Proof:

(1) Proof that feminists care more for Democrats than for women:   Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and Monica Lewinsky.

(2) Proof that the anti-war left cares more for Democrats than for peace:  Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, drone strikes, and (a) giving Barack Obama a Nobel Peace Prize before he did anything at all in office for peace and (b) giving one to Al Gore for applying junk science to environmental extremism

(3) Proof that conservatives care more for Republicans than for the Constitution: John Boehner, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Mitt Romney, the Patriot Act, NSA, picking the Social security lock box, and failure to defund Obamacare

(4) Proof that libertarians care more for straight-jacketed, lock-stepped, ideological purity than for actually making the world better: voting for Ron Paul over and over and over

Fragments: An Anti-Regime Potpourri

(1.) The Obama administration has practiced no self-restraint when it comes to commandeering the auto industry, trying to control and limit our exercise of second amendment rights, trampling boldly and broadly on our first amendment rights, and hijacking health care.  This administration has no trouble at all extending its reach into broad areas of human life that the Constitution sequesters from it.  But it simply cannot find the will to do the things the Constitution requires, like securing the borders.  Indeed, it will sue the states that, desperate for the border control the federal government refuses to provide, try to provide it for themselves.

(2.) The number of those no longer in the work force has grown by more than 8 million under Obama.  Those millions hoped for change, but the change they got wasn't the change they hoped for.  Those 8 million aren't counted in the unemployment percentage, so even if their number grew to 18.5 million, government unemployment numbers might still actually improve, at which time the gov't would declare its pathetic record a rousing success, and the benighted American voters would reward the economic wrecking crew by sending them back into office.

(3.) At the moment, because of the staggering ignorance of the American voter, America is becoming Detroit.  Our electorate seems incapable of continued self-government.  I say this so that you will know what your public schools too often produce:  Relativistic sheep incapable of sustained logical, historical or economic analysis.  So let me put it plainly --  save your country:  home school.  If you are a Democrat, you don’t need to home school.  All you need to do is send Suzy and Johnny off each morning to the local socialist indoctrination facility where the teachers, the principal, and the NEA will produce millions of mind-benumbed little lefties for you.

      

(4.) Confiscatory tax rates and other anti-business government policies stifle investment and, therefore, job production.  So, after Obama changes his policies, businesses will gladly invest the (literally) trillions of dollars they now prudently are holding in reserve.  But BHO won't do that.  He's too busy trying to put the coal industry out of business and investing in green energy offerings that keep dying.  He is anti-big business, and he's getting what he wants -- less and less big business.  And if, despite the currently bad investment environment, a number of courageous, insightful, and hard-working entrepreneurs still succeed growing a thriving business, he'll tell them that they didn't build that.

       He's bad for America in more ways than anyone can count.  Period.

Correcting Ron Paul on Secession and the American Way

         According to Ron Paul’s latest outburst of silliness, it is the American way to secede.  Of course, it is not.

         The American union to which the states agreed is perpetual.  That union permits no divorce.  It does not permit secession.  When the states signed on, they signed on to a perpetual union.  The states are not free to leave as they wish.  

         But you are.  You can leave when and if you choose.  If, after a cost/benefit analysis, you decide to stay, you are free to stay.  If, after a cost/benefit analysis, you decide to go, you are free to go.  But your state is not.  That is not the statehood to which your state, or any state, consented.  We fought a civil just to clarify the point.  Ron Paul's side lost twice:  at the ratification and at the clarification.

         You can leave and not be part of the union.  You can stay and be a part.

         Make your choice.

         But centuries after the fact, and more than a century after the bloody clarification, you cannot remake at will the conditions of statehood to which your state initially agreed.  That game is over.  That contract is signed.  You can no more stay and be free from the union than you can go to Paris and be free from French law or from the Parisians.  It’s a package deal, and that is the package.  If you want to stay and be part of the American union, you are free to do so.  If you want to leave and be free from the American union, you are free to do so.  But you are not free to stay and be free from the American union.

         And that is the American way.

         Again, make your choice.

