The late Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy’s recent suggestion that Massachusetts return to gubernatorial appointment of senators to fill vacancies temporarily was right, but for the wrong reason. He had helped initiate a change to Massachusetts’ procedure for filling such vacancies in 2004 by convincing his state's legislature to allow for a special election to fill the vacancy instead of permitting the governor to make the immediate appointment until a special election is held at the next federal election.
Because the governor of Massachusetts at the time was Republican, Kennedy did not want him to appoint a Republican to appoint a fellow member of the GOP to the Senate. He did not seem concerned at that time that the Bay State would be without the representation of two senators while the months-long process of conducting a special election took place.
Kennedy justified his recent change of mind out of concern that Massachusetts would be without its full Senate representation, but Kennedy's real concern was probably that the vacancy in the Senate seat his passing would create would leave the Democrats with only 59 seats (including the two Independents who caucus with them) – one shy of the 60-vote supermajority necessary under Senate rules to pass legislation over any filibuster by the minority. Therefore, he wanted that vacant seat to be filled quickly, which would happen if the governor appoints someone to fill the vacancy temporarily, instead of waiting for a special election. Now that the governor of Massachusetts is a Democrat, Kennedy changed his mind and supported a return to the original procedure of gubernatorial appointment.
The gubernatorial appointment of senators to fill vacancies in Senate seats temporarily should be retained, as I explain in my post “Retain Gubernatorial Appointment of Senators,” because of constitutional principles. I support gubernatorial appointment and oppose special elections as a matter of principle – no matter what the partisan situation is, unlike Kennedy and those Democrats who agree with his proposal and now favor gubernatorial appointment. Kennedy’s reversal demonstrates the foolishness of proposing procedural changes for partisan expedience instead of principle.
The Massachusetts legislature should change its procedure back to the original one and allow its governor to appoint someone to the Senate to take the seat Kennedy vacated. But until it does, the state deserves the lapse in representation it will have while the legislature decides the issue. The concern about lapses in representation should remind everyone of a practical reason to oppose Senator Russell Feingold’s proposed Constitutional Amendment to eliminate gubernatorial appointments of senators in addition to constitutional principles.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Iraqi WMD Update: How the Media Has Changed Its Story
A recent report by the liberal media suggested that Saddam Hussein had lied that he had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in order to deter an attack from Iran. The media suggests that its report proves that Iraq did not have WMDs at the time of its Liberation in 2003, or at least that the threat from Iraqi WMDs was exaggerated. However, this report validates some of the concerns about Iraqi WMDs.
Iraq under Hussein was not allowed to possess WMDs by United Nations resolutions because it had used them both against foreigners and its own citizens, as well as its history of aggression. Iraq was obligated to prove that it had destroyed its WMDs and terminated WMD production programs, much like a parolee is no longer be permitted to have firearms and must submit to inspection to prove he no longer has them.
Iraq violated those UN resolutions by failing to submit to full inspections, which gave rise to suspicion that it was hiding something. Indeed, Iraq failed to account for hundreds of chemical weapons, which are a kind of WMD, it was known to possess. It never submitted evidence that it had destroyed these WMDs, as required, (e.g. the destroyed WMDs themselves, or photographs or video of their destruction), even though Hussein insisted that Iraq had destroyed them. Therefore, it was reasonable to believe that Iraq still had WMDs at the time of its Liberation, and not reasonable to believe that it did not. Although it was not necessary to find WMD in order to believe that Iraq still had them, most of those Iraqi chemical weapons have, in fact, since been found by Coalition forces over the years, scattered about Iraq.
The media and other liberal commentators insisted that Hussein was telling the truth that Iraq did not have WMD because no large stockpiles of them or new ones have been found. But the finding of the hundreds of chemical weapons Iraq was known to have possessed proves that Iraq still had WMDs at the time of its Liberation in 2003 and also proves that Hussein had lied when he claimed to have destroyed them. After citing Hussein’s denials that he still had WMDs as proof that he no longer possessed them, the liberal media now also cites the recent report that Hussein had lied about possessing WMDs as proof that he no longer had them.
But even the new liberal media’s theory that Hussein was bluffing the Iranians by exaggerating his possession of WMDs proves that his failure to submit to proper inspections and to prove that he had destroyed his WMDs enabled him to continue to bully his neighbors, which is a concern I have been raising since before the Liberation of Iraq. As I have noted in other posts, a terrorist-sponsoring regime, like Hussein’s Iraq, that possesses WMDs or bluffs that it possesses WMDs is committing terrorism against anyone within range of its missiles, let alone against anyone who is a potential victim of any militant groups it sponsors. Hussein cleverly hid his WMDs just enough so that his neighbors still had to fear him while Western liberals and isolationists could believe his lies that Iraq no longer had them and act accordingly. The latest liberal attempt to dismiss the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq cannot change the fact that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction did represent a serious threat to his neighbors and to the interests of the United States.
Iraq under Hussein was not allowed to possess WMDs by United Nations resolutions because it had used them both against foreigners and its own citizens, as well as its history of aggression. Iraq was obligated to prove that it had destroyed its WMDs and terminated WMD production programs, much like a parolee is no longer be permitted to have firearms and must submit to inspection to prove he no longer has them.
Iraq violated those UN resolutions by failing to submit to full inspections, which gave rise to suspicion that it was hiding something. Indeed, Iraq failed to account for hundreds of chemical weapons, which are a kind of WMD, it was known to possess. It never submitted evidence that it had destroyed these WMDs, as required, (e.g. the destroyed WMDs themselves, or photographs or video of their destruction), even though Hussein insisted that Iraq had destroyed them. Therefore, it was reasonable to believe that Iraq still had WMDs at the time of its Liberation, and not reasonable to believe that it did not. Although it was not necessary to find WMD in order to believe that Iraq still had them, most of those Iraqi chemical weapons have, in fact, since been found by Coalition forces over the years, scattered about Iraq.
The media and other liberal commentators insisted that Hussein was telling the truth that Iraq did not have WMD because no large stockpiles of them or new ones have been found. But the finding of the hundreds of chemical weapons Iraq was known to have possessed proves that Iraq still had WMDs at the time of its Liberation in 2003 and also proves that Hussein had lied when he claimed to have destroyed them. After citing Hussein’s denials that he still had WMDs as proof that he no longer possessed them, the liberal media now also cites the recent report that Hussein had lied about possessing WMDs as proof that he no longer had them.
But even the new liberal media’s theory that Hussein was bluffing the Iranians by exaggerating his possession of WMDs proves that his failure to submit to proper inspections and to prove that he had destroyed his WMDs enabled him to continue to bully his neighbors, which is a concern I have been raising since before the Liberation of Iraq. As I have noted in other posts, a terrorist-sponsoring regime, like Hussein’s Iraq, that possesses WMDs or bluffs that it possesses WMDs is committing terrorism against anyone within range of its missiles, let alone against anyone who is a potential victim of any militant groups it sponsors. Hussein cleverly hid his WMDs just enough so that his neighbors still had to fear him while Western liberals and isolationists could believe his lies that Iraq no longer had them and act accordingly. The latest liberal attempt to dismiss the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq cannot change the fact that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction did represent a serious threat to his neighbors and to the interests of the United States.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Health Insurance Federalization Would Violate the Principles of Federalism and Subsidiarity
Neither health care nor health insurance generally are federal issues. Although a problem may occur “nationwide,” it is not necessarily federal. National is not the same as federal. The United States is neither a nation, nor a nation-state, but a union of states. An issue is federal only if it pertains to the Union itself, not whether it occurs in every state or would affect the economy of all the states, which is not a government responsibility. Federal responsibilities are enumerated in the U.S. Constitution (Article I Section 8). Domestic responsibilities are generally the responsibility of the states. Because the states are diverse in many ways, a policy which might be suitable for one might not be suitable for another.
This separation of powers is the principle of federalism established by the Founding Fathers. Federalism prevents the federal government that was created by the states from becoming too powerful at the expense of the rights of the states and the people.
Health care or health insurance are only issues in federal territories or other areas of federal control like military bases or Indian Reservations. It is also a benefit promised to veterans. Otherwise, to the extent that it is a government issue at all, it is a state matter. There is nothing federal about health care or health insurance. Therefore, President Barack Obama’s proposed federalization of health insurance would violate the principle of federalism, in issue which should be left to the states.
Federalism is an example of a larger principle based upon Scripture and first developed by Catholicism that would be called “subsidiarity.” Subsidiarity is the principle that the lowest unit of government as possible should exercise power. It is a principle that is opposite of centralization of power. Centralization makes people less free because it makes government ever more remote from the people, and thus too large to be flexible enough to respond to their needs. It also makes people more dependent on the centralized power. Furthermore, the significant increase in government spending and taxation would reduce the liberty of the people to spend their money as they see fit.
The federalization of health insurance would cause a centralization of power in the federal government of something that it is unnecessary for it to address, as the matter is better left to the states, or to the people. The application of the principle of subsidiarity, through the constitutional principle of federalism, would necessitate opposition to the federalization of health insurance in order to maintain the liberty and independence of the states and the people. With the exception of reforming those few areas where the federal government influences health insurance, such as limiting huge awards in federal civil suits for medical malpractice, any reforms of health insurance must be done privately or by the states.
This separation of powers is the principle of federalism established by the Founding Fathers. Federalism prevents the federal government that was created by the states from becoming too powerful at the expense of the rights of the states and the people.
Health care or health insurance are only issues in federal territories or other areas of federal control like military bases or Indian Reservations. It is also a benefit promised to veterans. Otherwise, to the extent that it is a government issue at all, it is a state matter. There is nothing federal about health care or health insurance. Therefore, President Barack Obama’s proposed federalization of health insurance would violate the principle of federalism, in issue which should be left to the states.
Federalism is an example of a larger principle based upon Scripture and first developed by Catholicism that would be called “subsidiarity.” Subsidiarity is the principle that the lowest unit of government as possible should exercise power. It is a principle that is opposite of centralization of power. Centralization makes people less free because it makes government ever more remote from the people, and thus too large to be flexible enough to respond to their needs. It also makes people more dependent on the centralized power. Furthermore, the significant increase in government spending and taxation would reduce the liberty of the people to spend their money as they see fit.
