Skip to content

You know how you know a bill is screwed up?

March 23, 2010

When the congressional staff that wrote it exempts themselves from it’s provisions.

One such surprise is found on page 158 of the legislation, which appears to create a carveout for senior staff members in the leadership offices and on congressional committees, essentially exempting those senior Democrat staffers who wrote the bill from being forced to purchase health care plans in the same way as other Americans.


Legal Insurrection has more thoughts about the Health Care Reform bill –

Democrats won the messaging war.


Elections matter. Those of you considering third parties need to understand that we are at a crossroads. A third party will ensure that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid continue to frame national policy, and any chance of salvaging the nation from the destruction of Obamacare (and cap-and-trade, and so on) will be lost. If you want that, then by all means run third party candidates. If you do not want that, then work to restore fiscal discipline within the Republican Party, and support Republican candidates.

I strongly disagree that the Dems won the messaging war. If they had there wouldn’t be umpteen thousand teaparty protestors, clogged phonelines in the capitol from people opposing the bill, 63% of the people surveyed saying the bill should be scrapped and started over on, or 34(?) Dems voting with House Republicans to kill the bill. What the Dems won was the last election, with a big enough margin that when they want to they can force crap like this through.

Megan McCardle calls out Health Care Reform supporters to stand behind their predictions. It appears they won’t.

Federal judge orders release of Gitmo jihadi who recruited four 9/11 hijackers

Not just the hijackers, though. He also apparently recruited Ahmed Ressam, the would-be Millennium Bomber. The feds used enhanced interrogation techniques on him at Gitmo and a military prosecutor decided there wasn’t enough untainted evidence to prosecute him — but not before acknowledging, “Of the cases I had seen, [Slahi] was the one with the most blood on his hands.”


There’s no way Obama and Holder will sign off on freeing a guy who’s directly connected to 9/11 when they’re mired in negotiations with Congress over closing Gitmo and promising that a decision on where to try KSM is merely “weeks away.” Quoth The One last May, while he stood in front of the Constitution: “I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people,” even if the evidence against them is so tainted as to make them untriable. Slahi is a textbook case; the question is whether Obama will keep his word and try to develop “clear, defensible, and lawful standards for those who fall into this category” or whether he’ll pack Slahi off to Canada or Mauritania or god knows where else in the hope that they’ll lock him up there. In the meantime, I assume they’ll delay by appealing the ruling: Even if they lose and the media has a fainting spell over the techniques applied to Slahi, the White House can blame Bush and celebrate this as a vindication of the due process principle by which untriable archterrorists must be returned to the battlefield.

“There’s no way Obama and Holder will sign off on freeing a guy who’s directly connected to 9/11” – Excuse me? have you been living in the same country as me for the last 14 months? Of course they will sign off, and then they will claim it was Bush’s fault that the courts forced them to release this guy. That will then be used to bolster the case for civilian trials for KSM and the closure of Gitmo.

Michael Filozof at the American Thinker utters an incredibly short-sighted thought

I’m hoping that Madison’s understanding of human nature was correct, and that Justices Alito and Roberts are chomping at the bit for the chance to get back at Obama and his Congressional goons for the humiliation they inflicted on the Court. A decision striking down ObamaCare, authored by Justice Alito, would be the ultimate smackdown.

Do we really want Supreme Court justices deciding cases based on their feelings and not the law or the Constitution? Isn’t that why we opposed Sotomayor?
(For a magazine called the American Thinker, the comments sure seem to be filled with angry idiots)

If the individual mandate stands, either through legislative inaction or by court ruling, America is done. A new country will exist and it’s founders won’t be Washington, Jefferson and Madison. It won’t have been inspired by philosophers like Montesquieu and Locke. No it will be a country founded by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. Their philosophical inspirations, John Dewey, Herb Croly and of course Saul Alinsky, are the antithesis of those who espouse individual liberty.

I disagree (my first reaction was stronger but I reconsidered it). Jefferson advocated rewriting the Constitution every 19 years so each generation could be bound by their own rules and laws, so don’t tell me he would have conniptions over this. His solution to the national debt would have dealt with the cost problem too. Just ignore it.

Even if the founders did have an opinion on this it wouldn’t be a valid one. The founders lived at a time when physicians killed more people than they saved, and surgery was practiced by barbers. Antibiotics, X-Rays, Chemotherapy, Immunizations (other than Smallpox) were non-existent. Not really an environment where universal health care is a concern. I know this skates pretty close to the reasoning that living constitution types use to justify their theories but I am not trying to justify a theory either way. I am trying to point out that the founders silence on a subject should be looked upon as that, silence. Trying to use Washington, Jefferson and Madison in this argument is inappropriate because of that. Yes you can look at the broad principles they espoused but we really don’t know how they would have felt on this subject. Given the number of family members that Washington lost to disease early in their lives, he may have been all for universal health care. Jefferson was basically a Francophile so he may have completely embraced the idea given that they have it in France. Unless someone finds a previously unknown letter where Madison says something like “Hey, you know what’s a really bad idea? Universal Health Care that’s what.” it’s all guess work and I would rather base my opposition to HCR on some more concrete facts.

(I have read some Montesquieu and Locke but I honestly can’t recall any quotes that could be used to justify HCR or condem it. It may be fun to try and find some.)

7 Comments leave one →
  1. March 23, 2010 10:15 am

    I have this one so wired.

    • jenn1964 permalink*
      March 23, 2010 1:48 pm

      That works if you can get a congressman to hire us all.

  2. xbradtc permalink
    March 23, 2010 12:12 pm

    Other than the draft, can you think of any other mandate the government imposes upon its citizens by mere virtue of their existence?

    As to healthcare as a right, rights are those things that cannot be taken from you by the government. They are most certainly not those things that must be provided to you by the government, nor by anyone else.

    • jenn1964 permalink*
      March 23, 2010 1:47 pm

      Jury duty comes immediately to mind. In some countries voting (mandatory in Australia and Turkey that I know of possibly others).

      I am not defending the mandate, I am saying that ascribing strict opposition to principle to the founders on subject on which they are silent isn’t sound. You can derive basic principles from their writings and their actions during their lives but that isn’t the same thing.

  3. xbradtc permalink
    March 23, 2010 10:39 pm

    I’m unfamiliar with how the rolls for potential jurors at the federal level are generated. I’ve always thought that they were from the registered voter rolls, but admit I don’t know. In that case, one could reasonably argue that the privilege of voting carried with it the obligation of jury duty.

    What is mandatory in other nations is beside the point. Heck, Britain has no equivalent to the 3rd Amendment, and thus many US troops were quartered in private homes during WWII with no compensation.

    And I don’t think it is much of a stretch to suppose the founders would be against such a mandate. First, they very clearly set out to put as few burdens on the citizenry as possible. Remember, even an income tax was not acceptable to them (hence the 16th Amendment). Hell, they started a riot over the tax stamp! You know what that was? Pretty much the same as a fee you pay at the DMV. It was the least onerous tax in our nations history!

    • jenn1964 permalink*
      March 24, 2010 5:06 am

      Well again I am not defending the mandate, I am just saying that when a founder is silent on a subject you can only guess at what their actual reaction would be.


  1. uberVU - social comments

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: