Rebane's Ruminations
April 2012
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

Memo to file:  The President again denigrated his base constituencies today when he lectured them on how SCOTUS must deal with Obamacare.  The former Harvard constitutional law professor solemnly informed his supporters that it would be unprecedented and the worst form of judicial activism for SCOTUS to overturn Obamcare’s individual mandate.  After all, this piece of legislation is one that had been passed by majorities in both houses of Congress, presuming that other such legislation becomes law without the support of Congressional majorities.  Therefore overturning a law with such a compelling provenance would be epochally improper.

And with little risk of embarrassment, all this was delivered to his stalwart, yet butt stupid, supporters in the most serious terms in the Rose Garden as the Canadian prime minister and Mexican president looked on.  More educated commentators were a little stunned when later asked to properly frame these remarks.  But everyone seemed to agree that the statement was indeed directed correctly to the politically receptive and established aggregate capacities of those that have always characterized his base, in spite of the remarks being totally devoid of factual content.


[3apr12 update]  Our leftwing commenters again do me the dubious honor of ascribing the views and interpretations of this post as somehow being the unique and solo ramblings of a lonely conservative out of touch with the world.  A contrarian view is that these commenters may need to broaden their news sources.

This morning’s (3apr12) WSJ front page headline ‘Obama Warns Supreme Court’ features the story of the President’s 2apr12 Rose Garden remarks in a most reserved and polite way, sticking to the facts of what was said.  The newspaper properly reserved its interpretation of the accuracy of “Mr Obama’s astonishing remarks” for the op/ed page where it recommended that “the President needs a remedial course in judicial review.”

It appears that only those ideologically cemented to the progressive viewpoint claim the President’s remarks to be a perfectly acceptable interpretation of the Constitution (and history), instead of a statement of gross error made either gratuitously (as posited here), or from a fundamental ignorance not befitting our chief executive.

[3apr12 update #2]  It is now clear that the national Left, beginning with Obama and coming down to the comments on this humble blog, just does not get the magnitude of President Obama’s latest foible.  Obama spent most of the day trying to ‘walk back’ what came out of his untethered mouth yesterday.

It turns out that Obama’s remarks were so outrageous about the tri-partite powers of our branches of government that Judge Jerry Smith of the 5th Circuit Court has ordered Attorney General Eric Holder to write a defense of the President’s understanding and intentions that is at least three single spaced pages long explaining what the hell he meant.

Meanwhile, the President still doesn’t get it (I’m beginning to think that with this guy ignorance is trumping perfidy) as he continued to call for SCOTUS’ “deference” to a “duly elected Congress”.  There is no such deference called for in the Constitution; each case is judged on its merits with respect to its constitutionality.  And the precedence, unknown to the President, is that SCOTUS regularly has struck down unconstitutional legislation that passed Congress and was signed by the President.  In the last 20 years SCOTUS has averaged two strikedowns per year.

In spite of all this, the local left (see comments) continues their attempt to dilute and dissemble the discussion of the issue.  Understandably they cannot reasonably counter the devastating effects that this Presidency has had on the nation, and its no-holds barred socialist goals for our future.  And boys and girls, we haven’t even started talking about the federal budget that no Democratic chamber of Congress has passed in the last three plus years.  (Oh, did I mention that Obama’s submitted budget was so obviously lame that it was dumped unanimously by the House 414-0.)

But please don’t misunderstand any of this.  That Obama’s policies have been destructive and butt stupid for our republic do not in themselves guarantee that the man and his minions will go down in flames this November.  No indeed, the myth of the rational voter rules.

Posted in , , , ,

86 responses to “The President’s gullible base re-acknowledged (#2 update 3apr12)”

  1. Michael Kesti Avatar

    Would I be correct, Douglas, regardless of my fortune, labor, and dedication, to conclude that you agree that “coverage” of pre-existing conditions is subsidy rather than insurance?

    Like

  2. George Rebane Avatar

    MichaelK’s 734am anticipates a more encompassing, yet not comprehensive, definition of ‘subsidy’ – all transfer payments with monies collected at the point of a gun are subsidies to recipients who have not earned them.

    Like

  3. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    Whatever you call it,it puts a floor under which no citizen shall be allowed to fall. Maybe your version of modern civilization allows for the poor, piss poor proto-plasmed, to die in the gutters, with nary a care, by the rest of the citizens. My version doesn’t. It amazes me that the right just doesn’t come right out in favor of capital punishment for all lifers. That would save money taken at the point of a gun too.