The federalization of health insurance would cause a centralization of power in the federal government of something that it is unnecessary for it to address, as the matter is better left to the states, or to the people. The application of the principle of subsidiarity, through the constitutional principle of federalism, would necessitate opposition to the federalization of health insurance in order to maintain the liberty and independence of the states and the people. With the exception of reforming those few areas where the federal government influences health insurance, such as limiting huge awards in federal civil suits for medical malpractice, any reforms of health insurance must be done privately or by the states.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Robert Novak, Rest in Peace
The great reporter and conservative commentator, Robert Novak, died today at the age of 78. His journalism career spanned 60 years, during which time Novak became known for his skill at reporting on inside politics in Washington, D.C. He also became known as a columnist when he teamed with Rowland Evans in 1963 in editing The Evans-Novak Report. After the death of Evans in 2001, Novak continued the column, syndicated by the Chicago Sun-Times, until this year, making it the longest-running syndicated political column in the United States. His columns were filled with nuggets of political reporting.
From 1980 to 2005, Novak was the host of CNN’s Crossfire and other various other somewhat similar shows. Crossfire featured two hosts, one representing the left and one representing the right, who cross-examined guests from both the left and the right. Novak represented the right, which thereby made him one of the few voices for limited government in the media at the time. He reliably represented conservative thought on that show, as well as on programs on other networks on which he appeared as a guest.
Novak steadfastly maintained that government should focus on what it was supposed to do (protecting the rights of its citizens), while keeping spending and taxes down, instead of spending taxpayer money ineffectively on other things like good works. His pessimism about government served as a counterpoint to the liberal “progressive” faith in government as a power to do good, which earned him the nickname “The Prince of Darkness.” Novak proudly accepted the moniker and took all the good-natured ribbing from his liberal colleagues in stride.
Novak was a staunch Cold Warrior, but his independence led him to diverge from conservatives on some policies, such as in regards to the Middle East in particular.
Novak was brought up in the Jewish faith, but he became agnostic for many years until his conversion to Catholicism at the age of 67.
May the soul of Robert Novak rest in peace and may his legacy of outstanding journalism continue to inspire journalists, and may his wisdom on the limits of government be heeded in politics.
From 1980 to 2005, Novak was the host of CNN’s Crossfire and other various other somewhat similar shows. Crossfire featured two hosts, one representing the left and one representing the right, who cross-examined guests from both the left and the right. Novak represented the right, which thereby made him one of the few voices for limited government in the media at the time. He reliably represented conservative thought on that show, as well as on programs on other networks on which he appeared as a guest.
Novak steadfastly maintained that government should focus on what it was supposed to do (protecting the rights of its citizens), while keeping spending and taxes down, instead of spending taxpayer money ineffectively on other things like good works. His pessimism about government served as a counterpoint to the liberal “progressive” faith in government as a power to do good, which earned him the nickname “The Prince of Darkness.” Novak proudly accepted the moniker and took all the good-natured ribbing from his liberal colleagues in stride.
Novak was a staunch Cold Warrior, but his independence led him to diverge from conservatives on some policies, such as in regards to the Middle East in particular.
Novak was brought up in the Jewish faith, but he became agnostic for many years until his conversion to Catholicism at the age of 67.
May the soul of Robert Novak rest in peace and may his legacy of outstanding journalism continue to inspire journalists, and may his wisdom on the limits of government be heeded in politics.
Eunice Kennedy Shriver, Rest in Peace
Eunice Kennedy Shriver, the sister of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, died recently at the age of 88. She was the wife of Sargent Shriver, whom President Kennedy named as the first head of the Peace Corps and who was the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in 1972. Their daughter, Maria, is currently the First Lady of California.
Eunice Shriver was famous in her own right as the foundress of the Special Olympics, having been inspired by her sister Rose's struggle with mental disability. Her belief in the dignity of all human beings, which was in accordance with her Catholic faith, was reflected in her support of children who are mentally or physically disabled, whom the Special Olympics has been spectacularly successful in cherishing. Unlike some in her family, Eunice Kennedy Shriver was consistent in her belief, for she remained ardently pro-life.
May her soul rest in peace and may her legacy continue to inspire respect for all human life.
Eunice Shriver was famous in her own right as the foundress of the Special Olympics, having been inspired by her sister Rose's struggle with mental disability. Her belief in the dignity of all human beings, which was in accordance with her Catholic faith, was reflected in her support of children who are mentally or physically disabled, whom the Special Olympics has been spectacularly successful in cherishing. Unlike some in her family, Eunice Kennedy Shriver was consistent in her belief, for she remained ardently pro-life.
May her soul rest in peace and may her legacy continue to inspire respect for all human life.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
How to Measure Whether an Economic Stimulus Is Working
It is difficult to determine whether an economic stimulus is “working” because there are a variety of factors that can impact the economy. Nonetheless, one can measure whether an economic stimulus is working if the standard is whether the stimulus has, on balance, stimulated the economy, which is to say, whether it has benefited the economy. Whether a stimulus is responsible for averting a recession is a standard that might be too high to meet depending on the circumstances, even if it is the intent of the policymakers who implement it.
A comparison between the two most recent economic stimuli is helpful. President George W. Bush’s 2008 economic stimulus primarily featured $150 billion in tax credits. The Bush stimulus improved the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for one quarter of a year, but not enough to avoid the subsequent recession. Therefore, many critics argue that the stimulus did not work, but at best only delayed the recession. Indeed, it did not work if the standard of measure was whether it avoided a recession. However, Bush’s stimulus did work if the standard of measure was whether it benefited the economy. Bush’s stimulus might have averted a recession, or at least made it milder and briefer, but for the subsequent financial crisis.
President Barak Obama’s $787 billion economic “stimulus” includes a continuation of Bush's middle tax cuts, which, although they stimulate economic growth (as measured by the GDP), do not meet the definition of a stimulus, which is government spending intended to stimulate economic growth. Most of Obama's stimulus features spending. His spending might be having some positive impact on GDP, which is contracting less than it had been, but not enough to stimulate economic recovery on its own, or at least be more responsible than other factors that might be contributing to recovery.
Indeed, as in the United States, there have been some recent signs of recovery in Europe, even though Obama had dismissed the Europeans' economic stimuli as “too small,” which suggests that other factors are responsible for the recovery. Another possibility the European example suggests is that Obama's judgment about the size necessary for an effective economic stimulus is poor. For if Obama’s stimulus is already “working” with only a few percentage points worth of his $787 billion spending spree being spent this year, then the rest of it would not be necessary as an economic “stimulus.”
There are at least four other factors that are contributing to the recent evidence of the possible beginnings of economic recovery: 1) Actions by the Federal Reserve, 2) federal bailouts, 3) lower energy prices and 4) the natural business cycle.
1) Actions by the Federal Reserve. The Fed has lowered interest rates over the last few years in order to reduce inflation. It has also provided aid to banks and other financial institutions. All of these actions have helped to make credit more available for consumers and businesses.
2) Federal bailouts. Since 2008, the extraordinary federal loans to various financial institutions in particular, as well as partial federal takeovers, have also helped to thaw the nearly-frozen credit market, thus averting the collapse of the global financial system, which would have triggered a depression.
3) Lower energy prices. The price of oil is less than half of what it was a year ago, which has reduced inflationary pressure, thereby eliminating the threat of staglation (the combination of stagnation and inflation.
4) The natural business cycle. Just as the boom led to bust (i.e. the higher energy prices that caused inflation that, in turn caused an increase in interest rates which, in turn, triggered the near-collapse of the financial system) the bust will lead to boom. For example, as the value of homes decreased, the price became more affordable for lower income people to buy. Therefore, sales of homes are increasing, which is one of the leading indicators of economic growth.
An economic stimulus can stimulate the economy in the short term, at the long-term expense of increased government spending, which acts as a drag on the economy when the bill for the spending must be paid. In conclusion, economic stimuli do benefit the economy as measured by the Gross Domestic Product, even if they fall short of averting recessions, absent other factors impacting the economy.
Obama’s economic “stimulus,” however, is so large that its short-term benefit is more heavily outweighed than Bush's by the long-term cost, primarily because much of his $787 billion spending spree is not economically stimulative and is spread out over several years. Moreover, although Obama's spending, like Bush’s economic stimulus, may be having some benefit to the GDP, the recent signs of economic recovery are more likely attributable to other factors for which neither Obama nor his stimulus are responsible. In short, both Bush’s and Obama’s economic stimuli should be judged by the same measure: Judging them fairly, because they have both been beneficial to the economy, both stimuli can be said to have “worked,” at least in the short-term. However, judging the economic stimuli by the less reasonable higher standard of whether they stimulated the economy sufficiently in order to maintain or return to prosperity, they have not worked.
A comparison between the two most recent economic stimuli is helpful. President George W. Bush’s 2008 economic stimulus primarily featured $150 billion in tax credits. The Bush stimulus improved the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for one quarter of a year, but not enough to avoid the subsequent recession. Therefore, many critics argue that the stimulus did not work, but at best only delayed the recession. Indeed, it did not work if the standard of measure was whether it avoided a recession. However, Bush’s stimulus did work if the standard of measure was whether it benefited the economy. Bush’s stimulus might have averted a recession, or at least made it milder and briefer, but for the subsequent financial crisis.
President Barak Obama’s $787 billion economic “stimulus” includes a continuation of Bush's middle tax cuts, which, although they stimulate economic growth (as measured by the GDP), do not meet the definition of a stimulus, which is government spending intended to stimulate economic growth. Most of Obama's stimulus features spending. His spending might be having some positive impact on GDP, which is contracting less than it had been, but not enough to stimulate economic recovery on its own, or at least be more responsible than other factors that might be contributing to recovery.
Indeed, as in the United States, there have been some recent signs of recovery in Europe, even though Obama had dismissed the Europeans' economic stimuli as “too small,” which suggests that other factors are responsible for the recovery. Another possibility the European example suggests is that Obama's judgment about the size necessary for an effective economic stimulus is poor. For if Obama’s stimulus is already “working” with only a few percentage points worth of his $787 billion spending spree being spent this year, then the rest of it would not be necessary as an economic “stimulus.”
There are at least four other factors that are contributing to the recent evidence of the possible beginnings of economic recovery: 1) Actions by the Federal Reserve, 2) federal bailouts, 3) lower energy prices and 4) the natural business cycle.
1) Actions by the Federal Reserve. The Fed has lowered interest rates over the last few years in order to reduce inflation. It has also provided aid to banks and other financial institutions. All of these actions have helped to make credit more available for consumers and businesses.
