Saturday, March 27, 2010

Is Tester Going to Run for Reelection?

Tester's term doesn't come up until 2012, but I found this interesting.  Admittedly, it's from December of 2009, but having less than a half million in the bank for an incumbent seems to be pretty short.  Especially since he has no major chairmanships, and his signature bill, the land grab in Montana, is only affecting locals, one has to wonder,

Friday, March 26, 2010

Enforcing the Law

The Law of Unintended Consequences of course.  More rigidly applied than the law of gravity, more strictly observed than Newton's laws of motion, unintended consequences are a given any time that the government sets its mind to solving a problem. ObamaCare being just the latest in a long line of proofs of the law.
As Dave Budge noted, there will be a gazillion IRS agents added to the rolls of government teat sucking to make sure that we are all in compliance with obtaining health insurance under ObamaCare.  Just one problem, they will have zero enforcement capability.  As a result, there is no disincentive to avoid getting health insurance until you actually need, you know, medical care.  As a result, insurance companies are going to be faced with all of these non rejectable applications for insurance coverage which was filled out in the ambulance on the way to the hospital.  Since insurance coverage is based on probabilities, the new method of deciding on when to buy insurance means that there will be a 100% payout with a probable 1% pay in of premiums.  Since you could go to the hospital, have your surgery, stay for a week, and as soon as you are out, cancel your insurance, it is unlikely that insurance companies are going to survive.
The irony is that in attempting to cover the 30 to 47 million people without insurance, we just may be sending the numbers of uninsured into the 300 million realm.  Tell me that was what the Democrats wanted to do.  No, I really believe they just plain failed to think it all the way through, just like always.
The other amusing thing, is that while the Democrats admit that the bulk of the benefits don't take effect until 2014, they were using the selling point that as of passage, you couldn't be denied for a pre-existing condition, and your children would be covered until they were 26.  Except they won't.
Democrats. proving that good government is a myth.  And yet, they persist.  What is that definition of insanity again?

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Monday, March 22, 2010

Commerce Clause and Chaos

The passage of ObamaCare has brought joy to those on the Left who seek to have equality by pulling all others down to the lowest common denominator. The basis for this intrusive act by the government is said to be the all powerful "commerce clause" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) of the US Constitution, giving the Congress the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The clause didn't pack a lot of power until the Depression when the FDR administration determined to artificially keep wheat prices high. Without geting into some esoterica about the "dormant commerce clause" or other issues of limited application, suffice it to say, that the Supreme Court determined in Willard v. Filburn that any activity that exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce could be regulated. While Filburn's growing wheat to feed his chickens meant that he wasn't buying wheat on the open market (and thereby supporting government mandated prices) was only of small impact, the reasoning was basically that if everyone did it, the impact would be large.
I am sure you are asking how a wheat farmer's horticulture has anything to do with ObamaCare. First, ObamaCare requires mandatory purchase of health insurance by everyone in order to subsidize those who will need medical care. And what is the basis for this "substantial impact on interstate commerce?" Apparently, it's breathing. If you are consuming air, then you are somehow having a substantial impact on interstate commerce?
The real question is, what is now the minimal activity that a citizen can do to avoid triggering the commerce clause in their life? If there is nothing that cannot be regulated, then why do we have the 10th Amendment?
The real fun for those of us who prefer chaos to organized governmental activity, it is quite possible that the US Supreme Court could rein in the commerce clause to such an extent that the powers that Congress has been usurping will finally be removed.
And I can hardly wait.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Tell Us What You Really Think.

You have to really love this piece. From the article:
“I have three simple questions Ms Pelosi,” said Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga. “Are you so arrogant that you think you know what’s best for the American people? Are you so ignorant that you are oblivious to the wishes of the American people? And are you so incompetent that you are going to ignore the Constitution of the United States, use tricks, deceptions, bald faced lies to try to ram down the throat of the American people something that they do not want and is going to be absolutely worse for their healthcare?”

Monday, March 15, 2010

And, They're Off

The filing deadline is now over, and a whole bunch of people decided at the last minute that they wanted to run for office after all. Good for them, and special acknowledgment to Matt Stevenson who is running against Carolyn Squires for HD 96, (the same one that I ran for in 2008).
Good luck to all of them, and may they always remember they are representatives, not leaders. Do what the people want, not just what you want.

This is Sort of Disturbing

And yet, mildly amusing.

Friday, March 12, 2010

Another Double Standard

Remember Scooter Libby? Or Martha Stewart? Both of these high profile people were prosecuted for making false statements to federal agents. As a general rule, I would never ever talk to the FBI or any other federal investigator because if I made a mistake, I could still be prosecuted for that innocent mistake, even if it isn't intentional.
Apparently, if you do the same thing in your senate confirmation, well, it's just not that big of a deal. Combining this, with the DOJ dismissal of the Black Panther Voter Intimidation case and the dismissal of the ACORN investigation, and you realize that there are two kinds of justice in this country. One for Democrats and their friends, and one for the rest of us.
Guess which one goes to jail.