    Like

  4. Paul Emery Avatar

    Gee Todd and Greg
    Don’t you think that the fact that Bush took a budget surplus and doubled our national debt, left office after presiding over the worst economic crisis since the depression, and left us fighting unconstitutional and unfunded wars {“mission accomplished”) might have something to do with his dismal approval ratings or did the press make up those stories?

    Like

  5. billy T Avatar

    My, my. Going from Obama’s own words to capital punishment and Bush’s dismal approval ratings. I do agree with Douglas that every non insured person may be an automatic Obama voter. I might be wrong, but last I looked about 85% of Americans have health insurance. So, let the 15% vote as they choose. I got upset when Bush did that budget busting prescription drug thing. It was horrible. The news was filled with stories every single night of people who could not afford their medication and people flocking over our Northern Border to buy cheaper meds. I suppose they paid cash. I remember one obese couple (the male was a UAW member) saying his meds cost him 2 grand a month. So, Bush played nice and gave us this despicable prescription drug coverage without paying for it. It is not Social Security that is the threat. It is Medicare and Medicaid with their soaring costs that are bankrupting our states. Shame on Bush. At least Obama is cutting more money from Medicare than the Republicans ever proposed. I hope Obama cuts more.

    Like

  6. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    PaulE must be lost in a time warp. Bush has been gone for three years and Paul’s vote for Obama is being defensed once again. POaulE, you need to get a 12 step program to rid yourself of historic anger. Then when you do that, we can discuss the current President who you cast your vote for. Let us discuss Obama unless you can’t you made a mistake.

    Like

  7. Ryan Mount Avatar

    My head hurts.
    I’m no apologist for Bush II, but he did take a budget surplus of a few billion and he spent it. Actually Congress spent it. The Federal debt at the time of Clinton’s departure was a whooping 4 trillion (public) and 7 trillion (gross). Lots of pretty and accurate charts here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
    And I’m no fan of Bush II, but Clinton’s Neo-Liberal policies (think: repeal of Glass-Steagall, the “liberalization” of the tax code to enable massive outsourcing, etc.), which Bush happily continued are at the root of the crash of 2008. Bush II simply stepped on the accelerator.

    At least Obama is cutting more money from Medicare than the Republicans ever proposed.
    Ironic. Funny. True. How about this gem:
    The mandate penalty/tax is only has to be paid if you pay income tax. (And even then cannot be enforced by typical liens or criminal actions, so it is pretty toothless). Given that 40% to 50% of families pay no income tax, how many uninsured would be subject to the penalty? It seems like it must be low.

    Like

  8. billy T Avatar

    More judges are running amok and are ruining the our nation. Whats a far lefter to do to fight this onslaught? http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=AP&date=20120405&id=14963757

    Like

  9. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    “The Federal debt at the time of Clinton’s departure was a whooping 4 trillion (public) and 7 trillion (gross). ”
    And what was it at the time of Bush’s departure? More or less?

    Like

  10. Paul Emery Avatar

    Gosh guys, didn’t Clinton (and Gindrich) actually balance the budget and leave Bush with a surplus? Bush died in the polls simply because he was a lousy President. Pretty easy to understand except from the most diehard Republican apologists.

    Like

  11. billy T Avatar

    Good news. The Attorney General of the United States says unelected judges can strike down laws. Good. For a moment there I thought we were redrafting the Constitution. Why this was even a matter of public discourse is beyond me. Anybody know how this topic was even raised in 2012? Campaign season brings out some real foolishness.

    Like

  12. George Rebane Avatar

    billyT 1049am – “Anybody know how this topic …” Please read ‘3apr12 update #2’ in the original post.

    Like

  13. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    Obama just had the Justice Dept explain just what he meant on Monday. The justice dept declared the law constitutional, among other things.

    Like

  14. billy T Avatar

    Dr. Rebane, yes I read all the updates. My trailing question had only one possible answer: The catalysis for the entire topic lies solely and squarely on the President’s own words uttered just days ago. Guess it was what some would call a rhetorical question. I find it humorous that some deflect the conversation away from Obama’s words and onto various matters great and small. Exactly as you have pointed out time and time again. It is so predictable. In football they say a good offense is the best defense. Its Bush’s fault! Or, lets dissect the nuances of what is a law professor and continue to avoid the topic. Defending the indefensible is a daunting task for our die hard lefty friends. Dilution is their solution. I am guilty of deflection as well at times. For instance, I would guarantee that if President Palin uttered the exact same words, she would be immediately decried as being ignorant and not fit to be President. But I digress.