The Pro-Abortion Contradictions: They Endorse What They Oppose; They Oppose What They Endorse

         Pro-abortion arguments are fraught with contradictions.  For example:  (1) Abortion defenders often say that it’s wrong to force morality on others.  (2) They also say that abortion is a woman’s issue and that men have no proper say in it.  Men ought to stay away.

         If so, then the pro-abortion folks need to oppose Roe v. Wade because it transgresses the very principles the abortion lobby says it upholds.

         (1) Before Roe V. Wade was decided in 1973, abortion was illegal in 45 states and was severely restricted in two others.  Opposition to it was formal, legal, and almost universal.  Yet, despite the near universal rejection of the practice, the Supreme Court imposed its morality on the entire nation.  If imposing morality on others is wrong in principle, as the pro-abortion lobby insists, then the Supreme Court decision was wrong because it imposed its morality upon an entire nation.  But that imposition of morality is never opposed by the pro-choicers, which tells you that they are either cheaters or liars.  They say they oppose imposing morality in principle, but they don’t, not if their morality is being imposed.  They only reject imposing morality when someone else’s morality is in view.

         (2) If, as a matter of principle, men have no proper say in abortion, as the pro-abortionists insist, then they ought to oppose Roe v. Wade because it was decided entirely by men, a mere nine men who imposed their morality upon the whole nation.  If men have no proper say in the issue, as the pro-choice defenders insist, then the Supreme Court decision doubly transgresses pro-abortion principles:  It imposes morality and it was decided by men.  But that double transgression of principle means nothing at all to those who endorse abortion.  As long as men impose the same morality the pro-abortion faction holds, men can say, do, or impose whatever they wish.  It’s only when men argue against abortion that they must be excluded.

         In other words, it’s not really about imposing morality on others, and it’s not really about excluding men from the issue.  It’s not really about the pro-choice lobby’s alleged principles.  It’s really about vacuous self-contradiction.  It’s about cognitive dissonance on the grandest scale.

         But then whoever accused the pro-abortion cadre of logical consistency?  Certainly not I. 

The Rich, the Poor, and Justice

         Sometimes we ought to begin by defining our terms.  This is one of those times.  We need to distinguish between justice and equality.

         Justice is getting what you deserve.  It’s getting what is rightly yours.  It is getting what is yours by work, by investment, by inheritance, by purchase, by right, even by luck.  Because it is based on deserving, no moral objection can be raised to justice.  Equality, by comparison, is not getting what you deserve, but getting what everyone else gets, regardless of contribution or deserving.  Because of its distance and difference from deserving, from justice, a moral objection can (and sometimes should) be raised against equality.  Equality is justice only in cases and circumstances that really are equal.  Given the enormous and immeasurable differences in deserving, in effort, in morality, in natural ability, in contribution, and in circumstance among human beings, a species wherein no two members are exactly alike, the instances of equality being justice are rare, perhaps exceedingly rare.

         Yet some folks complain continually about the lack of equality, especially financial equality.  They complain, for example, if a particular policy benefits the rich more than it does the poor.  But you cannot raise an effective moral objection against a policy for no more morally profound or intellectually responsible a reason than that it favors the rich, or expands the gap between the rich and the poor.

         For instance, if I were to cut income taxes by 20% across the board, thus relieving the financial burden on all taxpayers, that policy would favor the rich more than the poor because you can’t cut taxes for those who pay none.  You can’t aid non-taxpayers with tax cuts because their tax break is already maximized.  Tax cuts favor the rich more than the poor because the rich are the ones who pay the most taxes:  The more taxes you pay, the more you benefit.  The less taxes you pay, the less you benefit.  And if, like nearly half of all Americans, you don’t pay income tax at all, you still benefit because those who do pay taxes still end up paying them to you.  They pay them to you by means of the elaborate, punitive, discriminatory, government redistribution scheme now in force in America.

