The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Obama Watch

Obamacare’s Last Best Hope

By on 9.23.11 @ 6:10AM

Maybe the “reform” law can still be saved if the DOJ can prove the President a liar.


The recent decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to dismiss Virginia v. Sebelius and Liberty v. Geithner on procedural grounds, though loudly trumpeted by the “news” media and other Obamacare advocates, was written off by many constitutional scholars as a disappointing but relatively unimportant ruling. The reaction of Cato’s Ilya Shapiro was typical: “The dismissal of Virginia’s lawsuit on standing grounds merely removes one particular plaintiff from consideration, even as 26 states and numerous non-state plaintiffs remain in separate suits.” Shapiro also noted, in passing, that the dismissal of Liberty v. Geithner was “interesting” because it was the “first-ever finding that the individual mandate is a tax.” For supporters of the health care law this part of the ruling was more than merely interesting.

Some left-leaning legal scholars see a ray of hope in the Liberty v. Geithner ruling because Judge Diana Motz, the Clinton appointee who resurrected the tax issue, invoked the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA). AIA forbids legal challenges to taxes before they go into effect and the IRS has tried to collect them. Because the mandate doesn’t take effect until 2014, experts sympathetic to “reform” hope this new perspective will cause the Supreme Court to put off its encounter with ObamaCare. According to Kevin C. Walsh, who teaches law at the University of Richmond, “[T]he Supreme Court could conclude that it lacks jurisdiction to rule on any of the challenges to the individual mandate.” And, considering the denunciations to which the Court was subjected pursuant to Bush v. Gore, the justices may indeed be reluctant to join the judicial fray in 2012.

However, while this course might be convenient for a Court chary of ruling at the height of a presidential election, it would also suggest that Obama is a liar. In September of 2009, when challenged by George Stephanopoulos on the question of whether the mandate was a tax, the President emphatically denied it. Stephanopoulos reminded him that it forces individuals to give their money to insurance companies or the government and asked, “How is that not a tax?” Obama responded with the usual auto insurance canard. Stephanopoulos then pulled out a dictionary and read the definition of “tax,” whereupon Obama laughed and made the Orwellian claim that the necessity of using a dictionary somehow proved his point. He still insisted that the mandate is “absolutely not a tax increase.”

The Justice Department has, of course, contradicted the President in countless legal filings. The government lawyers tasked with defending the law realized early on that Obamacare’s insurance mandate was going to be a tough sell as part of Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. Thus, within a few months of the law’s passage, the DOJ was arguing that the mandate is constitutional because “requiring individuals to buy health insurance is an exercise of Congress’ taxing authority.” Until the Fourth Circuit issued its ruling, however, this argument was universally panned — even by courts otherwise disposed to view the law in a favorable light: “[The tax claim] has been consistently rejected by every judge who has ruled on it, including several who concluded that the mandate is constitutional on other grounds.”

And, even if they wish to continue contradicting the President, the government’s lawyers may find it difficult to exploit the opening Judge Motz has provided by invoking AIA. In their May 31 Fourth Circuit brief, they conceded that “the Anti-Injunction Act is not applicable to these proceedings.” The Obama DOJ’s already-tarnished credibility would be damaged even further if it reverses itself at this late date. As Bradley Joondeph of the Santa Clara Law School asks, “What does the Justice Department do now? It has already essentially flip-flopped on this question.… Does it now wish to flip back?” One would think not. On the other hand, it should be remembered that this is the same group of lawyers who successfully petitioned U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson to stay his own injunction last March.

Perhaps it’s time for the scholar-in-chief to weigh in on the applicability of the Anti-Injunction Act. As recently as a month ago, the President was cheerfully holding forth at town hall meetings concerning the various constitutional questions surrounding his “signature domestic achievement.” Presumably, his learned opinion on AIA would be every bit as valuable as his pontifications on Supreme Court precedent regarding the individual mandate. It would certainly be helpful to know if he still disagrees with his own Justice Department lawyers on whether the mandate is, in fact, a tax. Likewise, it would be good to know if he believes the Anti-Injunction Act presents the high court with what he and his fellow professors of constitutional law refer to as a “jurisdictional bar.”

Unfortunately, as Grace-Marie Turner recently pointed out, the President has been unusually taciturn on Obamacare of late. If his uncharacteristic verbal costiveness continues, Obamacare’s shrinking cadre of supporters must put all their hope in the ability of the DOJ to convince more judges that the man is a liar. They must make the case that, the President’s prevarications notwithstanding, the mandate is indeed a tax. If they can get over that bar, plus make the sale on Judge Motz’ AIA theory, there is a chance that ObamaCare and its mandate will survive — until November 6, 2012. 

About the Author

David Catron is a health care revenue cycle expert who has spent more than twenty years working for and consulting with hospitals and medical practices. He has an MBA from the University of Georgia and blogs at Health Care BS.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (54) |

Timothy L. Pennell| 9.23.11 @ 7:03AM

Yes, yes. The whole "This is not a Tax" when speaking to the American People, and "This is a Tax" when speaking to the COURT, behind closed doors. This "Most Transparent Administration EVER!" sure does seem to do most of it's "work" behind closed doors. Doesn't it?
I believe that this has to be killed.
As the saying goes: If the Federal Government can FORCE YOU to buy Health Insurance? They can FORCE YOU to do anything.
What I can't understand, is why no-one is listening to me, when I bring up the idea of Fighting this, on Violation of the 14th Amendment.
If this is the Law of the Land? Isn't it supposed to apply to EVERYONE? Otherwise, people, with Friends in High Places, could get Special Treatment. They could be Exempted from following the same Laws, that the rest of us have to.
They could get a WAIVER.
Over 1,500 Waivers have been handed out.
I didn't get one. Did you? Do you know anyone who got a Waiver?
Is a Waiver, the same as a BRIBE? Do you think that it could be used to BUY support, for this Plan? Is anyone getting Waivers, that ISN'T worth Hundreds of Million$?
Why are we fighting this on only One Front, when EVERYTHING, about this Law, is Unconstitutional?
"Mr. Franklin. What kind of Government have you given us?"
A Republic, Madame. If you can keep it."
Indeed.

Dave | 9.23.11 @ 10:53PM

First of all, I need to make it clear that I'm in no way a scholar on all or even many things constitutional. Having said that, allow me to lay-out what I HAVE learned about Obamacare and how to rid this country of becoming crushed under it.

What I've learned was accumulated from listening to several scholars and legal experts who (a) have vast knowledge in this particular area and (b) how any "so-called" repeal must be affected.

In a nutshell, and unlike what Mitt Romney has been saying whenever he's asked about it, a new, incoming president cannot simply announce on Day One that he will repeal Obamacare. I'll spare the lengthy, legal reasoning, but will describe it in this way. The only practical path to eliminating Obmacare is to have the House simply vote NO and refuse funding for any and/or all portions of the scam. The Mandate should be the primary target. DEFUNDING a particular section is the only way it can be thwarted. Defunding the Mandate to Buy Insurance section is what would suck the life out of this hideous plan. Kill THAT section of the monster and, like a vampire in sunlight, it will die a slow, spiraling death. The Mandate portion is the life blood of that plan and killing it in the way described above would get us to our desired goal: Erasing the Frankenstein called -- Obamacare.

This is a subject that can take up thousands of pages to fully describe, but what you have above describes the short route to the hen house, Supreme Court ruling ... or NOT.

Having said that, I admit to seeing few among the current herd of RINOS in the House who'd be willing to make such a move. Something of that nature requires a very LARGE pair, positioned just above the inseam. Sadly, John Boehner has nah-dah, and would simple say what he's always said: "I find enough things in the presidents healthcare bill to agree on. I'm for being flexible."

I guess that "flexibility"helps keep his inseam from causing a rash. Or to put it more bluntly: The Speaker is, at heart, a gutless go-along-get along ... weasel.

There, I said it!

Now if you'll excuse me ...

Trinacria| 9.24.11 @ 4:38PM

By way of clarification, I believe what Mitt Romney said he would do on day one would be to effectively repeal Obama care by issuing an executive order that grants a waiver to all 50 states. Presumably, this would be a stop gap measure that would be followed by active efforts to enact legislation that would formally repeal the law.

Jay Dee| 9.25.11 @ 7:01PM

Romney can also sign an Executive Order to stop any and all undecided rules given to the retiring HHS from going into effect.

The House can stop all needed, not already written into the "read it to see it" bill, by denying funding.

If the Republicans control all three chambers, they can immediately pass a law to undo ALL of the ACA.

And just for you Dave - you need to apologize to Speaker Boehner. The House already passed legislation to stop ACA but it wasn't passed in the Senate. He does have a pair, does see some things to agree on but wants the whole fiasco repealed.

Pecos Pete| 9.23.11 @ 7:26AM

TLP: Indeed!

Repeal, repeal and repeal. Defund, defund and defund.

Intelligent Design| 9.23.11 @ 8:02AM

Obamacare's last best hope is Romney, who gave MA Romneycare.

Clint| 9.23.11 @ 3:12PM

"Mark Meckler, a co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, singled out Romney's Massachusetts health care plan as a primary reason why the national front-runner for the Republican nomination "clearly has difficulties" with members of the movement.