2) Federal bailouts. Since 2008, the extraordinary federal loans to various financial institutions in particular, as well as partial federal takeovers, have also helped to thaw the nearly-frozen credit market, thus averting the collapse of the global financial system, which would have triggered a depression.
3) Lower energy prices. The price of oil is less than half of what it was a year ago, which has reduced inflationary pressure, thereby eliminating the threat of staglation (the combination of stagnation and inflation.
4) The natural business cycle. Just as the boom led to bust (i.e. the higher energy prices that caused inflation that, in turn caused an increase in interest rates which, in turn, triggered the near-collapse of the financial system) the bust will lead to boom. For example, as the value of homes decreased, the price became more affordable for lower income people to buy. Therefore, sales of homes are increasing, which is one of the leading indicators of economic growth.
An economic stimulus can stimulate the economy in the short term, at the long-term expense of increased government spending, which acts as a drag on the economy when the bill for the spending must be paid. In conclusion, economic stimuli do benefit the economy as measured by the Gross Domestic Product, even if they fall short of averting recessions, absent other factors impacting the economy.
Obama’s economic “stimulus,” however, is so large that its short-term benefit is more heavily outweighed than Bush's by the long-term cost, primarily because much of his $787 billion spending spree is not economically stimulative and is spread out over several years. Moreover, although Obama's spending, like Bush’s economic stimulus, may be having some benefit to the GDP, the recent signs of economic recovery are more likely attributable to other factors for which neither Obama nor his stimulus are responsible. In short, both Bush’s and Obama’s economic stimuli should be judged by the same measure: Judging them fairly, because they have both been beneficial to the economy, both stimuli can be said to have “worked,” at least in the short-term. However, judging the economic stimuli by the less reasonable higher standard of whether they stimulated the economy sufficiently in order to maintain or return to prosperity, they have not worked.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation Opens Online Museum
The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation (VOCMF) has recently opened an online museum called the Global Museum on Communism (www.globalmuseumoncommunism.org). The VOCMF had placed a memorial to the victims of Communism in the District of Columbia, which was dedicated by President George W. Bush in 2007. Although it had received federal approval for the memorial, the VOCMF is funded by private donations. The VOCMF will continue to raise funds for a "brick and mortar" museum, but for now the online museum provides a valuable resource for those interested in learning about the atrocities perpetuated in order to advance Communism.
The VOCMF memorializes the tens of millions of people killed by Communists and honors those heroes who resisted Communism. Since the official collapse of Communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in 1989, the collective memory of westerners about the horrors committed by Communists has begun to fade. The continued existence of several Communist regimes, as well as active Marxist-Leninist guerrilla or terrorist movements around the world, make it important to understand the evil nature of Communism.
The VOCMF memorializes the tens of millions of people killed by Communists and honors those heroes who resisted Communism. Since the official collapse of Communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in 1989, the collective memory of westerners about the horrors committed by Communists has begun to fade. The continued existence of several Communist regimes, as well as active Marxist-Leninist guerrilla or terrorist movements around the world, make it important to understand the evil nature of Communism.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Obama's Federalization of Health Insurance Would Cover Abortion
There are several problems with President Barak Obama's plan to federalize health insurance, including the cost and the expansion of the federal bureaucracy, with the corresponding loss of liberty, as I have noted in earlier posts. Of particular concern is that government rationing of health care could adversely effect health care for seniors or others the government deems unworthy of spending money to save, and could lead to euthanasia, as happens in foreign states with similar socialized health care systems.
Another part of Obama's health insurance federalization also threatens the right to life: insurance coverage for abortion. Worse, not only would federal insurance for abortion legitimatize it and encourage more of it, but Obama and Congressional Democrats would force taxpayers to pay for abortions, even those who morally oppose it. Obama already forced taxpayers to pay organizations that promote abortion abroad, but his health insurance federalization plan would fund abortions directly with taxpayer dollars.
As critics of President Bill Clinton's 1994 plan to federalize health care noted at that time, abortion is not health care, but the opposite of it. Federal insurance coverage for abortion is one more reason to oppose Obama's radical plan to federalize health insurance.
Another part of Obama's health insurance federalization also threatens the right to life: insurance coverage for abortion. Worse, not only would federal insurance for abortion legitimatize it and encourage more of it, but Obama and Congressional Democrats would force taxpayers to pay for abortions, even those who morally oppose it. Obama already forced taxpayers to pay organizations that promote abortion abroad, but his health insurance federalization plan would fund abortions directly with taxpayer dollars.
As critics of President Bill Clinton's 1994 plan to federalize health care noted at that time, abortion is not health care, but the opposite of it. Federal insurance coverage for abortion is one more reason to oppose Obama's radical plan to federalize health insurance.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
100 Posts to My Blog
I recently posted to my blog for the 100th time. I plan many more posts, thanks to your continued visits, which encourage me to keep posting. As usual, I have notes prepared for several already, as well as topics for others, and remain ready to comment on particular current developments, so please visit at least once or twice a week. Please feel free to suggest more topics or to post comments. Thank you for your support.
I added a new feature to my blog: a tool that enables one to search my blog more conveniently. It is located near the top of the left-hand column. Enjoy.
I added a new feature to my blog: a tool that enables one to search my blog more conveniently. It is located near the top of the left-hand column. Enjoy.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Conservative Analysis of Cash for Clunkers
As I have noted in earlier posts, the role of government, especially the federal government of the United States, is not to manage the economy, but to protect our rights. Government policies impact on the economy and ought not to harm it any more than is necessary, but there is little that the government should do economically per se.
The Obama Administration’s $787 billion so-called economic stimulus plan as an example of massive government overreach into the economy. It is one thing to provide income tax credits in order to stimulate the economy, as the Bush Administration did in 2008, but another thing to confiscate money from some citizens and give it to a favored few in furtherance of some social policy or some political payoff, as the Obama Administration is doing. The economically stimulative effect of the Obama policy is dubious because most of the stimulus money is to be spent in later years when the economy would have recovered on its own, while much of the current stimulus spending is in various forms of Congressional pork and other political patronage and favoritism of little economically stimulative value. Moreover, the price of the spending plan will be massive federal budget deficits, which would lead to even more borrowing and taxing. Concern over the long-term cost of the Obama spending spree to the economy has increased economic uncertainty, which is counterproductive to economic recovery.
Nonetheless, in February I stated in my post “Obama’s Sending Spree” that there might be some short-term economic benefit from some of the spending. Apparently, one program in particular has proven to be relatively stimulative, the “Cash for Clunkers” tax credit which rewards purchasers of new, more fuel-efficient automobiles who trade in their older, less fuel-efficient automobiles.
The program has proven the effectiveness of tax cuts, as auto sales have increased significantly. This tax credit is of the kind that benefits one major industry that the Obama Administration has already heavily subsidized at the expense of all income earners. However, it also does help one significant category of small businesses: auto dealers, in addition to automobile consumers. In short, the Cash for Clunkers program helps a few at the expense of the many, but it helps more people than most of the rest of the economic stimulus plan. Critics of the program make a legitimate point in complaining that there ought to be a corresponding tax credit for the consumption of other goods, as well, even if it were limited to other energy-efficient goods. The program is not the right kind of economic stimulus, which would be a tax credit for all income earners, as it is not appropriate for the government to meddle in the economy, especially with favoritism. Tax cuts for all income earners would give people the freedom to spend their money in economically better ways than the government would, but it would do so for the sake of liberty, with any economic benefit as a bonus. Nonetheless, Cash for Clunkers represents less wasteful government spending than most of the rest of the $787 billion boondoggle. Taking some of the money allocated for the rest of the stimulus and redirecting it to the Cash for Clunkers program would be a slight improvement over the status quo.
Let us urge the Congress and the Obama Administration to apply the economic lesson of Cash for Clunkers to the tax code and cut income taxes in order to spur more consumption by increasing liberty.
The Obama Administration’s $787 billion so-called economic stimulus plan as an example of massive government overreach into the economy. It is one thing to provide income tax credits in order to stimulate the economy, as the Bush Administration did in 2008, but another thing to confiscate money from some citizens and give it to a favored few in furtherance of some social policy or some political payoff, as the Obama Administration is doing. The economically stimulative effect of the Obama policy is dubious because most of the stimulus money is to be spent in later years when the economy would have recovered on its own, while much of the current stimulus spending is in various forms of Congressional pork and other political patronage and favoritism of little economically stimulative value. Moreover, the price of the spending plan will be massive federal budget deficits, which would lead to even more borrowing and taxing. Concern over the long-term cost of the Obama spending spree to the economy has increased economic uncertainty, which is counterproductive to economic recovery.
Nonetheless, in February I stated in my post “Obama’s Sending Spree” that there might be some short-term economic benefit from some of the spending. Apparently, one program in particular has proven to be relatively stimulative, the “Cash for Clunkers” tax credit which rewards purchasers of new, more fuel-efficient automobiles who trade in their older, less fuel-efficient automobiles.
The program has proven the effectiveness of tax cuts, as auto sales have increased significantly. This tax credit is of the kind that benefits one major industry that the Obama Administration has already heavily subsidized at the expense of all income earners. However, it also does help one significant category of small businesses: auto dealers, in addition to automobile consumers. In short, the Cash for Clunkers program helps a few at the expense of the many, but it helps more people than most of the rest of the economic stimulus plan. Critics of the program make a legitimate point in complaining that there ought to be a corresponding tax credit for the consumption of other goods, as well, even if it were limited to other energy-efficient goods. The program is not the right kind of economic stimulus, which would be a tax credit for all income earners, as it is not appropriate for the government to meddle in the economy, especially with favoritism. Tax cuts for all income earners would give people the freedom to spend their money in economically better ways than the government would, but it would do so for the sake of liberty, with any economic benefit as a bonus. Nonetheless, Cash for Clunkers represents less wasteful government spending than most of the rest of the $787 billion boondoggle. Taking some of the money allocated for the rest of the stimulus and redirecting it to the Cash for Clunkers program would be a slight improvement over the status quo.
Let us urge the Congress and the Obama Administration to apply the economic lesson of Cash for Clunkers to the tax code and cut income taxes in order to spur more consumption by increasing liberty.
Sotomayor Ought Not Be Confirmed
Sonia Sotomayor, President Barak Obama’s nominee for the United States Supreme Court, ought not to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Although her liberal record as an appellate judge is not relatively extreme, her troubling views suggest that once she is given a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land without the fear of reversal she currently should have, she will feel free to judge based upon her extremist views, despite her promises to the Senators during her confirmation hearings. Note: Sotomayor has been reversed by the Supreme Court relatively frequently.