         By the same token, if somehow, by my generosity, I were able instantly to double the money of every man, woman, and child in America, I’d think I’d done a rather good thing.  But those who oppose policies or actions favoring the rich would complain vociferously because by instantly doubling everyone’s money, my personal largesse had given more to the rich than to the poor, thus increasing the gap between them, as if by being generous I were being unjust.  And were I to increase everyone’s wealth tenfold -- an ostensibly good and generous action -- the same sort of consequences would obtain and the same silly criticisms would follow, even though everyone now had 1000% more money.

         Something isn’t bad just because it benefits the rich.  And it isn’t bad because it benefits the rich more than the poor.  It’s bad if it’s unjust, not if it’s unequal.

         Or, if you remain incurably addicted to the equality meme, then you ought to oppose our tax laws, which are the very embodiment of inequality, and which single out some citizens for financial punishment and others for financial reward in defiance of our Constitutional obligation to provide equal protection for all.  That is discrimination; that is inequality; that is injustice.  Yet those who trumpet equality and oppose discrimination press for it full tilt.  Against all reason and consistency, they oppose equal percentage tax breaks and they endorse tax code discrimination.

Condi Rice's Speech before the RNC

Prepared Remarks at Republican Convention

Good evening. Distinguished delegates, fellow Republicans, fellow Americans.

We gather here at a time of significance and challenge. This young century has been a difficult one. I will never forget the bright September day, standing at my desk in the White House, when my young assistant said that a plane had hit the World Trade Center – and then a second one – and a third, the Pentagon. And then the news of a fourth, driven into the ground by brave citizens that died so that many others would live. From that day on our sense of vulnerability and our understanding of security would be altered forever. Then in 2008 the global financial and economic crisis stunned us and still reverberates as unemployment, economic uncertainty and failed policies cast a pall over the American recovery so desperately needed at home and abroad.

And we have seen once again that the desire for freedom is universal – as men and women in the Middle East demand it. Yet, the promise of the Arab Spring is engulfed in uncertainty; internal strife and hostile neighbors are challenging the fragile democracy in Iraq; dictators in Iran and Syria butcher their own people and threaten the security of the region; China and Russia prevent a response; and all wonder, “Where does America stand?”

Indeed that is the question of the moment- “Where does America stand?” When our friends and our foes, alike, do not know the answer to that question – clearly and unambiguously -- the world is a chaotic and dangerous place. The U.S. has since the end of World War II had an answer – we stand for free peoples and free markets, we are willing to support and defend them – we will sustain a balance of power that favors freedom.

To be sure, the burdens of leadership have been heavy. I, like you, know the sacrifices that Americans have made – yes including the ultimate sacrifice of many of our bravest. Yet our armed forces remain the sure foundation of liberty. We are fortunate to have men and women who volunteer – they volunteer to defend us on the front lines of freedom. And we owe them our eternal gratitude.

I know too that it has not always been easy – though it has been rewarding – to speak up for those who would otherwise be without a voice – the religious dissident in China; the democracy advocate in Venezuela; the political prisoner in Iran.

It has been hard to muster the resources to support fledgling democracies– or to help the world’s most desperate - the AIDs orphan in Uganda, the refugee fleeing Zimbabwe, the young woman who has been trafficked into the sex trade in Southeast Asia; the world’s poorest in Haiti. Yet this assistance – together with the compassionate works of private charities – people of conscience and people of faith - has shown the soul of our country.

And I know too that there is weariness – a sense that we have carried these burdens long enough. But if we are not inspired to lead again, one of two things will happen – no one will lead and that will foster chaos --- or others who do not share our values will fill the vacuum. My fellow Americans, we do not have a choice. We cannot be reluctant to lead – and one cannot lead from behind.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan understand this reality -- that our leadership abroad and our well being at home are inextricably linked. They know what needs to be done. Our friends and allies must be able to trust us. From Israel to Poland to the Philippines to Colombia and across the world -- they must know that we are reliable and consistent and determined. And our adversaries must have no reason to doubt our resolve -- because peace really does come through strength. Our military capability and technological advantage will be safe in Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan’s hands.