"He's attached to RomneyCare and has done a poor job of distancing himself from that," Meckler told reporters at a breakfast in Washington, D.C., hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. "I think he probably squandered an incredible opportunity and was probably the best guy to say, ‘I tried this and it failed,' and he has not done a good job of that. So he has taken positions that are contrary to what the average Tea Partier would take -- positions on man-made global warming, positions on energy efficiency. So I think he's in real trouble with the Tea Party base."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Intelligent Design| 9.23.11 @ 6:19PM

He defends his Romneycare abomination in MA, but says he's opposed to Obamacare. They are the same thing. Romneycare is the blueprint for and the parent of Obamacare. Romney would make a good running mate, for Obama. By no stretch of the imagination is he a conservative.

Texas does not have Perrycare. Perry opposes Obamacare, and would champion repeal.

rjh| 9.23.11 @ 8:24AM

"if the DOJ can prove the President a liar. "...Why do you have to prove a well known fact?

Redstateboy| 9.23.11 @ 8:37AM

What a perfect 2x4 to bash Das Messiah with in a Debate with the Republican nominee - whoever it may be! The Nominee can look at Das Messiah and simply ask.. "Is your ACA a Tax?" and then sit back and watch the worm squirm.

Butch| 9.23.11 @ 4:01PM

True, Redstateboy, if it's done by anyone other than Romney. A huge issue, and Romney is in no position to touch it.

crookedwren| 9.23.11 @ 8:42AM

I find this AIA thing sickening. The Left is not concerned about Obama's prevarications. He's been caught in many of them -- his video record attests that the man prevaricates whenever necessary or he is forgetful or he is a politician and was trained as a lawyer (the last point may be redundant). The Left isn't concerned with the fate of an individual, and Marxists could care less about such things as Truth and Integrity. "The ends justify the means." Etc. Alinsky dedicated his "Rules for Radicals" to Lucifer, and Obama certainly is familiar with Alinsky -- as are our youth (the Natl. Education Assoc. recommends the book for high schoolers). For these folks, Truth is Relative as is Morality and Ethics.

So they are SEEKING legal minutiae to make sure Obamacare stays in place. This new approach should be taken seriously.

Obamacare is the Socialist hingepin. It is the ONLY thing Obama HAD to get done.

As for the rule of law applying to everyone equally, wouldn't THAT be nice? These people are elitist rulers, obviously so. GE gives big checks to the Dems, but they get out of paying taxes. Immelt smiles smugly as his pal Obama goes around badmouthing "the rich" who pay "less than secretaries" (which is yet ANOTHER LIE -- the IRS facts show that a small group of millionaires managed to pay a lower tax rate -- almost all of them pay a much higher tax rate -- and the top 5% of the rich pay the bulk of all the taxes in this country -- a fact that is NOT being taught in schools today).

Please be wary of the true believers that are part and parcel of this Administration. They are Marxists, Socialists, and fellow travelers -- and they are more than willing to sacrifice their personal careers to further their cause.

They are serious and have devoted their lives to the cause of socialism in the US -- they are dedicated to the demise of the free market.

Obama's "dream" from his Marxist father was also supported by his mother (who was educated in a school known for its Marxist superintendent), his grandparents (who helped raise him, attending the "little red church"), and his mentor -- Marxist poet Frank Marshall Davis. We see no moment of renunciation of Marxism in Obama's oeuvre.

May I wonder why Obama managed to get a memoir published before he ever accomplished anything in the public arena?

POST American| 9.23.11 @ 8:46AM

---While meanwhile, across North America
and the world---

------------FUKISHIMA

---------------FUKISHIMA

------------------FUKISHIMA

---------------Globalism is GENOCIDE----------------

------------------------FUKISHIMA----------------------

D Kucinich| 9.23.11 @ 3:51PM

You are nuts, Mr.

George S| 9.23.11 @ 9:23AM

The man had no compunction about lying to get it passed in the first place. What's one more that will save his legacy?

Louis Jenkins| 9.23.11 @ 9:30AM

Getting the DOJ to condemn Obamacare is like getting a mule to pass up oats. So far all I've seen is rulings against efforts to overturn the law. And its effective date isn't until 2014. By then the administration will have plastered even more pro-liberal judges in place. Time is on his side, not ours. And 1,400 exemptions? That should just about cover the Obama friendly unions, in fact all unions, and the millionaires who make $200,000.00 or so, you and me will be the ones paying for the insurance. We can wiggle and protest all we want, but we're somewhat in uncharted territory here, and the only thing to bring us back from the brink will be something much stronger than legislative or judical action.

Indiana Alex| 9.23.11 @ 9:45AM

What about running around the country ensuring that if his subjects like their insurance plan they could keep it?

