Saturday, March 25, 2017

Slouching Towards Socialism

It seems I am constrained to commenting these days on politics. (Religion news is akin to reporting that "there is a Beast slouching towards Bethlehem.")

The recent fiasco in Congress over repealing and replacing Obamacare was the result of an inability to obtain agreement, even among so-called "Republicans", that more welfare is not the answer to what is plaguing the American Republic.

That proposition should have earned the unqualified assent of every Republican Congressperson elected to office last November. That it did not is the measure of the State's degeneration to date, under both parties.

During Obama's eight years, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed dozens and dozens of measures repealing Obamacare. They went nowhere, thanks to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Democratic President Barack Obama.

But now, when Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress, they were unable to undo the regulatory disaster that is Obamacare for once and for all. Why?

The answer may not be popular, but here it is, in plain black and white:

Obamacare is welfare, plain and simple. Americans are hooked on welfare (the government paying for things that people used to obtain privately, whether on their own or though private charity). Rather than simply pass a bill repealing all of Obamacare, the Republican leadership tried to replace the welfare of Obamacare with a new form of welfare. And they could not get all of their colleagues in the party to agree to it -- because there are still some Republicans, at least, who think that subsidizing healthcare is not the proper function of the federal Government.

There are two major reasons why that stance is correct.

First, Government-run welfare programs are a guaranteed road to deficits and disaster. Look at how well Obamacare has fared, and look at the 225-plus years of the U.S. Postal Service. The reason is plain, but no bureaucrat will admit it: in welfare run by the government, there is no accountability to the bottom line. The tab for any and all deficits is simply picked up by "the taxpayers."

Second, people naturally value things only as they have to pay for them. Paying people's medical costs for them -- even with the absurd "deductibles" recently set under Obamacare -- keeps them from learning what are the real costs of the health care that they demand. And paying so that pre-existing conditions will be covered without question guarantees that people will not ever pay for health care coverage before they have need of it. Once again, the taxpayers are left with the deficits.

Notwithstanding those self-evident truths, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (and President Trump) tried to railroad through the House a replacement for Obamacare that would have kept Americans on medical welfare. The only thing to lament is that there were so few genuinely conservative Republicans who voted to block their attempt. But at least it was enough for the moment.

As America sinks ever deeper into the mire of unaccountable and unaffordable government, may those who see clearly come to dominate the current trend and reverse its course. We have not come this far only to abandon all that we stood for when we declared our independence, and to succumb again to serfdom under a (this time, self-imposed) tyranny.

Obamacare should indeed be repealed (along with the restriction of offering insurance across State borders). But there is no necessity whatever to replace it, and certainly not at the federal level. Let those States who have a majority of socialists vote in their own welfare programs, and let the markets decide what works best.

Friday, February 10, 2017

About that Ninth Circuit Opinion

First: Like the original non-decision by Federal District Judge James L. Robart, the 29-page order by the Ninth Circuit on Thursday does not qualify as a genuine decision on the law. Neither one of them cites or discusses the basic statutory authority for the President's Executive Order. They simply brush right past his authority in order to reach conclusions on issues that are really beside the point until one has addressed the scope of the President's powers in this area -- which are about as extensive as they can be. (See this article for a full explanation.)

Second. Although upholding the States' standing on a very narrow ground involving attendance / employment at State universities, the Ninth Circuit panel ignored US Supreme Court precedent that requires that a plaintiff demonstrate standing for all of the claims being asserted. (See the author's second point in the article just linked.) The States had no basis in fact whatsoever to present claims on behalf of foreign refugees seeking to come here; nor did they have standing to argue on behalf of other aliens who had no university-related visas (the vast majority of aliens affected by the EO). That fact did not stop either court from ordering a halt -- nationwide -- as to either the 90-day ban (for aliens from seven countries) or the 120-day ban on refugees.

Third: "Could the President have issued an order that simply banned all Muslims?" asked Judge Canby of the panel. The question was irrelevant to the issues actually involved, since the EO nowhere uses the word, and as even another member of the panel pointed out, it still allowed in the vast majority of the world's Muslims. Moreover, whether one practices Islam is beside the point -- no one has ever urged keeping an alien out based on his or her professed religion. The question displays a basic liberal confusion between the religion of Islam (whose followers are called "Muslims"), and the (non-religious, at least in my book) doctrine of jihad against infidels, which sanctions terrorism. Most of the jihadis who engage in terrorism will tell you that they are also Muslims -- but again, that is why one would not want to define terrorists by the religion they profess. The EO was aimed at seven specific countries that sponsor and inculcate terrorism. It was thus not aimed at any religion per se, but at specific places of origin. The made-up issue of "religious discrimination" in the EO is a giant red herring, designed to mislead. And it certainly sucked in the panel, right along with Judge Robart.

In sum: One could say the courts told the executive branch: "You are (probably -- since this was just a TRO) guilty of overreaching. Under our system, only the courts can overreach. We can stop you, but you can't stop us."

Or perhaps Ben Stein of the American Spectator says it best of all:
What that court did on Thursday was the equivalent of Japan suing FDR in 1941 saying that if the USA went to war against Japan many Japanese would be killed and wounded. Therefore, Japan argued, the due process rights of the Japanese would be violated and the court must enjoin the U.S. going to war. Incredibly, this court in Seattle said Thursday that foreigners who were neither citizens nor residents had due process rights against the USA. This is obvious nonsense.
Yes, the EO was poorly considered, poorly drafted and poorly implemented. But the response to it by our judicial branch has been simply disgraceful. No one involved in this sorry spectacle has any reason to be proud of what they did. And there is no reason at all to continue the circus for one moment longer.

May better days be ahead.