    Like

  15. Paul Emery Avatar

    Bush came into this conversation when Todd falsely observed that Obama is in some kind of free fall downward spiral in popularity polls. I had to set him straight with some recent historical perspective to illustrate the error of his assumption that:
    “Obama is toast. It is just not November yet and no one except brainwashed libs think otherwise. I noticed the polling link from PaulE did not have Rasmussen.”
    I was just setting the record straight. The biggest thing Obama has going for him is the fear that the Repubs will gift us another Bush.

    Like

  16. Ryan Mount Avatar

    The catalysis for the entire topic lies solely and squarely on the President’s own words
    Yes. But Obama crowd doesn’t seem to have any intention of actually addressing those. Maybe Bush made him do it? Maybe they like being lied to? Maybe they’re dating!? Does this Constitution make my ass look big? No dear, it doesn’t.
    And what was it at the time of Bush’s departure? More or less?
    I’m not sure why you guys are so obsessed with Bush II, or as I like to call him, Obama. I’m guessing you really didn’t like W. Bush. But nonetheless…
    Federal Debt when leaving office/percentage change from previous administration.)
    Bush I: About 4 trillion (+49%)
    Clinton: About 6 trillion (+23%)
    Bush II: About 10 trillion (+75%)
    Obama (so far): About 15 trillion (+38%)
    Alec Baldwin,actor: About 22 trillion (+100%, projected)
    Debt(public gross) as a percentage of GDP (this is what really matters):
    Bush I(1992): 66%
    Clinton (2000): 60%-ish
    Bush II (2008): 70%-ish
    Obama (so far): 100%-ish
    Alec Baldwin (2022): 225% (again, projected and made up)
    So I conclude that Clinton was 10% more tasty than Bush 2. The 2022 Baldwin administration will oversee a 22 Trillion dollar debt, but will undoubtedly have the best hair of any Presidency.

    Like

  17. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    Golly PaulE, I thought you said Obama was headed north and gave us a link to prove it. Then I noticed your link did not have Rasmussen in the mix which put damper on your view. Here is the latest Rasmussen head to head, Obama/Romney. Romney up 2 points over the fellow you voted for. Sure, the polls can be anywhere depending on the bias eh? One week Obama was losing women big on the contraceptive fiasco he made up, the next week Obama was up by eight. Yep, sure they were.

    Like

  18. billy T Avatar

    Bad dog, Todd. Its all Todd’s fault. But I digress. Doug, yes the Justice Department says the law is Constitutional. What else do you expect them to say? You really believe that the Administration would come out and say they are supporting a bill they believe unconstitutional? Nancy says she believes the law is constitutional. Bidden says its constitutional. That’s all I need. Why have courts when such wise and knowledgeable politicians say its constitutional? Trust me they claim. Of course 28 State Attorney Generals have a different opinion. Don’t get me wrong. After being castrated on former blogs after Obamacare passed, I was told how stupid I am for not knowing all about the Commerce Clause (The Sacred Cow of the Left) so they must be correct and I am wrong. Who am I to challenge the wisdom of lefty blogs? I don’t even have a diploma from an institution of higher learning proving I am a full wit, instead of a half wit. I don’t think the individual mandate will get overturned. I hope it does goes down in flames solely for further implications of an unrestricted Federal Government. Seems ironic that an ignorant racist homophobic air polluting bigoted red neck Bubba like me would look to the Supreme Court to restrict Big Brother. Its like turning the world on its head.

    Like

  19. Paul Emery Avatar

    Todd
    I guess you didn’t open the link I included. Rasmussen is right there Here it is again. No problem. We all make mistakes
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

    Like

  20. Michael Anderson Avatar

    Last week I focused on the efficacy of PPACA instead of its constitutionality. In fact, I indicated that I didn’t really care if it was constitutional or not.
    Since then, I have read a number of compelling articles that make a good case for the constitutionality of PPACA. It appears that regular commentators like Ryan Mount can find just as many con SCOTUS decisions as writers like James B. Stewart of the New York Times can provide that are pro.
    A living, breathing document indeed.
    “It seems curious that opponents of the health care law are now looking to the commerce clause, as opposed to the Bill of Rights, as a bulwark of individual liberty. To the extent it ever was, that battle was lost generations ago. To Depression-era farmers, it was no doubt an affront to individual freedom that the federal government had the power to tell them what crops not to plant.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/31/business/the-health-care-mandate-and-the-constitution.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=commerce&st=cse

    Like

  21. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    How many of the 28 state attorney generals were Dems?