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 9.23.11 @ 11:04AM

LOLOLOL.. Yeah, you can keep it until we force you into the state plan..

Majestic One| 9.23.11 @ 10:12AM

But the tax is not for revenue but part of a economic scheme in regulating commerce. But this falls apart under original meaning of the commerce clause. See:

http://www.federalistblog.us/2.....regulated/

Ted| 9.23.11 @ 10:54AM

I am not a lawyer, and yet I wonder how the government forcing its citizens to send money to a private entity to purchase a product they may or may not want can still be considered a tax. Can any of you legal eagles out there help me to square that circle?

GavInTucson| 9.26.11 @ 11:13AM

I believe the tax argument is about the "fine" you'll pay to the IRS if you don't buy the insurance.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 9.23.11 @ 11:01AM

I know many are focusing energy on repealing this bill on constitutional grounds, but its really not hard to make the case on the grounds that IT DOES NOTHING GOOD FOR THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM. PERIOD.

Mandatory Loss Ratios, Lower cost sharing, Covering everything under the sun, Doing away with waiting periods on Pre-ex.. all of these things are causing a rapid rise in rates and claims experience.

Before the bill was passed, I helped my friend find an individual plan, he was under 30 yrs old but is diabetic. He got that plan for $60/month. Currently, those same plans (with the carriers who haven't exited the market) are priced in the neighborhood of $200-300 for an individual.

The whole argument that people couldn't afford health insurance before this bill was utterly disingenious. Another lie in a long train of lies by Barry and the Dems. People that couldn't afford health insurance then had $120 cell phone bills Cable TV with the movie channels. As a large majority, if you were uninsured before this bill it was by CHOICE. I haven't found one good thing it that bill. Not one.

Real reform WILL make Healthcare less expensive, but it starts with doing away with the state lines and allowing carriers to sell in any state, doing away with 100% plans (so people know when they are spending money. they don't make the connection when they are only paying insurance premiums), and Limits on what someone can sue for Medical Malpractice.

There are other things that can be done, but this is where real reform begins.

Kingofthenet| 9.23.11 @ 11:51AM

Why do you Conservatives(and Bachamnn) believe that the ONLY thing the US Govt. can do has to be specifically enshrined in the Constitution. Except for some very specific 'rights' the Constitution is a broad outline of governance, not a 'fundamentalist' document.This brings me to a more important point: Should the citizens of this Country NOT get the Govt they want? I.e. if MOST were to want universal Health Care, should they NOT get it? If MOST want a stable Govt. managed 'Poverty Prevention' in old age program from their Govt SHOULD they get it. If you say, sure but you have to change the Constitution to do it, pray-tell, what exactly is the impediment, that needs to change?

FastJohnny| 9.23.11 @ 12:30PM

The US Governments job was never to provide universal health care for this country, it's job was to allow each individual choose his or her own healthcare (product or service) or whatever else, based on that individuals needs and wants. The last thing anyone of us needs is a government that is willing to hold us by the back of the neck and force our faces into the plan of governments choosing. The only arguement for gov healthcare for private individuals is "what about all those poor people who can not afford health insurance"? Well, there are plenty of welfare programs out there and for those who are recipients of govt aide, be it food stamps, stipends for children, etc..., then a portion of that should be allotted to healthcare plan costs. Allow the recipients to invest in a healthplan of their own choosing: of course this won't work, since government has now determind that individuals are not responsible or smart enough to know what is best for themselves. Yes, they will invest in flat screen tvs, x-boxes, cell phones and then be too poor to afford health insurance.

Kingofthenet, your post smacks of moral relativity, one of the steps in the spiral downward.

Kingofthenet| 9.23.11 @ 12:58PM

There is NO 'Job' for Govt, the people cannot demand and want and get. If the people want to have a Govt Circus come to every town, every year. They can elect people to office to bring that to them.

George S| 9.23.11 @ 3:52PM

No, if the people want something that violates your rights, they cannot have it because our representatives are supposed to filter our wants through the Constitution. For example:

People cannot vote to keep African Americans out of their state (Equal Protection clause); men cannot vote to decriminalize rape (right of women to be secure in their persons); people cannot vote to have others pay for their health care (violation of the Thirteenth Amendment indentured servitude and Fifth Amendment violation of taking of property and transferring it to other uses without compensation.)

Free education day.

Kingofthenet| 9.23.11 @ 4:05PM

Involuntary Servitude? Give it a break, everyone 'gets' something from the program, if they meet the criteria, that hardly fits IS. So you want to disband Public Education, Social Security and Medicare, Welfare and Medicaid, Public Hospital, Libraries, road construction, meat inspection,OSHA,DEA,DEP I can go on forever and I am the radical one?