Monday, March 08, 2010

Schweitzer as the VP in 2012?

The Washington Examiner thinks that Obama needs to get some populist help for his re-election run in 2012. No mention is made of Biden, although it is fairly well known that the former Senator from Delaware offers little to help Obama's chances, since his whole attraction before was foreign policy expertise. But interestingly. the Examiner seems to think that our own Gov. BS is prime material for the spot.
Personally, I think Obama needs someone with actual, you know, competence. Maybe Bayh, but I am not so sure that he wants to be associated with the coming train wreck.

Thursday, March 04, 2010

Obama and the Political Equivalent of Jonestown

Presidents in the modern era tend to develop an image even if it is one that they don't want. Think George Bush and you have a variety of preconceived notions by the public in general: Amiable dunce, or war criminal. Clinton as the prevaricating philanderer, GHWB (Bush 41) Yankee patrician who said "read my lips" like he actually meant it, even though he didn't. Reagan, maybe amiable dunce, but I think most on the Left so loathed him, that they saw him as the evil precursor to GWB. Carter of course, was the incompetent busybody technocrat, Ford the uncoordinated dunce (which is interesting since he was probably the best athlete president of this century). Tricky Dick says it all, and LBJ as the rude, crude, Texan who escalated the war in Viet Nam and gave us the Civil Rights Act, even though it was against his party's interests. Barak Obama is starting to develop his own image, and it probably isn't what he wanted. Originally, the narrative was that he is this wonderful orator who could transcend party, race and the pettiness of politics and give us all a new America that could be proud of itself once again (although most of us always were proud).
Then, reality set in.
The Great Orator who enthralled the journalists who covered him, is revealed to be a captive of his teleprompter (remember corpse-man?) who is deeply narcissistic ("I won" and "the difference between 94 now, is that now you have me.") The great statesman is shown to be an indolent victim of Reid and Pelosi on the major legislation of his presidency (health care). Using the evidence of his actions, it is not unrealistic to think that Obama believes his own press. His explanation for the lack of public support for his plan is that the administration has failed to communicate it clearly. This in spite of the fact that he has given more speeches on health care than there are days of his presidency. Could it possibly be that he has communicated his plan, and the public rejects it anyway? That thought seems to be incomprehensible to the divine One.
But what about all of the polls that show the public support the elements of his plan, even if they don't support his plan? I am curious what the pollsters asked about the Louisiana Purchase or the CornHusker Kickback. Or, for that matter the entire process, which was supposed to be on CSPAN for all of us to see. Instead, it was done in the back of Harry Reid's office, pressed to the floor for a vote when the members never had a chance to read it, much less understand it. And now, in spite of the polls Obama vows to press ahead unilaterally with reconcilliation to put it into law. The theory is that the Democrats will be rewarded by the public when the law is enacted.
The foolishness of this plan can only be attributed to self-delusion. But the mania is being abetted and enabled by other members of Congress. The fact that they can say with a straight face that the plan will reduce the deficit and not raise costs is simply absurd. If they know it and ignore it, they are criminally complicit. On the other hand, if they really do believe this pap, they are a pretty good argument for making a test of sanity a requirement for federal office.
Obama seems to be orchestrating the political equivalent of Jonestown. Demanding fealty to his signature work, he is telling Democrats that they need to throw themselves on that grenade for the good of their party. Never mind that due to seniority rules in the Democrat caucus, the old bulls with the most seniority are the ones from the safest seats. The ones who will actually pay the price for this miscue are going to be the Democrats that were recruited to take over moderate and Red State seats.
Forcing this monstrosity through in the face of adverse public opinion will probably wipe out all of the gains that the Democrats have made over the last four years. Although Congressional districts have varying degrees of fluidity, the trend for the last two elections has been to the Democrats. Abetted by Republican fiscal idiocy and trumped up ethics charges, the Democrats are now showing that they can top even the Republicans at that game. In fact, I think it wouldn't be all that unreasonable for the House to return to the same number of Republicans and Democrats as existed in 2004. With such a mandate in opposition to the Democrat plan, its reversal is almost assuredly guaranteed. Then all the Republicans will have to do is proffer their simplified plan, and the public will recognize that the Democrats talk a good game but do nothing of importance.
This could very well mean the end of the Democrat Party except in isolated regional areas (the coasts and major failed metropolitan areas), representing the die hard leftists.
Quite the turnaround from a year and a half ago, dontcha think?