    Like

  22. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    PaulE, here is what is at the link on polling you supplied before on which Rasmussen was not a part of.
    ERROR 404 – PAGE NOT FOUND
    Oops! Looks like the page you’re looking for was moved or never existed.
    Make sure you typed the correct URL or followed a valid link.
    So, it appears you have been hoaxed.

    Like

  23. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    Nope Todd, looks like your browser is not updated, as I just loaded the site with no trouble.

    Like

  24. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    Is there a democrat in the house?
    STATE OF NEBRASKA, by and through
    JON BRUNING, ATTORNEY GENERAL
    OF THE STATE OF NEBRASKA;
    STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, by and through COMPLAINT
    ALAN WILSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL
    OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; Case No:__________
    BILL SCHUETTE, ATTORNEY GENERAL
    OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, ON BEHALF
    OF THE PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN;
    STATE OF TEXAS, by and through
    GREG ABBOTT, ATTORNEY GENERAL
    OF THE STATE OF TEXAS;
    STATE OF FLORIDA, by and through
    PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL
    OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA;
    STATE OF OHIO, by and through
    MICHAEL DeWINE, ATTORNEY GENERAL
    OF THE STATE OF OHIO;
    STATE OF OKLAHOMA, by and through
    SCOTT PRUITT, ATTORNEY GENERAL
    OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
    etc, etc, etc.

    Like

  25. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    I think not, but you can check them all out here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_attorney_general

    Like

  26. Ryan Mount Avatar

    I would support a single payer health care plan, even though my and subsequent generations would have to pay out the rear for it. We already have this with the socialized Medicare/Medicaid programs. This doesn’t mean that I, and others, don’t have better ideas on what to do with this healthcare mess, it’s just that this would be the most pragmatic route at this time.
    I am under no illusions that such a single payer plan will bifurcate the health care system into two systems: 1) a mediocre one for those who attend to the public plan only 2) those who buy/have supplemental insurance to augment/replace the public option for higher quality care, as has been the case with my buddies in the the UK.
    But what I will not support, in any capacity, is this personal mandate in PPACA that forces citizens into commerce relationships with other private firms. It is so colossally stupid and ill thought-out, that it’s hard to believe that anyone takes it seriously. Clearly this was a law written by privileged (and well-insured), paternalistic lawmakers with the aid of the private healthcare industry. I guess this form of “big business” is OK for Progressives, eh?
    There are other reforms in the law that I have no serious (as in I don’t like them, but I don’t find them unconstitutional) beef about, although I would prefer the law to be much simpler.

    Like

  27. Paul Emery Avatar

    I agree Ryan
    Single payer is the only reasonable option at this time. It’s what Obama should have done at the start before he wimped out and came up with what we have now. A good percent of the no polls on his plan come from those who would prefer single payer. No doubt if his plan is struck don he’ll propose single payer with great support and probable make it a campaign challenge for the Repubs.

    Like

  28. Ryan Mount Avatar

    A single payer plan would not be in the Supreme Court right now and we wouldn’t be having these ridiculous, yet unfortunately germane, arguments about whether the government can make us eat broccoli. Justice Breyer (and Justice Kagan tacitly) in a frightening argument seems to be implying they can merely by being born here:
    JUSTICE BREYER: Now we — now you’ve changed the ground of argument, which I accept as — as totally legitimate. And then the question is when you are born and you don’t have insurance and you will in fact get sick and you will in fact impose costs, have you perhaps involuntarily — perhaps simply because you are a human being — entered this particular market, which is a market for health care?
    MR. CARVIN: If being born is entering the market, then I can’t think of a more plenary power Congress can have, because that literally means they can regulate every human activity from cradle to grave. thought that’s what distinguished the plenary police power from the very limited commerce power.
    (http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-398-Tuesday.pdf, p89)
    I guess I should make lemonade out of these civic lemons and say that at least this debate is focusing [some] folk’s attention on the Constitution. That’s never a bad thing.