We must work for an open global economy and pursue free and fair trade – to grow our exports and our influence abroad. In the last years, the United States has ratified three trade agreements, all negotiated in the Bush Administration. If you are concerned about China’s rise – consider this fact – China has signed 15 Free Trade Agreements and is negotiating 20 more. Sadly we are abandoning the playing field of free trade – and it will come back to haunt us.

We must not allow the chance to attain energy independence to slip from our grasp. We have a great gift of oil and gas reserves here in North America that must be and can be developed while protecting our environment. And we have the ingenuity in the private sector to tap alternative sources of energy.

And most importantly, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will rebuild the foundation of American strength – our economy – stimulating private sector led growth and small business entrepreneurship. When the world looks at us today they see an American government that cannot live within its means. They see a government that continues to borrow money, mortgaging the future of generations to come. The world knows that when a nation loses control of its finances, it eventually loses control of its destiny. That is not the America that has inspired others to follow our lead.

After all, when the world looks to America, they look to us because we are the most successful political and economic experiment in human history. That is the true basis of “American Exceptionalism.” The essence of America – that which really unites us -- is not ethnicity, or nationality or religion – it is an idea -- and what an idea it is: That you can come from humble circumstances and do great things. That it doesn’t matter where you came from but where you are going.

Ours has never been a narrative of grievance and entitlement. We have not believed that I am doing poorly because you are doing well. We have not been envious of one another and jealous of each other’s success. Ours has been a belief in opportunity and a constant battle – long and hard -- to extend the benefits of the American dream to all – without regard to circumstances of birth.

But the American ideal is indeed endangered today. There is no country, no not even a rising China, that can do more harm to us than we can do to ourselves if we fail to accomplish the tasks before us here at home.

More than at any other time in history –the ability to mobilize the creativity and ambition of human beings forms the foundation of greatness. We have always done that better than any country in the world. People have come here from all over because they believed in our creed – of opportunity and limitless horizons. They have come from the world’s most impoverished nations to make five dollars not fifty cents– and they have come from the world’s advanced societies – as engineers and scientists -- to help fuel the knowledge based revolution in the Silicon Valley of California; the research triangle of North Carolina; in Austin, Texas; along Route 128 in Massachusetts – and across our country.

We must continue to welcome the world’s most ambitious people to be a part of us. In that way we stay perpetually young and optimistic and determined. We need immigration laws that protect our borders; meet our economic needs; and yet show that we are a compassionate people.

We have been successful too because Americans have known that one’s status at birth was not a permanent station in life. You might not be able to control your circumstances but you could control your response to your circumstances. And your greatest ally in doing so was a quality education.

Let me ask you, though, today, when I can look at your zip code and can tell whether you are going to get a good education – can I really say that it doesn’t matter where you came from – it matters where you are going. The crisis in K-12 education is a grave threat to who we are.

My mom was a teacher – I have the greatest respect for the profession – we need great teachers – not poor or mediocre ones. We need to have high standards for our students – self-esteem comes from achievement not from lax standards and false praise. And we need to give parents greater choice – particularly poor parents whose kids – most often minorities -- are trapped in failing neighborhood schools. This is the civil rights struggle of our day.

If we do anything less, we will condemn generations to joblessness, hopelessness and dependence on the government dole. To do anything less is to endanger our global economic competitiveness. To do anything less is to tear apart the fabric of who we are and cement a turn toward grievance and entitlement.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will rebuild us at home and inspire us to lead abroad. They will provide an answer to the question, “Where does America stand?” The challenge is real and these are tough times. But America has met and overcome difficult circumstances before. Whenever you find yourself doubting us – just think of all the times that we have made the impossible seem inevitable in retrospect.

America’s victorious revolutionary founding – against the greatest military power of the time; a Civil War – hundreds of thousands dead in a brutal conflict – but emerging a stronger union; a second founding – as impatient patriots fought to overcome the birth defect of slavery and the scourge of segregation; a long struggle against communism – that ended with the death of the Soviet Union and the emergence of Europe, whole free and at peace; the will to make difficult decisions, heart-wrenching choices in the aftermath of 9/11 that secured us and prevented the follow-on attacks that seemed preordained at the time.