George S| 9.23.11 @ 7:06PM

You missed the point: if health care is a right, then what happens to people who know how to deliver health care but refuse to do it. In other words, no one is going to treat you for free. This is why doctors are bailing out of Medicare (while they still can); waiting months to be reimbursed and being short-changed does that to a person. S0 how are your rights to free health care upheld when there is a shortage of doctors? Force them to treat you or else not get paid? There's a term for that... initials IS... escapes me at the moment.

Read the 1936 Soviet Constitution and all the rights it gives to citizens. Yet the citizens never enjoyed those rights...why? Because when you promise something that does not exist, you need not be stingy -- you have the right to enjoy as much of what is unavailable as you want.

You can tout all the benefits of a centralized health care utopia but it requires talented people to not only administer health care but to engage in medical research and development and engineer new technologies. Both of those endeavors require capital investment. Investors do not pour money down politically corrupt rat holes (see: Solyndra) nor do they fund health care worker retirement pension funds. Investors don't even exist if tax rates are high (they shelter instead).

But you can bet all you are worth that when Washington gets a hold of all the health care dollars first, they are not going to spend it on you -- they'll let you and your One Man - One Vote die (thank you very much) in deference to One Health Care Union - One Hundred Thousand Votes. Promises of freedom from want flows only from the mouths of tyrants.

Forever yours in Revolution,

George

Ground Control| 9.23.11 @ 1:58PM

Mr. Kingofthenet:

You said, "Except for some very specific 'rights' the Constitution is a broad outline of governance, not a 'fundamentalist' document."

Horse manure. The Constitution, as noted in Article VI, is the LAW, specifically, the Supreme Law of the Land. The Government is REQUIRED to obey the Law. Period. This is not only fundamental, it is simple and easy to understand. Political authority, or power, is hierarchical, and the Supreme authority in these United States is the People, who exercise that power through elected Representatives in State Legislatures, who in turn appointed delegates to write the Constitution, and these same Legislatures subsequently ratified the Constitution as the Law.

Further, Article X of the Bill of Rights (aka 10th Amendment) states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the States, are RESERVED to the States. Therefore, the Law states flatly that the US government has only those powers delegated to it by the States and consequently has no legal authority to exceed those powers. Note the use of the word "delegated." Power is not delegated from a lesser authority to a superior authority, but rather from a superior one to a lesser one. The States wrote and ratified the Constitution, not the US government. So, the States are the superior authority, not the US government, since the US government lacks any legal authority to amend or repeal any portion of the Constitution.

It should be noted that the Framers believed that by enumerating specific powers in the Constitution this act did in fact deny and disparage any additional powers the US government may seek to take upon itself. Others considered this to be insufficient guarantee and ratified the 10th Amendment to make sure no usurpations could take place.

So, your assertion is not only wrong, it is in fact ludicrous.

Charles| 9.26.11 @ 2:22AM

BURN!!!

Smartest thing I think I have ever read... No kidding, Mark Levin couldnt have spewed this much since is a weeks worth of shows. You sir are a true a Great American.

George S| 9.23.11 @ 3:42PM

The Constitution is not a broad outline of governance, it is a governing document. Is your mortgage contract a broad outline of financing? If that were the case then the bank can change the term of your loan that suits them as conditions change (hey, we are not making enough money; we are raising your payment amount. Living Breathing Mortgage can do that.)

The Declaration of Independence was our moral justification for employing violence to free ourselves from an oppressive government that trampled on our God given rights. After we were free, we then decided that a united States were an advantage for reasons such as defense, trade, diplomacy and economic activity. As spelled out in the Federalist Papers. When we agreed to incorporate a federal government, the constitutional conventions took place and no one rose to speak on behalf of the federal government's power -- everyone was concerned about its limitations.

So the Constitution was written on the heels of the Declaration. The Declaration set us free and the Constitution was written to keep us that way by incorporating a federal government with divided co-equal branches. each with limited powers. To protect the rights of the People, we purposely made it a democratic republic where the states have the primary say in the composition of the Senate and the presidency. And to drive home the point that the People are -- and will always be -- sovereign, a Bill of Rights was attached that protects our life, liberty and property rights.

That's what the Constitution is all about, Charlie Brown.

Ground Control| 9.23.11 @ 4:49PM

Well said!

Simon Templar| 9.23.11 @ 6:04PM

Ground Control and George..absolutely excellent explanation, thank you. Unfortunately, King Idiot will never concede or understand the concept that the Republic was CLEARLY founded on a concept of limited federal government with enumerative limited powers and the constitution is the document that decisively describes these limitations and the federal governments role.