Sotomayor’s repeated statement that a “wise Latina” would make a better judge than a non-Hispanic male suggests her bigotry, and reflects Obama’s view that empathy should prevail over impartial justice. In other words, cases will be prejudged based upon who the parties are instead of the law or the facts. Sotomayor does not even understand that the role of an appellate judge is to rule on matters of law after accepting the finding of fact by the court of original jurisdiction. In her written judicial opinions, she oddly takes it upon herself to retry the facts in certain cases without seeing the testimony of the witnesses.
However, Sotomayor’s statement that the courts are places of policy making is even more troubling. The courts are places where the law is interpreted, not made. Laws are made by legislators, not judges. Sotomayor’s embrace of such judicial activism instead of judicial restraint reflects her liberal contempt for the Constitution that she will be sworn to follow and interpret. Her arbitrary favoritism of certain parties, combined with her belief in judicial activism, would make the law subject to her whim, instead of being the product of the legislative process. With Sotomayor on the Supreme Court, Obama would continue the liberal strategy of “remaking America” by circumventing representative democracy.
Sotomayor’s repeated statement that a “wise Latina” would make a better judge than a non-Hispanic male suggests her bigotry, and reflects Obama’s view that empathy should prevail over impartial justice. In other words, cases will be prejudged based upon who the parties are instead of the law or the facts. Sotomayor does not even understand that the role of an appellate judge is to rule on matters of law after accepting the finding of fact by the court of original jurisdiction. In her written judicial opinions, she oddly takes it upon herself to retry the facts in certain cases without seeing the testimony of the witnesses.
However, Sotomayor’s statement that the courts are places of policy making is even more troubling. The courts are places where the law is interpreted, not made. Laws are made by legislators, not judges. Sotomayor’s embrace of such judicial activism instead of judicial restraint reflects her liberal contempt for the Constitution that she will be sworn to follow and interpret. Her arbitrary favoritism of certain parties, combined with her belief in judicial activism, would make the law subject to her whim, instead of being the product of the legislative process. With Sotomayor on the Supreme Court, Obama would continue the liberal strategy of “remaking America” by circumventing representative democracy.
Clinton, Obama Appease North Korea
Former President Bill Clinton traveled to North Korea to apparently win the release of two American journalists kidnapped by the despotic Communist regime. Their release had already been negotiated in advance between the United States and North Korea. Clinton, the husband of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was obviously making an official trip, despite the Obama Administration’s claim that the trip was not official.
Through Clinton’s trip, the Obama Administration rewarded the North Korean’s for its hostage taking by sending such a high-ranking envoy. Clinton’s presence, which followed an official expression by his wife of “remorse” for the crossing of the journalists into the Hermit Kingdom, granted North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il political legitimacy. Kim had been trying to push the U.S. into sending some senior envoy to engage in direct negotiations directly with his regime in regard to his nuclear weapons program in order to make him appear as an equal to the superpower. Indeed, Clinton was met on the airport tarmac in the North Korean capital of Pyongyang by the Communist dictatorship’s lead nuclear negotiator in what was a successful attempt to make it appear as if the U.S. was coming to the North Koreans in a position of weakness – a typical North Korean tactic. It is also typical of hostage-taking regimes like North Korea to release their hostages for maximum diplomatic advantage for appearing to be merciful, after having first made a show of power by taking the hostages, which is an act of terrorism.
The North Koreans prefer to bully the U.S. or others into this or that concession instead of negotiating diplomatically in good faith. Therefore, giving into their demands encourages the North Koreans to continue their bad behavior. The Clinton visit was similar to the visit during his administration to North Korea of former President Jimmy Carter, who negotiated the 1994 Agree Framework, which turned out to be a major example of appeasement, as the U.S. promised generous aid in return for North Korean promises to suspend its nuclear weapons program – promises it broke. Although the stakes were not nearly as high this time, the Clinton North Korean trip continues the Obama Administration's dangerous liberal policy of treating our enemies with greater respect than our friends.
Through Clinton’s trip, the Obama Administration rewarded the North Korean’s for its hostage taking by sending such a high-ranking envoy. Clinton’s presence, which followed an official expression by his wife of “remorse” for the crossing of the journalists into the Hermit Kingdom, granted North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il political legitimacy. Kim had been trying to push the U.S. into sending some senior envoy to engage in direct negotiations directly with his regime in regard to his nuclear weapons program in order to make him appear as an equal to the superpower. Indeed, Clinton was met on the airport tarmac in the North Korean capital of Pyongyang by the Communist dictatorship’s lead nuclear negotiator in what was a successful attempt to make it appear as if the U.S. was coming to the North Koreans in a position of weakness – a typical North Korean tactic. It is also typical of hostage-taking regimes like North Korea to release their hostages for maximum diplomatic advantage for appearing to be merciful, after having first made a show of power by taking the hostages, which is an act of terrorism.
The North Koreans prefer to bully the U.S. or others into this or that concession instead of negotiating diplomatically in good faith. Therefore, giving into their demands encourages the North Koreans to continue their bad behavior. The Clinton visit was similar to the visit during his administration to North Korea of former President Jimmy Carter, who negotiated the 1994 Agree Framework, which turned out to be a major example of appeasement, as the U.S. promised generous aid in return for North Korean promises to suspend its nuclear weapons program – promises it broke. Although the stakes were not nearly as high this time, the Clinton North Korean trip continues the Obama Administration's dangerous liberal policy of treating our enemies with greater respect than our friends.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
The Liberal Media Changes Its Story on the Taliban and Drugs
Around the start of the Afghan campaign in the War on Terrorism, the liberal media gave some credit to the Taliban for its anti-opium policies. A few years after the overthrow of the Taliban, the establishment of a representative parliamentary democracy in Afghanistan and relative peace, the media had to search for something negative to report about President George W. Bush’s “good war:” it found it in a report that Afghanistan was the largest source of heroin (which is refined from opium) in the world. The media treated this report as big news that suggested that the removal of the terrorist-sponsoring Taliban from power was not as beneficial to the United States as popularly believed, even though Afghanistan has long been the largest source of heroin in the world regardless of who held power in Kabul, the Afghan capital. There was some suggestion from the media and other critics of the U.S. effort in the Afghan War that the United States had not focused sufficiently on the drug problem. But the media focus on Afghanistan’s production of opium at least was consistent in its sympathy for the Taliban on this particular topic.
Now that the Taliban has been resurgent, however, the media blames the Taliban’s resurgence as the reason for Afghanistan’s opium problem, citing opium as a major source of funding for the militant Islamist group. It also observes that now that the United States has focused on the drug problem in Afghanistan, its eradication of the poppy crops that yield opium has been beneficial to the Taliban because it angers poor farmers who then turn against the U.S. and its Afghan allies and join with the Taliban. In other words, the Taliban at least were against opium, according to the media, and their overthrow permitted poppy production, yet the failure of the U.S. to defeat the Taliban is the reason that opium is supposedly resurgent. According to the liberal media, the U.S. can do nothing right in Afghanistan no matter what it does.
The media was wrong to credit the Taliban for its anti-opium policies, as the Taliban's current practice of encouraging opium production has proven. Drug eradication efforts have worked elsewhere, but the Obama Administration is abandoning them in Afghanistan in favor of subsidizing Afghan farmers to produce other crops, even though both eradication and subsidization would work better together than alone.
In short, the subject of the Taliban and drugs is another example of the liberal tendency to blame America first for every ill in the world.
Now that the Taliban has been resurgent, however, the media blames the Taliban’s resurgence as the reason for Afghanistan’s opium problem, citing opium as a major source of funding for the militant Islamist group. It also observes that now that the United States has focused on the drug problem in Afghanistan, its eradication of the poppy crops that yield opium has been beneficial to the Taliban because it angers poor farmers who then turn against the U.S. and its Afghan allies and join with the Taliban. In other words, the Taliban at least were against opium, according to the media, and their overthrow permitted poppy production, yet the failure of the U.S. to defeat the Taliban is the reason that opium is supposedly resurgent. According to the liberal media, the U.S. can do nothing right in Afghanistan no matter what it does.
The media was wrong to credit the Taliban for its anti-opium policies, as the Taliban's current practice of encouraging opium production has proven. Drug eradication efforts have worked elsewhere, but the Obama Administration is abandoning them in Afghanistan in favor of subsidizing Afghan farmers to produce other crops, even though both eradication and subsidization would work better together than alone.
In short, the subject of the Taliban and drugs is another example of the liberal tendency to blame America first for every ill in the world.
Vice Presidents Constitutionally Lack Executive Authority
A media report recently claimed that during the George W. Bush Administration, Vice President Richard Cheney had “ordered” the Central Intelligence Agency not to reveal a proposed program to the Congress. The report is misleading.
Vice President Cheney did not order any members of the administration to do anything, as the vice president has no constitutional executive authority. As the president of the Senate, the vice president is a legislative officer, not an executive one. He could have recommended or suggested an executive action, but he did not order any action, as the media reported.
It is another misleading media phrase, often repeated by politicians and other commentators, to refer to the vice president as the “second in command,” which is language for conservatives to avoid, as the vice president cannot command anyone. His only constitutional power is to preside over the Senate and cast tie-breaking votes. Furthermore, it is often stated that vice presidents are part of the presidential administration, but they are not part of the executive branch at all. As such, it is also constitutionally inaccurate to refer to the president as the “boss” of the vice president, as vice presidents have no boss.
Vice President Cheney did not order any members of the administration to do anything, as the vice president has no constitutional executive authority. As the president of the Senate, the vice president is a legislative officer, not an executive one. He could have recommended or suggested an executive action, but he did not order any action, as the media reported.
It is another misleading media phrase, often repeated by politicians and other commentators, to refer to the vice president as the “second in command,” which is language for conservatives to avoid, as the vice president cannot command anyone. His only constitutional power is to preside over the Senate and cast tie-breaking votes. Furthermore, it is often stated that vice presidents are part of the presidential administration, but they are not part of the executive branch at all. As such, it is also constitutionally inaccurate to refer to the president as the “boss” of the vice president, as vice presidents have no boss.