And on a personal note– a little girl grows up in Jim Crow Birmingham – the most segregated big city in America - her parents can’t take her to a movie theater or a restaurant – but they make her believe that even though she can’t have a hamburger at the Woolworth’s lunch counter – she can be President of the United States and she becomes the Secretary of State. Yes, America has a way of making the impossible seem inevitable in retrospect. But of course it has never been inevitable – it has taken leadership, courage and an unwavering faith in our values.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have the experience and the integrity and the vision to lead us – they know who we are, what we want to be and what we offer the world.

That is why this is a moment – an election – of consequence. Because it just has to be – that the most compassionate and freest country on the face of the earth – will continue to be the most powerful!

May God Bless You – and May God continue to bless this extraordinary, exceptional country – the United States of America.

Obamacare Re-visited

Now that the Supreme Court has decided on the constitutionality of Obamacare, it seems good to me to revise and re-post this examination of the economic and medical lunacies this program entails:

The president says his healthcare reform will help control health care costs, on the one hand, and to bring millions upon millions of new persons into the health care system, on the other.

Seen together, the president’s goals are contradictory and mutually exclusive.  Here’s why:  If you intend to introduce tens of millions of new health care consumers into the system, then the demand for health care products and services will rise dramatically.  When demand rises dramatically, prices rise dramatically as well.  If the president wants to achieve his first goal, that of reducing health care costs, then achieving his second goal will make it impossible.  What his left hand gives, his other left hand takes away.

What happens when (A) the government drives down prices, on the one hand, and what happens when (B) demand for health care products and services rises dramatically, on the other?   

When the government tries to control health care costs, the consequence for health care providers like drug companies, medical instrument manufacturers, and doctors, is to drive some of them out of health care altogether.  That is, if Washington restricts the profits of health care providers, some of those providers will re-allocate their quite considerable investments in directions away from health care, to places where government interference does not hinder or limit their financial success.  They simply leave.  In the wake of the coming government-induced exodus from the tyranny of price controls, fewer health care providers can or will remain.  Fewer providers mean fewer products and fewer services.  In your very first economics lesson, you’ll recall, you learned that when the supply of a thing goes down, its price goes up.

In other words, the president’s program to control health care costs will produce the opposite result.  I promise you, health care after the president’s reform goes into effect will not be cheaper than it is today.  The laws of economic reality make it so.  No one, including the Community Organizer-in-Chief, can change the laws of economics at will.  Health care after his reform will be more expensive than ever, far more expensive.

Count on it; plan for it.

The costs faced by a pharmaceutical company to develop new and effective drugs are staggering.  Laboratories and equipment are expensive.  Outstanding scientists demand high salaries.  The path to FDA approval is arduous, time consuming, expensive, and fraught with uncertainty.  The advertisement and distribution of the drugs that win approval are more costly still.  The upshot of all that expensive research, certification, and advertisement is dicey at best, and massive sums of money can be -- and have been -- lost.

In order to pay for the development, approval, advertisement, and distribution of new drugs and the cures they might make possible, therefore, drug companies must make enormous amounts of money on existing drugs.  If they do not, the development of new drugs cannot well continue.  Thus, by holding down prescription costs, by prohibiting what it considers exorbitant drug company profits, the government is, therefore, also prohibiting future drug development and future cures -- perhaps the one that will save your life or the life of a loved one.  We will never know what things could have been accomplished and would have been accomplished in future health care if the government puts a lid on prescription costs now.  Under Obama’s health care reform, more people will get sick, more people will stay sick, and more people will die.

Consider the doctors:  If the government puts a cap on what a doctor can make for, say, intestinal surgery, then the very talented and intelligent folks who otherwise would have worked very hard to become wealthy surgeons will figure out how to make a very good living in other ways, perhaps in architecture, nuclear technology, or international trade.  In the shadow of government-restricted prices (and therefore government-restricted incomes), fewer and fewer of those talented folks will decide to undergo the long, difficult, and exceedingly expensive path through college, through medical school, through residency, and through certification in order to become doctors who can expect to earn less for themselves and their families than they would have earned had they turned their talents elsewhere and followed an easier and less restricted path to greater wealth.  The same thing will happen with the pharmacists.  If the president’s program goes into effect, the result will be fewer doctors and pharmacists serving the millions and millions more patients the president wants to get into the system.  In other words, there will be long lines -- very long lines -- at the clinic, at the emergency room, and at the pharmacy. 