Like all progressive, starting with Woodrow Wilson, they see it as an antiquated document and are incapable of an honest discussion about it. Thus, they attempt to ignore historical fact, reality, documentation like the Federalist Papers, the writings of our founding fathers, and every other proof to the contrary of their ludicrous arguments. He is not even willing to conced that the polls have clearly shown that the majority of Americans have rejected Obamacare.

John Navratil| 9.24.11 @ 6:56PM

George S, Ground Control and Simon Templar,

Kudos to all of you! Clear, direct and absolutely correct.

I'll have to give "King idiot" the tiniest of breaks. No doubt he's got it wrong on almost everything he says, but, he seems to have toned down a bit. He certainly isn't as obnoxious as others are. He asks questions (a good thing) and doesn't spit on the answers (another good thing).

Are we getting through to him? I'm not ready to put a lot of money on it, but I have hope. When he pulls a "Clint", I'll give up on him.

rjh| 9.23.11 @ 12:08PM

Kingofthenet wrote: "Why do you Conservatives(and Bachamnn) believe that the ONLY thing the US Govt. can do has to be specifically enshrined in the Constitution. "

Sigh. Because that's what the Constitution says. If you have no limits on government, you have tyranny and anarchy. How would you feel about it if the majority held opinions in direct opposition to yours, and forced them down your throat?

Kingofthenet| 9.23.11 @ 1:03PM

What amendment or article does providing ANY services(with a bill) violate? I personally believe alot of Military programs for new planes and such are wasteful and not necessary, I am sure their are many other things you support and I don't and vs verse, but that's OK I am not saying the things I don't want are against the Constitution, why are you?

George S| 9.23.11 @ 3:47PM

Article I Section 8; the Necessary and Proper clause; and the Ninth Amendment. Any power taken but not delegated to the federal government is a usurpation of our property (money) rights and our freedom (Ninth Amendment). Government can only tax and author legislation that is necessary and proper with respect to their Article I powers.

Pat| 9.23.11 @ 1:02PM

The mainstream media supports Obama and he’s told them on more than one occasion: “Love me, love my Obamacare”. Taking his cajoling to heart, Obamacare has received and will continue to receive “good press”. And “good press” requires both sins of commission and omission – say nice things whenever possible, downplay any and all negatives whenever possible.

The unfolding Soylandra scandal is a textbook case of mainstream media finesse in protecting all guilty parties even remotely connected to our beloved president. Obama and his faithful minions made $535 million of our money disappear but you wouldn’t know it from the media’s accounts. All White House and Obama administration players have found their names carefully left out of news reports – sort of like the Federal Witness Protection Program except you don’t have to move to New Mexico and work in a video rental store. And who in Washington approved the $535 million handout, we don’t know because the media has granted this anonymous “approver” transactional immunity – the names of teenage girls victimized by rape aren’t as carefully guarded as the identities of these “administration employees”.

We do know the names of Soylandra’s executives though, CEO Harrison and CFO Stover, because our media intends to portray them as the designated fall guys. They will soon appear to testify before a House committee but plan on taking the 5th, most likely on private advice from these same “administration employees”. The media has already granted Obama and his staff Fifth Amendment protection – we, the folks who have to make good on the $535 million, will hear only politically correct phrases – “a federal agency approved” – which one and who exactly approved? - our media is taking the 5th on those details.

Or, “the Obama White House rushed its approval” – so now we’re blaming the historic building itself for this hasty action – are we serious here? The specific details are carefully scrubbed in all mainstream media accounts: “…Washington lobbying efforts by hiring a former Senator’s aid to work with the White House and the Dept. of Energy”. So, from this we learn an anonymous former aid to an anonymous Senator conspired with a building on Pennsylvania Avenue ably assisted by another government building across town situated directly across from the Smithsonian Castle in order to pull off this massive swindle – well, at least we were told exactly who was involved.

The media is also touting itself as one of this story’s brave heroes: “the Washington Post reported earlier this month that emails showed White House officials pushed federal reviewers for a decision on the Soylandra loan”. The Washington Post gets top billing while the anonymous White House officials and the anonymous federal reviewer get to enter the mainstream media’s Witness Protection Program for Corrupt Federal Employees.

We’re fortunate the First Amendment guarantees “freedom of the press” but it’s very disappointing our world famous media doesn’t deserve that protection.

Curtis Rasmussen| 9.23.11 @ 6:36PM

Solyndra. If this was the 60's, reporters would be scrambling to dig up facts instead of boring us into a coma.

Ever see 'They Live?' Well, they're living it up while we sleep.

Butch| 9.23.11 @ 4:09PM

Obama (and his supporters) are "taciturn" about the issue as a matter of obvious strategy. They don't want it coming up until they can get to Romney. Then they will be happy to discuss it.