Four-Month Blog Hit Report
There have now been nearly 555 visits to my blog since April 2. Thirty people began their visit to my blog on its homepage and another 400 people visited my blog posts directly. Here are the statistics: hits have come from at least 42 States in the Union (with California continuing to be the state with the most visitors) and D.C. and 38 foreign states (with the United Kingdom leading in foreign visitors). The most interesting hits since my last report came from the U.S. Marines and the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Thank you for your patronage. Some of you are loyal readers, which I especially appreciate. Please feel free to comment to this post to make any suggestions, including topics for other posts or to ask any questions. Again, thank you.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Obama’s Recent Comments Suggest His Prejudice
The recent comments made by Barak Obama about the arrest of a black professor who claimed he was arrested out of racial prejudice in Cambridge, Massachusetts suggest Obama’s own prejudice. Although the President has since partially taken back his words, he judged the arresting officer as having acted “stupidly” before he knew the facts. In other words, Obama prejudged the white police officer.
Regardless of whether Obama went so far as to accept the allegation of racism made by the professor, whom he knows personally, he nonetheless asserted that the arrest must have been stupid, at least because “cooler heads” should have prevailed. But the facts that have emerged since then suggest that it was the professor who was the only one who did not remain cool, which is why he was charged with disorderly conduct after the officer responded to a dispatch for a suspected burglary that turned out to be based upon the fact that the professor was breaking into his own home. It was the professor – not the police officer – who was uncooperative in proving his residence there, prejudging the white officer’s actions as having been based upon racial bigotry, which turned out to be an unfounded judgment.
Although Obama did not allege that the arrest was racially motivated, his knee-jerk criticism of the white police officer accused by the black professor of racism lent credence from the office of the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States not only to criticism of the officer’s actions, but to the more controversial accusation of racism. Obama’s comments reveal that beneath the veneer of coolness, is the angry black man he does not want the world to see, but whose associations, statements and policies reflect.
Regardless of whether Obama went so far as to accept the allegation of racism made by the professor, whom he knows personally, he nonetheless asserted that the arrest must have been stupid, at least because “cooler heads” should have prevailed. But the facts that have emerged since then suggest that it was the professor who was the only one who did not remain cool, which is why he was charged with disorderly conduct after the officer responded to a dispatch for a suspected burglary that turned out to be based upon the fact that the professor was breaking into his own home. It was the professor – not the police officer – who was uncooperative in proving his residence there, prejudging the white officer’s actions as having been based upon racial bigotry, which turned out to be an unfounded judgment.
Although Obama did not allege that the arrest was racially motivated, his knee-jerk criticism of the white police officer accused by the black professor of racism lent credence from the office of the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States not only to criticism of the officer’s actions, but to the more controversial accusation of racism. Obama’s comments reveal that beneath the veneer of coolness, is the angry black man he does not want the world to see, but whose associations, statements and policies reflect.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Health Care "Access" vs. Health Insurance
I discussed in an earlier post the difference between health care and health insurance and observed that the issue is not the former, but the latter. Indeed, most people are satisfied with the health care they receive and no one can be denied emergency health care.
No one is proposing a government takeover of health care, per se, but President Barak Obama and Congressional Democrats are proposing a federalization of health insurance. However, the federalization of health insurance will lead to increased government regulation of health care, to the point that it will resemble fascism more so than socialism, just like the Obama Administration's takeover of much of the automobile industry. The main concern with federal regulation of health care is that it will lead to the rationing of health care by a massive federal bureaucracy in order to reduce costs, as well federal government decision making in what foods or behavior are acceptable. In short, although the federal government will not take over health care beyond veterans' care and certain other exceptions, it will essentially control it.
Liberal supporters of the federalization of health insurance and federal government-run health care sometimes use another misleading term in addition to "health care" when referring to health insurance in order to conflate the two: "access" to health care. Saying that they want to give people "access to health care" implies that they currently lack access to health care and worse, that such people may even be denied health care. No one may be denied health care who can pay for it -- as even many of those without health insurance can do to at least some degree -- and no one may be denied emergency health care even if one cannot pay for it. In other words, no one totally lacks access to health care. Obama and the Congressional Democrats are not proposing to give people access to health care who already have it. Their intent is to subsidize health insurance as a form of welfare -- to the point of driving all private health insurance providers out of the business in order to establish a federal monopoly.
Although federalized health insurance might increase some people's access to preventative or other non-emergency health care because they would otherwise not be able to afford it, it will not increase access to health care for many people because they already have it, even many who do not have health insurance. Worse, federalized health insurance will come at the expense of other patients who will be denied access to health care -- even lifesaving treatment -- because of the need to ration health care in order to hold down costs.
There are less Draconian ways to decrease the costs of health care and give greater access to health care. Alas, one of the best ways to reduce health care costs -- tort reform, which would reduce the medical malpractice insurance premiums doctors must pay -- is strongly opposed by Obama and the Congressional Democrats.
No one is proposing a government takeover of health care, per se, but President Barak Obama and Congressional Democrats are proposing a federalization of health insurance. However, the federalization of health insurance will lead to increased government regulation of health care, to the point that it will resemble fascism more so than socialism, just like the Obama Administration's takeover of much of the automobile industry. The main concern with federal regulation of health care is that it will lead to the rationing of health care by a massive federal bureaucracy in order to reduce costs, as well federal government decision making in what foods or behavior are acceptable. In short, although the federal government will not take over health care beyond veterans' care and certain other exceptions, it will essentially control it.
Liberal supporters of the federalization of health insurance and federal government-run health care sometimes use another misleading term in addition to "health care" when referring to health insurance in order to conflate the two: "access" to health care. Saying that they want to give people "access to health care" implies that they currently lack access to health care and worse, that such people may even be denied health care. No one may be denied health care who can pay for it -- as even many of those without health insurance can do to at least some degree -- and no one may be denied emergency health care even if one cannot pay for it. In other words, no one totally lacks access to health care. Obama and the Congressional Democrats are not proposing to give people access to health care who already have it. Their intent is to subsidize health insurance as a form of welfare -- to the point of driving all private health insurance providers out of the business in order to establish a federal monopoly.
Although federalized health insurance might increase some people's access to preventative or other non-emergency health care because they would otherwise not be able to afford it, it will not increase access to health care for many people because they already have it, even many who do not have health insurance. Worse, federalized health insurance will come at the expense of other patients who will be denied access to health care -- even lifesaving treatment -- because of the need to ration health care in order to hold down costs.
There are less Draconian ways to decrease the costs of health care and give greater access to health care. Alas, one of the best ways to reduce health care costs -- tort reform, which would reduce the medical malpractice insurance premiums doctors must pay -- is strongly opposed by Obama and the Congressional Democrats.
What a Difference Four Years Makes
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) stated on FOX News on July 20 that the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats were not “rushing through” their proposed federalization of health insurance, as some critics have alleged. He explained that the charge of “rushing” was unfair because the federalization of health insurance has been proposed since 1993.
If one accepts Hoyer’s argument that 16 years is not “rushing,” then four years must make all the difference between what is “rushing” and what is not. In 1993, when President George W. Bush launched the Liberation of Iraq after 12 years of numerous violations by Saddam Hussein’s regime of several UN resolutions and the 1991 cease-fire Agreement, as well as continued sponsorship of terrorism, many Congressional Democrats and other liberals accused him of “rushing to war.” In other words, 12 years is “rushing,” but 16 is not, according to Congressional Democratic thinking. Four years must make all the difference in their minds.
Hoyer’s argument that Obama’s federalization of health insurance is not being rushed through because it was first proposed 16 years ago fails to refute the critics who insist that it is. The critics are referring to the current proposal, which was made by President Barak Obama only a few weeks ago, and which he is pushing to be approved almost immediately, not to the topic in general. The Democratic bill is so complicated that a flow chart had to be created in order to understand all of the bureaucracy it will require. See the chart on the webpage of its creator, Rep. Kevin Brady, (R-TX): www.house.gov/brady. A federal takeover of such a large segment of the economy, which would require much more spending, borrowing and taxing than Obama has already approved, is not something to be rushed through in just a few weeks. It is something to oppose. One way to oppose it effectively is to slow it down in order to give people the opportunity to learn what is in the bill and to contemplate its effects.
If one accepts Hoyer’s argument that 16 years is not “rushing,” then four years must make all the difference between what is “rushing” and what is not. In 1993, when President George W. Bush launched the Liberation of Iraq after 12 years of numerous violations by Saddam Hussein’s regime of several UN resolutions and the 1991 cease-fire Agreement, as well as continued sponsorship of terrorism, many Congressional Democrats and other liberals accused him of “rushing to war.” In other words, 12 years is “rushing,” but 16 is not, according to Congressional Democratic thinking. Four years must make all the difference in their minds.
Hoyer’s argument that Obama’s federalization of health insurance is not being rushed through because it was first proposed 16 years ago fails to refute the critics who insist that it is. The critics are referring to the current proposal, which was made by President Barak Obama only a few weeks ago, and which he is pushing to be approved almost immediately, not to the topic in general. The Democratic bill is so complicated that a flow chart had to be created in order to understand all of the bureaucracy it will require. See the chart on the webpage of its creator, Rep. Kevin Brady, (R-TX): www.house.gov/brady. A federal takeover of such a large segment of the economy, which would require much more spending, borrowing and taxing than Obama has already approved, is not something to be rushed through in just a few weeks. It is something to oppose. One way to oppose it effectively is to slow it down in order to give people the opportunity to learn what is in the bill and to contemplate its effects.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
500 Visits to My Blog
I am pleased to report that my blog has received its 500th visit since April 2, 2009. As I have noted in earlier blog hit reports, I do not count my own visits, and I strictly define a visit as a page view at least one hour later than the previous one. If I were to count each additional page viewed as a hit, then the total would be 550, and if I were to count every page load as a hit, as many others do, then the total is around 730 hits. Thank you for your patronage of my blog!
Health Insurance Is Not a Federal Issue or Constitutional Right
President Barak Obama proposes to federalize health insurance and to make it a “right.” However, health insurance is neither a right, nor is it even generally a federal issue under the United States Constitution in the first place.
As I note in an earlier post (Misleading Media Phrases), in which I observe that the issue is not about “health care,” but health insurance, many people who lack health insurance chose not to obtain health insurance because they are wealthy enough to afford to pay for their own health care, do not need it or believe in it for cultural or religious purposes, or are too young and healthy to justify the expense that seems unnecessary. In the case of the last group, catastrophic health insurance should suffice. A last major group of people who lack health insurance lack it only temporarily, as they are people between jobs, which is why there have been some reforms like Health Savings Accounts that President George W. Bush signed into law that allow people to maintain coverage even if they lose their jobs. Obama’s proposal moves in the wrong direction by forcing a return to the system whereby health insurance is only obtainable through one’s employer.
