a very big loophole,’ says Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who is pushing regulatory legislation.
Is it time to bet that there will be more Americans uninsured two years from now than there are today? Or will the law produce results that are consistent with intentions, regardless of incentives?"
As for the assertion that the mandate is really a tax, this is an attempt at legal finesse. The mandate is the legal requirement to buy a certain product, while the tax is the means of enforcement. This is not a true income or even excise tax. Congress cannot, merely by invoking a tax, blow up the Framers’ attempt to restrain government under Article I.
Modern liberals genuinely believe the federal government can order the states and individuals to do anything as long as it is in pursuit of their larger social agenda."
—
Washington Memo - Baffled by Health Plan? So Are Some Lawmakers - NYTimes.com
This is hilarious, until you realize that we’re saddled with this awful law.
(via jeffmiller)
—
Mass. health insurers halt new coverage offers - The Boston Globe
There’s a mandate to buy insurance. There’s not a mandate that insurance companies sell insurance. They can’t deny anyone coverage, but they can just not sell new policies. Big difference…
Again, “we live in the future.”
(via jayparkinsonmd)
A few questions [to ask a SCOTUS nominee] to get the press started:
Can Congress compel an individual to purchase a good or service from a private enterprise?
If your answer to #1 is yes, please identify the provisions of the U.S. Constitution that empower the federal government to require such purchase.
Do you maintain that fines imposed by Congress on individuals who fail to purchase health insurance constitutes a tax? If so, what kind of tax? Please explain the difference between a tax and a penalty.
Do you agree with Prof. Richard Epstein that Obamacare’s probable reduction in the risk-adjusted rate of return for non-monopoly health insurers may violate the Takings and Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment? If not, why not?
If, under the Commerce Clause, Congress can regulate individual inactivity because such refusal to engage in commerce will have a substantial effect on the national health-care scheme, is there anything Congress cannot regulate? If so, what?
If you maintain that Obamacare’s individual mandate is a proper exercise of federal power under the Commerce Clause, please identify the rights still retained by the states and the people under the Tenth Amendment.
Can Obamacare extend contracting preferences to health-care institutions that engage in racial preferences without violating the Supreme Court’s holding in Adarand?
Want a preview of ObamaCare in action? Sneak a look at what has happened in Maine. In 2003, the state to great fanfare enacted its own version of universal health care. Democratic Governor John Baldacci signed the plan into law with a bevy of familiar promises. By 2009, it would cover all of Maine’s approximately 128,000 uninsured citizens. System-wide controls on hospital and physician costs would hold down insurance premiums. There would be no tax increases. The program was going to provide insurance for everyone and save businesses and patients money at the same time.
After five years, fiscal realities as brutal as the waves that crash along Maine’s famous coastline have hit the insurance plan. The system that was supposed to save money has cost taxpayers $155 million and is still rising.
Read the whole thing.