The lesson of price controls is not new.  Simply think of the government-imposed control on gas prices in the 1970s and the chaos, shortages, long lines and rationing that followed in its wake  -- only substitute health care for gas and clinics for gas stations.  As a result of Obama’s ridiculous program, we will have fewer doctors and fewer pharmacists, but 16,000 more IRS agents.

Or, to take a lesson from countries like Canada and the UK (where government health care plans have been in place for many years), waiting lines are unconscionably long and some people actually die waiting for their turn in surgery because there aren’t enough surgeons and operating rooms to meet the needs.  To avoid that fate, Canadian often cross the border to get medical care at their own expense in the US, in cities like Detroit or Buffalo, where medical care is far more readily available than in Canada.  In other words, they come to the system the president is trying to reform, and they leave the sort of system he is trying to emulate.  If the president’s counter-productive plan goes into effect, even Canadians will die. 

My point, if it’s not obvious, is that, judging by the incentives it creates and the consequences it generates, this is a health care plan from Hell.

But it’s worse even than that, far worse.  By introducing millions more folks into the system at the same time that his cost control measures are shrinking that system, the president’s plan will strain our remaining health care resources enormously, perhaps to the breaking point, laying an unbearable demand upon what survives of a health care supply system shrinking under the effects of ill-conceived government policy.  The results for millions of Americans needing medical care will be catastrophic.  In order to meet the burgeoning demands that an expanding clientele puts on a shrinking system, the government will institute rationing.

Put succinctly, price controls lead to shortages; shortages lead to higher prices and to long lines; long lines lead to rationing; rationing health care leads to suffering and death.

When family and friends suffer or die because they couldn’t get the health care they required, Americans will begin to regret the votes they cast in recent years, and they will struggle to return to the system that served them better -- if by then a return is still possible.  They also will regret the eccentric legal reasoning of a rogue Supreme Court Chief Justice who thinks his job is not simply to assess whether or not a law is constitutional, but who thinks that his job, and the job of his Court, is to make it so.

My dire tale of higher prices, shortages, long lines and rationing is understated.  I have purposely left the most expensive and most dangerous part of the President’s health care reform until the end.  To this point, I have focused primarily on health care providers and health care consumers.  I turn now to health care bureaucrats -- perhaps the most wasteful and dangerous element of the President’s entire misbegotten scheme.

Depending upon precisely what sorts of things one includes in the equation, health care is approximately one-seventh of the entire American economy.  To bring that much business under the watchful (but myopic) eye of government requires a simply enormous army of bureaucrats.  To them will fall the power of evaluation and analysis of every sort, and the power to enforce their decisions.  Almost nothing could be worse.

The notion that government bureaucrats and career politicians are competent to determine (from a distance, at a desk, or in a committee with other bureaucrats) what drugs “ought” to be prescribed, what tests “ought” to be conducted, what procedures “ought” to be undergone, and what “ought” to be the proper cost of every consultation, operation, test, or procedure in every American locality from Anchorage to Key West is unmitigated hubris and foolishness beyond measure.  Those bureaucrats do not even know or understand how little their own jobs and services are actually worth; they absolutely cannot know the worth of the jobs of medical researchers and neuro-surgeons in varied localities across the nation, and what they “ought” to be paid for doing them.  Nor will they know what things “ought” to be done for and by patients they have never met and never will meet.

Precious few of the apparatchiks empowered by the government to make these decisions will be medically trained.  Indeed, there aren’t enough properly trained bureaucrats in the world to make this program work.  Almost none will have seen face-to-face even one of the persons whose lives and health they hold in their red tape entangled hands.  Indeed, they will not be dealing with persons at all, as they see it, but with “cases” – cases that must be dealt with according to the case book, the standard operating procedures compiled by other bureaucrats in other parts of government who spend their professional lives vainly trying to do equally impossible jobs with equally deleterious effect.