Health insurance premiums began to be provided by employers because of federal government interference in the free market in the first place. General Motors Corporation first began providing health benefits to its employees because of federal wage controls during World War II. Thus, over time most people’s health insurance has been provided by their employers, with often generous “Cadillac” health insurance plans. Employer-provided plans have allowed people to feel as if their health care is free, even though it costs them compensation they would otherwise have made, which provides no incentive to them to reduce costs. Now, in response to such employer generosity, Obama and Congressional Democrats led by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) propose to mandate all but the smallest employers to provide health insurance to their employees or face a federal penalty. They also propose the provision of health insurance, which will compete with private plans and eventually drive them out of business.
An argument can reasonably be made that federal mandates or provision of health insurance benefits would violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which allows the federal government to regulate interstate (between states) commerce, which means that the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to regulate intrastate (within states) commerce. Alas, the Commerce Clause has routinely been ignored by the federal government unconstitutionally for decades without any serious debate about whether to repeal it with a constitutional amendment. Regardless of the constitutional question, it is not appropriate for the federal government, nor any government at all, to be involved in the matter of health insurance, as it is a private matter. Even if it were a government issue, it is not a federal one, as there is nothing particularly federal about it. The federal government’s only interest in health is generally limited to communicable diseases because non-communicable diseases do no pose a threat to the health of others like contagious ones do, while state governments’ interests are similar. Once the federal government subsidizes all health care, then it will have the total power to regulate all health issues totally. For example, it could decide which foods people could eat, let alone ration health care.
The argument that Obama and other liberals claim is that health insurance improves health because it provides people the opportunity to avail themselves of preventative care, which, in turn, saves the federal government money, is irrelevant, even if it were only interested in communicable diseases. The main reason that liberals claim government interest in health care besides for veterans is because of federal government subsidization of health insurance in the first place (e.g. Medicare and Medicaid). The circular argument is that government has an interest in health insurance once it takes an interest by subsidizing health care. But government should not have begun to subsidize health care because it has no constitutional authority to take money from one person and give it to another, which is a form of welfare. It is never too late to privatize health insurance, which would eliminate federal interest in health insurance.
A right is a legal claim, which necessarily imposes a duty on others. The analogy between the federal government providing health care and providing an accused person with a lawyer fails because the provision of the lawyer is arguably a facet of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution; a bundle of rights, including the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, attaches once a person is accused of a crime. However, a person cannot claim health insurance as a right, just as he cannot claim food as a right, for he cannot generally impose upon someone else the duty to pay for his needs. Note: I say “health insurance,” because emergency health care is a right; no one can be denied emergency health care, but one can be denied health insurance, just as one cannot be denied food if one were dying of starvation but could not pay for it, but can be denied food absent starvation otherwise. But although one cannot be denied food or healthcare in emergencies, their provision to one person does not impose a duty upon another to pay for it. Obama’s proposal to create a right to non-emergency health care at other people’s expense would be like creating a right to be fed at others’ expense, which would establish a precedent to be housed or clothed at other people’s expense, even on a non-emergency basis. Thus, welfare would be expanded to a federal right of unlimited degree.
As with Obama’s massive so-called stimulus plan, the danger to liberty goes beyond the massive spending and borrowing and taxing his proposed federalization of health insurance would necessitate, but to the increase in federal control over our lives. If Obama and other liberals get their way, the federal government will decide who gets what health care or not, what foods we may eat and what behaviors in which we may engage. For the sake of liberty, the federalization of health insurance must be stopped.
As I note in an earlier post (Misleading Media Phrases), in which I observe that the issue is not about “health care,” but health insurance, many people who lack health insurance chose not to obtain health insurance because they are wealthy enough to afford to pay for their own health care, do not need it or believe in it for cultural or religious purposes, or are too young and healthy to justify the expense that seems unnecessary. In the case of the last group, catastrophic health insurance should suffice. A last major group of people who lack health insurance lack it only temporarily, as they are people between jobs, which is why there have been some reforms like Health Savings Accounts that President George W. Bush signed into law that allow people to maintain coverage even if they lose their jobs. Obama’s proposal moves in the wrong direction by forcing a return to the system whereby health insurance is only obtainable through one’s employer.
Health insurance premiums began to be provided by employers because of federal government interference in the free market in the first place. General Motors Corporation first began providing health benefits to its employees because of federal wage controls during World War II. Thus, over time most people’s health insurance has been provided by their employers, with often generous “Cadillac” health insurance plans. Employer-provided plans have allowed people to feel as if their health care is free, even though it costs them compensation they would otherwise have made, which provides no incentive to them to reduce costs. Now, in response to such employer generosity, Obama and Congressional Democrats led by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) propose to mandate all but the smallest employers to provide health insurance to their employees or face a federal penalty. They also propose the provision of health insurance, which will compete with private plans and eventually drive them out of business.
An argument can reasonably be made that federal mandates or provision of health insurance benefits would violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which allows the federal government to regulate interstate (between states) commerce, which means that the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to regulate intrastate (within states) commerce. Alas, the Commerce Clause has routinely been ignored by the federal government unconstitutionally for decades without any serious debate about whether to repeal it with a constitutional amendment. Regardless of the constitutional question, it is not appropriate for the federal government, nor any government at all, to be involved in the matter of health insurance, as it is a private matter. Even if it were a government issue, it is not a federal one, as there is nothing particularly federal about it. The federal government’s only interest in health is generally limited to communicable diseases because non-communicable diseases do no pose a threat to the health of others like contagious ones do, while state governments’ interests are similar. Once the federal government subsidizes all health care, then it will have the total power to regulate all health issues totally. For example, it could decide which foods people could eat, let alone ration health care.
The argument that Obama and other liberals claim is that health insurance improves health because it provides people the opportunity to avail themselves of preventative care, which, in turn, saves the federal government money, is irrelevant, even if it were only interested in communicable diseases. The main reason that liberals claim government interest in health care besides for veterans is because of federal government subsidization of health insurance in the first place (e.g. Medicare and Medicaid). The circular argument is that government has an interest in health insurance once it takes an interest by subsidizing health care. But government should not have begun to subsidize health care because it has no constitutional authority to take money from one person and give it to another, which is a form of welfare. It is never too late to privatize health insurance, which would eliminate federal interest in health insurance.
A right is a legal claim, which necessarily imposes a duty on others. The analogy between the federal government providing health care and providing an accused person with a lawyer fails because the provision of the lawyer is arguably a facet of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution; a bundle of rights, including the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, attaches once a person is accused of a crime. However, a person cannot claim health insurance as a right, just as he cannot claim food as a right, for he cannot generally impose upon someone else the duty to pay for his needs. Note: I say “health insurance,” because emergency health care is a right; no one can be denied emergency health care, but one can be denied health insurance, just as one cannot be denied food if one were dying of starvation but could not pay for it, but can be denied food absent starvation otherwise. But although one cannot be denied food or healthcare in emergencies, their provision to one person does not impose a duty upon another to pay for it. Obama’s proposal to create a right to non-emergency health care at other people’s expense would be like creating a right to be fed at others’ expense, which would establish a precedent to be housed or clothed at other people’s expense, even on a non-emergency basis. Thus, welfare would be expanded to a federal right of unlimited degree.
As with Obama’s massive so-called stimulus plan, the danger to liberty goes beyond the massive spending and borrowing and taxing his proposed federalization of health insurance would necessitate, but to the increase in federal control over our lives. If Obama and other liberals get their way, the federal government will decide who gets what health care or not, what foods we may eat and what behaviors in which we may engage. For the sake of liberty, the federalization of health insurance must be stopped.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Obama's Approval Rating Falls to All-Time Low
Recent public opinion polls suggest a decline in President Barak Obama's popularity. First, a reliable poll of likely voters suggested that Obama's strongly disapproval rating exceeded his strongly approval rating for the first time. Second, a major poll suggested that Obama's approval rating had declined for the first time to below 54%, the percentage of the popular vote the Obama-Biden ticket received in the election for presidential electors in 2008. Third, a poll suggests a drop in Obama's approval rating to below 50% in the major swing state of Ohio.
All of these ratings reflect personal lows for Obama, but the media consistently reported personal lows for his predecessor, George W. Bush, as "all-time" lows, as if they were the lowest in the history of public opinion polling, which they were not. Indeed, as Bush had been a popular president during his first term, despite the Bush-Cheney ticket not having received a majority of the popular vote, as soon as his approval rating dropped below 50%, it marked a personal low. The constant reporting of personal lows as "all-time" lows -- often in polls commissioned by the media itself -- exaggerated Bush's decline in popularity and probably reinforced it, much as the frequent polling of Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal probably reinforced his popularity.
There are at least three of Obama's policies that have decreased his popularity: 1) Obama's announced closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison camp for terrorists captured on the battlefield without a plan to detain them elsewhere, 2) His federal subsidization with taxpayer dollars for organizations that promote abortion abroad, and 3) Perhaps especially, Obama's massive spending and borrowing.
In a future post, I shall discuss public opinion polling more broadly, but for now I took the opportunity of this post to create a headline that demonstrates how the liberal media uses polling in a biased manner by turning the tables on them.
Please feel free to post a comment in order to query about public opinion polling in general in preparation for my upcoming post on the topic.
All of these ratings reflect personal lows for Obama, but the media consistently reported personal lows for his predecessor, George W. Bush, as "all-time" lows, as if they were the lowest in the history of public opinion polling, which they were not. Indeed, as Bush had been a popular president during his first term, despite the Bush-Cheney ticket not having received a majority of the popular vote, as soon as his approval rating dropped below 50%, it marked a personal low. The constant reporting of personal lows as "all-time" lows -- often in polls commissioned by the media itself -- exaggerated Bush's decline in popularity and probably reinforced it, much as the frequent polling of Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal probably reinforced his popularity.
There are at least three of Obama's policies that have decreased his popularity: 1) Obama's announced closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison camp for terrorists captured on the battlefield without a plan to detain them elsewhere, 2) His federal subsidization with taxpayer dollars for organizations that promote abortion abroad, and 3) Perhaps especially, Obama's massive spending and borrowing.
In a future post, I shall discuss public opinion polling more broadly, but for now I took the opportunity of this post to create a headline that demonstrates how the liberal media uses polling in a biased manner by turning the tables on them.