POST American@aol.com| 9.23.11 @ 11:47PM

----------------BOTTOMLESSS LINE------------------

BEYOND the Globalist RED China sellout
and TREASON OP

--BEYOND Rock--F--L--O EUGENICS
owning our medical establishment

---BEYOND Freemasons infiltrating,
subverting and controlling our churches,
and nuffing all genuine dissent, all REAL
consciousness

-----BEYOND the CFR front 2012 'election'

----------------------FUKISHIMA------------------------

-------------------------WORLD---------------------------

--------------------------DEPOP---------------------------

----------------------------OP------------------------------

Michael Tomlinson| 9.24.11 @ 12:33AM

No fears Mitt Romney is going to "fix it" if Obamacons like sellout Peggy Noonan get their way.

Any candidate who refuses to state he/she will sign legislation to repeal Obamacare should NOT be the GOP's nominee.

shipley130| 9.24.11 @ 12:59AM

I think the smarmy "O" got the better of himself.

shipley130| 9.24.11 @ 1:01AM

I say that Obama has violated the general welfare clause in the US constitution by handing out waivers. It's no longer general welfare, it's specific welfare.

Gary B| 9.24.11 @ 5:35AM

Regardless of the merits of any argument, the Supreme Court is a loose canon. How many times have you been disappointed by it either handing down an unconstitutional ruling, or, more common, ruling on only part of very important cases?

They justices behave like they're afraid of their own shadow. Grabbing a bull by the horns is not in their playbook. Instead, they use tortured logic to spin a line of BS a sixth grader can debunk.

They do the legal thing instead of the right thing. And, unfortunately, the more important the case, the longer they leave the country twisting in the wind.

So, we can argue and debate here and even convince ourselves we have an open-and-shut case. But, when it comes to the Supreme Court... absolutely anything can happen.

The likely outcome? Half of a decision that leaves part of Obamacare standing and subjecting the country to more years of uncertainty. It's what they do.

Margie| 9.24.11 @ 7:08PM

FLASH!!!
Drudge Reporting Herman Cain wins FL. straw poll!
Go Herman!

http://www.washingtontimes.com.....traw-poll/

Jack von Bauer| 9.25.11 @ 11:08AM

"if he believes the Anti-Injunction Act presents the high court with what he (Obama) and his fellow professors of constitutional law refer to as a "jurisdictional bar."

How many times must it be pointed out that Walter Mitty Obama is NOT a tenured "professor," never was, never has been, never earned it.

He was a "Senior Lecturer," at most, with 3 classes a semester. That's THREE total -- not multiple classes in three subjects.

It was an all to typical Obama type scam, by the leftist powers that be, to pay Obama under the table while he built up his political base in Corrupticago, Illinois.

markenoff| 9.25.11 @ 12:50PM

The fact is that all scarce commodities (a commodity for which the demand outstrips the supply) are rationed in one way or another. A pricing mechanism is the only rational way to ration any scarce commodity as it is the only rationing system which is self-correcting in that not only does a pricing system determine where resources are directed but it also, unlike any other rationing system I'm aware of, encourages the development of substitutes for the commodity being rationed and the creation of additional supplies of the commodity being rationed in response to the price, leading to a reduction in the price of the commodity over time.

A quick review of the (unrepealable) laws of supply and demand. The law of supply states that at higher prices, producers are willing to offer more of a commodity for sale than at lower prices, that the supply increases as prices increase and decreases as prices decrease and that those already in business will try to increase productions as a way of increasing profits. The law of demand states that people will buy more of a commodity at a lower price than at a higher price, if nothing changes; that at a lower price, more people can afford to buy more goods and more of an item more frequently than they can at a higher price; and that at lower prices, people tend to buy some goods as a substitute for others that are more expensive.

In the real world where we live, there are many commodities that are rare. But rarity does not necessarily equal scarcity and a high price. I haven't seen an 8 track player in years and I would bet they are pretty scarce. But if I had 1,000 of them I think I would have a hard time even giving them away. There's no demand. For the finite commodity of health care, however, there is an almost unlimited demand. If you apply the laws above to health care and make it essentially "free" (ie, the individual receiving the health care is not required to directly exchange any resources of their own for it) demand will skyrocket. We've already seen this with Medicare and Medicaid. These are the programs that are driving health care costs up because the government does not reimburse doctors and other provides for the full costs of the care they provide so those of us not on the government programs pay extra to cover the "free" care received by those in these programs.

Extend that phenomenon to the entire health care system by eliminating all private health insurance and forcing everyone onto a government run, monopoly (why is a monopoly good when the government has it but bad when a private company has it? Are government bureaucrats really so much more worthy of trust?) single payer "public option", the stated goal of Barak Obama.