    Like

  29. Paul Emery Avatar

    Ryan
    Meanwhile 50 million and counting Americans are without health care and are but a medical emergency away from bankruptcy or being forever in debt. Might I add from my observations this discourages free enterprise, an example being a good friend who would like to start her own business but cannot because she has pre existing medical conditions that make it impossible for her to purchase her own health insurance. She is therefore confined for the rest of her working days to seeking jobs that provide health care. She’s a very talented person who could quite likely start a successful business that could employ many at a good wage. As it exists today there is no incentive or reason insurers should take on those with pre-existing problems. Also, as a person gets older its common knowledge that employers are discouraged from hiring them because of increased insurance costs. Single payer basic health care is the only reasonable solution.

    Like

  30. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 1127am – that number of destitute Americans who can’t afford healthcare is growing without bound. The feds and Team Obama advertized just under 40M of whom about 3/4 chose not to buy healthcare. Now 50M are pining for coverage, what will it be next week?

    Like

  31. Paul Emery Avatar

    Being unable to buy health care is different than choosing no to buy health care. How can a couple working low paying jobs afford the $1000 it costs to insure their family. Do the math.

    Like

  32. Paul Emery Avatar

    …..I honestly think you are naive about the struggle working class people go through today just to pay their rent and provide the basics. These people are not destitute, they are doing the best they can and health care is out of reach for them.

    Like

  33. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 814pm – I think that you have again shifted the focus of the argument here. Citing that some people who wish to have healthcare and can’t afford it is the justification for Obamacare is a long lost argument in RR comment streams. Of course there are people in that situation in a nation of 310M.
    The subject has always been ‘what is the best way to make such healthcare accessible without destroying an industry and putting the nation’s economy in greater peril?’ We have to recall that EVERY advertised benefit of Obamacare has turned out to be a lie, and more horrors about that law are being discovered daily.
    That millions don’t know this, don’t care, or are in solid disbelief is the wind in socialist sails to continue promoting this travesty. I believe your hoisting such anecdotal red herrings is about the best argument that the Left can currently give – and who knows, it may be sufficient.

    Like

  34. Michael Anderson Avatar

    George, one of the subjects of debate here regarding health care in America, and PPACA specifically, is that the portion of the GDP dedicated to health care in the US is 16%, which is almost double that of countries with a single-payer solution. Paul, myself, and others have offered sufficient evidence that this is a huge burden for business, and that it keeps us from being internationally competitive.
    I have yet to read anything from you that addresses this fact.

    Like

  35. Paul Emery Avatar

    Don’t confuse my arguments about universal health care with support for “Obamacare” I am one of many that show up as opposed to his program yet in support of single payer national health care. You have yet to show me a free market non governmental plan anywhere in the world that works. You have yet to show me any comprehensive plan that meets your standards so until you do it’s all just theory and discussion. And M Anderson is right. Ours is the most expensive in the world when it comes to percent of GDP. This will continue in the unlikely situation that Romney and the Repubs get elected so it will then be on their watch and their problem. They won’t have the slack that Bush did to do nothing.

    Like

  36. George Rebane Avatar

    MichaelA and PaulE – to posit that our healthcare costs have kept us “from being internationally competitive” is simply ludicrous. Our healthcare system is perhaps the last factor that affects our global competitive stance which is still very competitive. Where our competitiveness flags is the educational/skill levels that our workforce have in return for the wages they demand. And none of that has to do with our healthcare system.
    The international healthcare scene is a hodgepodge of approaches ranging from none to centrally planned unsustainable approaches that continue to cost more and deliver less. No nation with the healthcare systems you two espouse is sitting sanguine in its solution, but instead are struggling mightily to reform and restructure before they crash and burn.
    Your counsel to rush into a burning building that others are evacuating is what most Americans are rejecting, and the motivation for the SCOTUS Obamacare case. As before, my bottom line is that almost any other approach to a new healthcare system is better than to repeat the centrally planned, bureaucratically implemented solutions of which you are enamored.
    Yes, untried free-market solutions as have been cited and proposed here are ‘theoretical’ as was the founding of this nation when first proposed. To me, repeating confirmed failures or fighting for passage on the Titanic is not a viable option.

    Like

Leave a comment