Please feel free to post a comment in order to query about public opinion polling in general in preparation for my upcoming post on the topic.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Robert McNamara Never Vindicated Bill Clinton
Robert McNamara, who served as U.S. Defense Secretary under President Lyndon Johnson, died earlier this week. He was known as the architect of the Vietnamese War. But in his 1995 memoir, McNamara shockingly concluded that the Vietnamese War had been wrong because it was unwinnable. At the time of the publication of the memoir, President Bill Clinton stated that he felt vindicated in having protested the War (even, in Clinton’s case, on foreign soil) because McNamara admitted the war had been a mistake. Clinton was wrong.
There are two parts to the Just War Theory. The first part is whether a war is morally justified. If it is, then the second part is whether a war is prudent. One factor as to whether a war is prudent is whether it is winnable. Unwinnable wars are imprudent. If, for the sake of argument, McNamara were correct that the Vietnamese War were unwinnable, then it would have been an unjust war, because it would have been imprudent. However, imprudence was not the reason that Bill Clinton and many other anti-Vietnamese War protests regarded the war as unjust. They believed that the Vietnamese War was morally unjust because, for various reasons, they were sympathetic to the cause of the Communists. Therefore, it did not matter to these protestors whether the war were winnable. Anti-Vietnamese protestors like Clinton were not concerned that the War was unjust because the United States might lose, but were concerned that the War was unjust because the United States might win, which is why Clinton worked with the Soviet KGB in the 1969 Fall Campaign of propaganda intended to strengthen the Communists’ morale and weaken the morale of the South Vietnamese and their American and other allies. Indeed, Clinton was among a select group of Americans who were allowed to visit the Soviet Union in 1970, apparently to be honored for their efforts. The details surrounding this trip remain a mystery, as Clinton will not admit to this day what he was doing there, nor offer any apology to veterans for his war-protesting and draft-dodging.
McNamara’s admission of the imprudence of the Vietnamese War – even if correct – cannot possibly vindicate Clinton’s contention that the War was morally unjust in the first place. Regardless of the argument over whether the War were prudent, the suffering of the millions of Indochinese who were oppressed, imprisoned, tortured or killed because of the Communist takeover of Indochina vindicates not Clinton and his comrades in the so-called “peace movement” who succeeded in forcing the United States to withdraw from the War that permitted the Communist victory, but those who regarded the Vietnamese War as a noble cause.
There are two parts to the Just War Theory. The first part is whether a war is morally justified. If it is, then the second part is whether a war is prudent. One factor as to whether a war is prudent is whether it is winnable. Unwinnable wars are imprudent. If, for the sake of argument, McNamara were correct that the Vietnamese War were unwinnable, then it would have been an unjust war, because it would have been imprudent. However, imprudence was not the reason that Bill Clinton and many other anti-Vietnamese War protests regarded the war as unjust. They believed that the Vietnamese War was morally unjust because, for various reasons, they were sympathetic to the cause of the Communists. Therefore, it did not matter to these protestors whether the war were winnable. Anti-Vietnamese protestors like Clinton were not concerned that the War was unjust because the United States might lose, but were concerned that the War was unjust because the United States might win, which is why Clinton worked with the Soviet KGB in the 1969 Fall Campaign of propaganda intended to strengthen the Communists’ morale and weaken the morale of the South Vietnamese and their American and other allies. Indeed, Clinton was among a select group of Americans who were allowed to visit the Soviet Union in 1970, apparently to be honored for their efforts. The details surrounding this trip remain a mystery, as Clinton will not admit to this day what he was doing there, nor offer any apology to veterans for his war-protesting and draft-dodging.
McNamara’s admission of the imprudence of the Vietnamese War – even if correct – cannot possibly vindicate Clinton’s contention that the War was morally unjust in the first place. Regardless of the argument over whether the War were prudent, the suffering of the millions of Indochinese who were oppressed, imprisoned, tortured or killed because of the Communist takeover of Indochina vindicates not Clinton and his comrades in the so-called “peace movement” who succeeded in forcing the United States to withdraw from the War that permitted the Communist victory, but those who regarded the Vietnamese War as a noble cause.
A Comparison of Mark Sanford and Bill Clinton
South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, who recently admitted to marital infidelity, had voted in favor of impeaching Bill Clinton when he was a U.S. Representative because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Predictably, liberals are calling him “hypocritical.” They are wrong.
First of all, liberals, like many people, often confuse hypocrisy with inconsistency. Hypocrisy suggests insincerity because it means making a show of virtue, which is not the same as failing to live up to one’s own standard. It is necessarily judgmental, therefore, to call someone a “hypocrite,” for although it is easy to observe an inconsistency, it is more difficult to judge someone’s motivations.
In the case of Sanford, it is not even necessary to judge whether his actions were inconsistent because Clinton was not impeached for marital infidelity, but for perjury and obstruction of justice. Perjury (i.e. lying under oath) is a crime inconsistent with an office for which an oath is required in order for it to be held. Unlike Clinton, Sanford is not facing a civil trial for sexual harassment in which he was questioned under oath about his pattern of behavior, and has been cooperative with the investigation.
Both Clinton and Sanford abused their office. Clinton used his physical office (the Executive Mansion) in order to commit adultery, but he also abused his office in the sense that his affair was conducted with a subordinate. Worse, he gave his mistress a federal job in order to remove her from the White House discretely and keep her quiet. In short, Clinton’s affair was far from a “private matter,” as his defenders contended. Sanford used official trips to conduct his affair, regardless of whether any by public money were spent on his dalliance. Like Clinton, Sanford was dishonest about it, although not under oath in a civil trial. Sanford was incommunicado on his trip, which was irresponsible, although not as critical as a presidential escape from the Secret Service (such as John Kennedy did in order to commit adultery). Sanford, like Clinton, could have been blackmailed. Indeed, in Clinton’s case, his mistress testified that his phone conversations were being subjected to eavesdropping by a foreign government, an averment he never denied. Blackmail of a public official is a temptation for that official to commit financial impropriety.
Unlike Clinton, Sanford admitted to infidelity. Despite the widespread belief to the contrary, Clinton never admitted to infidelity. All he admitted to, even after the DNA evidence proved his adultery, was that he had had “an inappropriate relationship” with Monica Lewinsky. The phrase, “an inappropriate relationship,” like Clinton’s statement on PBS as a candidate for president about his affair with Gennifer Flowers while he was Governor of Arkansas, that he had “caused pain” in his marriage, necessarily admitted no adultery, but allowed the listener to read into Clinton’s statement what the listener wanted to hear, just like many of Clinton’s political statements, which is the modus operandi of a con man. Although many of Clinton's defenders categorized his abuse of his public office and his perjury as a “private matter” that was not reflective of his public performance, they missed the point that if Clinton would lie under oath about a matter as supposedly insignificant as a sexual harassment case, he could not be trusted to tell the truth on more significant matters because in both cases, he was foremost concerned with his popularity above anything else.
It is noteworthy that Clinton campaigned in 1992 on the basis that his marriage was strong after his aforementioned supposed admission of adultery on PBS. A video about the strength of his marriage was prominently featured at the Democratic National Convention. In other words, Clinton's marriage was not a private matter, but something about which to boast publicly when it was policitally expedient to do so, but it became a private matter once it was not expedient to do so when Clinton's lie was exposed. It is an unanswered question as to whether Clinton was the one who was hypocritical in 1992, or whether he suddenly lapsed back to philandering in the late 1990s once Monica Lewinsky stepped into the Oval Office. Regardless, the American people were either deceived by candidate Clinton, or the premise upon which he was elected later became false, and Clinton deceived them at the time of its discovery by lying about it. In contrast, Sanford's affair appears to have begun after his election, which was not as clearly based upon a premise of marital fidelity in the first place.
The reactions of the wives of Clinton and Sanford are different, with Mrs. Clinton publicly standing by her husband and Mrs. Sanford publicly rebuking him, but their reactions are irrelevant. Many of Clinton's defenders excused his adultery because his wife did not appear to be angered relatively by his infidelity, but the degree of the moral wrong of adultery does not depend upon the degree to which a spouse feels victimized.
In conclusion, although Clinton's behavior was far worse than Sanford's, both men's behavior was wrong and unbecoming of a public official. However, Sanford was neither hypocrical nor inconsistent to have voted to impeach Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice. Indeed, Sanford would have been right to vote the way he did even if he had been adulterous at the time of the impeachment vote, for lesser federal officials had been impeached and removed from office for perjury, a fate which Clinton should have shared regardless of any imperfections of anyone who oppsed him.
First of all, liberals, like many people, often confuse hypocrisy with inconsistency. Hypocrisy suggests insincerity because it means making a show of virtue, which is not the same as failing to live up to one’s own standard. It is necessarily judgmental, therefore, to call someone a “hypocrite,” for although it is easy to observe an inconsistency, it is more difficult to judge someone’s motivations.
In the case of Sanford, it is not even necessary to judge whether his actions were inconsistent because Clinton was not impeached for marital infidelity, but for perjury and obstruction of justice. Perjury (i.e. lying under oath) is a crime inconsistent with an office for which an oath is required in order for it to be held. Unlike Clinton, Sanford is not facing a civil trial for sexual harassment in which he was questioned under oath about his pattern of behavior, and has been cooperative with the investigation.
Both Clinton and Sanford abused their office. Clinton used his physical office (the Executive Mansion) in order to commit adultery, but he also abused his office in the sense that his affair was conducted with a subordinate. Worse, he gave his mistress a federal job in order to remove her from the White House discretely and keep her quiet. In short, Clinton’s affair was far from a “private matter,” as his defenders contended. Sanford used official trips to conduct his affair, regardless of whether any by public money were spent on his dalliance. Like Clinton, Sanford was dishonest about it, although not under oath in a civil trial. Sanford was incommunicado on his trip, which was irresponsible, although not as critical as a presidential escape from the Secret Service (such as John Kennedy did in order to commit adultery). Sanford, like Clinton, could have been blackmailed. Indeed, in Clinton’s case, his mistress testified that his phone conversations were being subjected to eavesdropping by a foreign government, an averment he never denied. Blackmail of a public official is a temptation for that official to commit financial impropriety.