Once health care becomes "free" for everyone, there is no incentive for any individual to limit their consumption of the resource. On the contrary, there is every incentive to use as much of the resource as possible before it runs out. And since the government sets the price it pays for the commodity it is providing "free", government reimbursement rates will be set artificially low as they already are in the Medicaid/Medicare system. Thus there will be no incentive for anyone to provide more of the scarce commodity, health care, nor to search for substitutes for any of the components of health care (ie, new drugs, new surgical procedures etc.). There certainly will be no incentive for anyone to undergo the long education and preparation to become a doctor when all that means is being an overworked, underpaid flunky in a government bureacracy leading to a shortage of doctors. This will probably at least be partially rectified by an influx of non-native doctors (Indians and Pakistanis as has happened in both Britain {where about half the doctors are foreign born} and Canada) who will still be willing to work for the lower wages because at least they are in the US. But for everyone of them that comes here we leave a hole in the health care system of their home country. How moral is that?

What the Anointed One plans to do is eliminate any incentive at all for anyone to participate in the health care system as a producer of any of the components.

I see people with signs saying "Get the profit out of healthcare". OK, fine. But why stop with health care? Isn't food an even more basic need than health care? We all need food every day. Why should farmers be making a buck off of my need? That's just plain immoral! We need to have a government run food supply system that will reduce cost and make sure everyone gets all the food they need, even if they can't pay. Maybe we can merge all the farms into big collectives and have the government manage them.....just like the USSR used to do. After all, it was fair wasn't it?

So government rationing, unlike rationing by price, will not lead to the introduction of more resources into the system but will actually lead to the removal of resources from the system leading to even greater shortages and more rationing, rationing that would be conducted not by merit but by how well you know or can manipulate the health care bureacrats who will control access to care. To paraphrase Cicero, when the government bureaucrats control health care, the first ones to get health care will be the bureaucrats.

Mark Regan| 9.25.11 @ 4:11PM

It is wrong to accuse either Obama or the Justice Department of lying. Watch the video. Obama did not say the penalty was not a tax. He said paying for health insurance premiums was not a tax increase.

Mark Regan
Anchorage, Alaska

Frekki| 9.25.11 @ 5:48PM

Mark that's BS and you KNOW it. Over and over the Obama administration said this in NOT a tax. Over and over. When confronted, his people said "THIS IS NOT A TAX". Well, yes it is. So is he and you stupid or liars. You pick, I am comfortable with either.

insomniac| 9.26.11 @ 4:06AM

And the rest, as it occurs to me:

Some believe Jesus drove a Honda but didn't like to talk about it - -
St. John's gospel - Christ tells the crowd, "For I did not speak of my own Accord."
Moses rode an old British motorcycle - -"the roar of Moses' Triumph is heard in the hills."

insomniac| 9.26.11 @ 4:10AM

the ending of a silly joke posted to the wrong site - - I was weary of hearing a poster, there quoting Bible verse to back up what she was spouting.....

supra | 10.18.11 @ 1:36AM

This article was extremely interesting, especially since I was searching for thoughts on this subject last week.

HokenTaka| 12.9.11 @ 2:24PM

It is absolutely amazing how you right- wing fanatics can be so blinded by your outright hatred of Obama that you can actually dilute yourselves into thinking that everything he does is wrong and harmful to the country Dating Online

More Articles by David Catron

More Articles From The Obama Watch

Obama’s Far Left Hand

May 15, 2013 | George Neumayr

That Is What We Do

May 14, 2013 | Jay D. Homnick

Obama’s Rising Inequality

May 8, 2013 | Peter Ferrara

Turning on Obama

May 7, 2013 | Ross Kaminsky

President Obama and ‘Uncaring’ Pro-Lifers

May 2, 2013 | Owen Strachan

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/23/obamacares-last-best-hope

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|114 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|126 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|61 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|115 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|4 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|72 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|21 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Alan O’Day, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 12:26AM

Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real

Quin Hillyer | 5.19.13

Good New Book: ‘Precipice’

Quin Hillyer | 5.19.13

The Spectator’s Spectacular: Most Read Stories, May 12-May 19

Patrick Ryan | 5.19.13

Elijah Harper, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.18.13

If Only the Tsar Knew!

F.H. Buckley | 5.18.13

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

UPDATED: IRS Acting Chief Apologizes, But Defends His Actions

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

Jeffrey Lord | 5.16.13

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn | 5.17.13

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg | 5.17.13

From Bimbos to Benghazi

Jeffrey Lord | 5.9.13

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman | 5.17.13

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn't Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.