Unlike Clinton, Sanford admitted to infidelity. Despite the widespread belief to the contrary, Clinton never admitted to infidelity. All he admitted to, even after the DNA evidence proved his adultery, was that he had had “an inappropriate relationship” with Monica Lewinsky. The phrase, “an inappropriate relationship,” like Clinton’s statement on PBS as a candidate for president about his affair with Gennifer Flowers while he was Governor of Arkansas, that he had “caused pain” in his marriage, necessarily admitted no adultery, but allowed the listener to read into Clinton’s statement what the listener wanted to hear, just like many of Clinton’s political statements, which is the modus operandi of a con man. Although many of Clinton's defenders categorized his abuse of his public office and his perjury as a “private matter” that was not reflective of his public performance, they missed the point that if Clinton would lie under oath about a matter as supposedly insignificant as a sexual harassment case, he could not be trusted to tell the truth on more significant matters because in both cases, he was foremost concerned with his popularity above anything else.
It is noteworthy that Clinton campaigned in 1992 on the basis that his marriage was strong after his aforementioned supposed admission of adultery on PBS. A video about the strength of his marriage was prominently featured at the Democratic National Convention. In other words, Clinton's marriage was not a private matter, but something about which to boast publicly when it was policitally expedient to do so, but it became a private matter once it was not expedient to do so when Clinton's lie was exposed. It is an unanswered question as to whether Clinton was the one who was hypocritical in 1992, or whether he suddenly lapsed back to philandering in the late 1990s once Monica Lewinsky stepped into the Oval Office. Regardless, the American people were either deceived by candidate Clinton, or the premise upon which he was elected later became false, and Clinton deceived them at the time of its discovery by lying about it. In contrast, Sanford's affair appears to have begun after his election, which was not as clearly based upon a premise of marital fidelity in the first place.
The reactions of the wives of Clinton and Sanford are different, with Mrs. Clinton publicly standing by her husband and Mrs. Sanford publicly rebuking him, but their reactions are irrelevant. Many of Clinton's defenders excused his adultery because his wife did not appear to be angered relatively by his infidelity, but the degree of the moral wrong of adultery does not depend upon the degree to which a spouse feels victimized.
In conclusion, although Clinton's behavior was far worse than Sanford's, both men's behavior was wrong and unbecoming of a public official. However, Sanford was neither hypocrical nor inconsistent to have voted to impeach Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice. Indeed, Sanford would have been right to vote the way he did even if he had been adulterous at the time of the impeachment vote, for lesser federal officials had been impeached and removed from office for perjury, a fate which Clinton should have shared regardless of any imperfections of anyone who oppsed him.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Quaterly Blog Hit Report
I am pleased that my blog has received nearly 460 visits, not including my own. If I were to define a hit as loosely as many other do (as a page view), as opposed to a visit (a page view at least an hour apart from the first page view), then it received around 670 hits during the quarter that began April 2. Hits came from at least 39 states and the District of Columbia and 33 foreign states. In addition to my homepage, searchers landed on 37 posts, whence several of them went on to view additional posts. Those whose visit to my blog started at my blog homepage came from PA, VA, CA, MD and as far away as India. The most searchers from the U.S. came from CA, while the most foreign searchers came from the United Kingdom.
Thank you for your patronage! Your comments, questions or suggestions are welcome. I have been enjoying blogging very much. I am grateful for your support.
Thank you for your patronage! Your comments, questions or suggestions are welcome. I have been enjoying blogging very much. I am grateful for your support.
Happy Independence Day
Happy Independence Day! July 4 is the 223rd Anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence by Continental Congress. Richard Henry Lee's resolution for independence had been approved two days earlier, but the prominent Fourth of July date on the Declaration caused the latter date to supersede the one that John Adams had recommended by celebrated with parades and fireworks. It is especially important to thank our veterans and soldiers today for the liberty we enjoy. May God Bless America.
On a few other notes, the Minnesota Supreme Court gave U.S. Senate Democratic candidate Al Franken, a victory in the contested senate election over incumbent Republican Norm Coleman, despite the application of inconsistent standards for what constituted a vote. I suppose that had the case been in federal courts, the Bush v. Gore standard would have applied. In that landmark 2000 case about the disputed election for Florida's Electors, the United States Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that Al Gore's attempt to use inconsistent standards for the definition of a vote violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The 5-4 vote was only in regard to the remedy: the Court ruled that the manual recount caused a spoliation issue for the evidence (the more the chads on the paper ballots were handled). George W. Bush was therefore derided by liberal critics as having been "selected, not elected," despite the fact that the Bush-Cheney ticket had won the Florida vote count and recount, and even the partial recounts, which later unofficial recounts confirmed. More importantly, unlike U.S. Senators, Electors need not be elected in the first place, but may be appointed by state legislatures, as has happened numerous times in American history, and as Florida's Republican legislature would have done had the validity of its originally-elected Electors been questionable. Indeed, no president or vice president is popularly elected. They are elected by Electors, on separate ballots, whose votes are ratified by Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court did not elect the president. It settled a constitutional dispute about the election -- which was not even necessary -- of Florida's presidential electors by confirming the original vote and recount. I doubt that the same liberals who questioned Bush's legitimacy will declare Al Franken "selected, not elected," nor make their usual complaints about a denial of equal protection.
Of course, a recent Supreme Court ruling which declared discrimination against whites or Hispanics as a supposed remedy against discrimination against blacks a violation itself of the Equal Protection clause also exposed the liberal inconsistency in applying the principle of equal protection. The Court overturned a decision by President Obama's Supreme Court liberal nominee, Sonia Sotomayor that upheld such discrimination.
Another recent Court decision relevant to equal protection upheld the principle of federalism. Although the Court did not overturn the entire Voting Rights Act of 1964, which was enacted in order to protect the voting privileges of blacks against discrimination by states, it did loosen its burdensome provisions that required polling precincts in certain states to receive permission from the federal government to make even the slightest changes, even absent any history of discrimination in that particular precinct. Several Justices seemed troubled by the inconsistency in applying specific standards (e.g. for voter turnout) to certain states, especially southern ones, that are higher than the outcomes in states not covered by the Voting Rights Act. Some of the Justices even questioned the constitutionality of a law that is applied to some sovereign states and not to others, but it was not necessary for them to decide the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act in order to rule on the issue before them.
Another liberal inconsistency is apparent in foreign policy, where Obama was cautious about "meddling" in Iran's internal affairs, which directly impact the security of the United States, but not cautious about meddling in Honduras's internal affairs, even though the president that was removed from power there was in league with the Castros of Cuba and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who are hostile to American interests. If the Iranian regime is able to crush the nascent democratic opposition, Obama will be second-guessed for having been so cautious toward Iran, especially if it develops nuclear weapons. He should increase support for Voice of America and Radio Farda, among other appropriate moves in support of human rights in Iran. Meanwhile, he is wrong to criticize the coup in Honduras, as I note in my post, A Coup for Democracy in Honduras. Obama is apparently contemplating some sort of punishment for Honduras' new democratic government that does not appear to be hostile to the U.S. Any sort of punishment must be opposed and the new regime must instead be supported as the first example of a democratic rolling back of the creeping return of authoritarianism in Latin America.
Meanwhile, let us remain ever vigilant in safeguarding our liberty as Americans.
On a few other notes, the Minnesota Supreme Court gave U.S. Senate Democratic candidate Al Franken, a victory in the contested senate election over incumbent Republican Norm Coleman, despite the application of inconsistent standards for what constituted a vote. I suppose that had the case been in federal courts, the Bush v. Gore standard would have applied. In that landmark 2000 case about the disputed election for Florida's Electors, the United States Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that Al Gore's attempt to use inconsistent standards for the definition of a vote violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The 5-4 vote was only in regard to the remedy: the Court ruled that the manual recount caused a spoliation issue for the evidence (the more the chads on the paper ballots were handled). George W. Bush was therefore derided by liberal critics as having been "selected, not elected," despite the fact that the Bush-Cheney ticket had won the Florida vote count and recount, and even the partial recounts, which later unofficial recounts confirmed. More importantly, unlike U.S. Senators, Electors need not be elected in the first place, but may be appointed by state legislatures, as has happened numerous times in American history, and as Florida's Republican legislature would have done had the validity of its originally-elected Electors been questionable. Indeed, no president or vice president is popularly elected. They are elected by Electors, on separate ballots, whose votes are ratified by Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court did not elect the president. It settled a constitutional dispute about the election -- which was not even necessary -- of Florida's presidential electors by confirming the original vote and recount. I doubt that the same liberals who questioned Bush's legitimacy will declare Al Franken "selected, not elected," nor make their usual complaints about a denial of equal protection.
Of course, a recent Supreme Court ruling which declared discrimination against whites or Hispanics as a supposed remedy against discrimination against blacks a violation itself of the Equal Protection clause also exposed the liberal inconsistency in applying the principle of equal protection. The Court overturned a decision by President Obama's Supreme Court liberal nominee, Sonia Sotomayor that upheld such discrimination.
Another recent Court decision relevant to equal protection upheld the principle of federalism. Although the Court did not overturn the entire Voting Rights Act of 1964, which was enacted in order to protect the voting privileges of blacks against discrimination by states, it did loosen its burdensome provisions that required polling precincts in certain states to receive permission from the federal government to make even the slightest changes, even absent any history of discrimination in that particular precinct. Several Justices seemed troubled by the inconsistency in applying specific standards (e.g. for voter turnout) to certain states, especially southern ones, that are higher than the outcomes in states not covered by the Voting Rights Act. Some of the Justices even questioned the constitutionality of a law that is applied to some sovereign states and not to others, but it was not necessary for them to decide the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act in order to rule on the issue before them.
Another liberal inconsistency is apparent in foreign policy, where Obama was cautious about "meddling" in Iran's internal affairs, which directly impact the security of the United States, but not cautious about meddling in Honduras's internal affairs, even though the president that was removed from power there was in league with the Castros of Cuba and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who are hostile to American interests. If the Iranian regime is able to crush the nascent democratic opposition, Obama will be second-guessed for having been so cautious toward Iran, especially if it develops nuclear weapons. He should increase support for Voice of America and Radio Farda, among other appropriate moves in support of human rights in Iran. Meanwhile, he is wrong to criticize the coup in Honduras, as I note in my post, A Coup for Democracy in Honduras. Obama is apparently contemplating some sort of punishment for Honduras' new democratic government that does not appear to be hostile to the U.S. Any sort of punishment must be opposed and the new regime must instead be supported as the first example of a democratic rolling back of the creeping return of authoritarianism in Latin America.
Meanwhile, let us remain ever vigilant in safeguarding our liberty as Americans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)