Consider the bureaucrats.  Like all other persons, bureaucrats are creatures of incentive.  Those with careers in the medical bureaucracy will wish to succeed.  They will wish to rise ever higher in the bureaucracy, to be in charge of ever increasing portions of taxpayer money and to exercise more power than now they do.  In order to rise up the bureaucratic ladder, they must preside well over the affairs inside their bailiwick.  They must follow the rules.  They must keep their departmental budgets balanced.  While I am in favor of governments living within their means, the implications of doing so in government health care are staggering.

It often happens that almost 90% of a person’s health care expenses occur in the last two or three years of life. When we get old, we get expensive. If the government is overseeing the program by which your health care costs get paid, and if that program is dangerously low on money, the bureaucrat in charge of your case, who knows that it’s cheaper to die than to live, who knows that his budget is nearly depleted, and who wants to look good to his or her superiors, will be sorely tempted to reason this way:  “At 76, old Joe has had a long life.  His country has been good to him for many years.  It’s time for Joe to pay the system back.  It’s time for Joe to cash in his chips.  That way, Joe’s own physical suffering is ended; my personal and professional burdens are eased; and others can move one step forward in the waiting line.  If old Joe dies, it’ll be better for everybody, including me and Joe.”

If you think I am making this up, I absolutely am not.  I have seen it with my own eyes and heard it with my own ears directly from government bureaucrats themselves. 

When government bureaucrats invade health care, the inevitable result is something much like veterinary medicine:  If your dog is sick and you take it to the vet, the vet examines it and says, “Spot has a problem, and it will cost $300 to fix it.  What would you like to do?”  The vet says asks you, not Spot, because you are paying the bills. If you don’t have the money to pay for the necessary procedures, it’s bad news for Spot.  Spot might die.  When the government is in charge of paying your health care bills, and the bureaucrat in charge of your case doesn’t have the money for them, you’re Spot.

The Constitution v. Roberts

         I often disagree with Justice Ginsburg, but not because I think her qualifications inadequate.  They are not.  My disagreements are not about her background but about her legal reasoning and the conclusions to which it leads.  My disagreements are not about her but her work. 

         The same holds true with my disagreement with Chief Justice Roberts.  His qualifications are stellar.  His legal reasoning is not.  His credentials are impressive.  Everyone agrees.  About his ruling on health care legislation, they do not, not even those who ruled with him, like Justice Ginsburg.

         I find the Chief’s recent reasoning eccentric, even shocking.  I am shocked because I do not recall anything in his legal background that made me anticipate his decision or its alleged justification.   Perhaps such a personal precedent exists and I have missed it.  I miss things every day.  But if his previous work contains such a precedent, then it seems no one noticed it.  No one expected him to rule as he did or for the reasons he expressed.  At least I have found no Court-watcher’s prediction in that direction.

         I am aghast to see Chief Justice Roberts assert that the role of the court is to find ways to make a law constitutional.  I do not recall him advocating this view.  If he did, then I would not, if the privilege were mine, vote for his appointment.  The burden of making a law constitutional belongs solely to the legislature that drafted, debated, and passed it, not the courts.  The courts decide if the legislature succeeded in that task or not.  The courts do not take it upon themselves to do what the lawmakers failed to do.

         In order to do what he says is the court's duty, namely to find a way to make the law constitutional, Roberts had either to sever the individual mandate from the rest of the bill or else alter the fundamental nature of the mandate from "penalty" to "tax.”  He opted for “tax.”  Even Ginsburg, who was on the winning side with Roberts, formally dissented from his calling this a tax.  She and I rarely agree.  Here we do.  Indeed, Roberts’ reasoning is so eccentric that it actually drove Ginsburg into the Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy camp against him – a judicial rarity.

         As I see it, the deliberative history of a law is indispensable to assessing its nature, content, purpose, and constitutionality properly.  If, in their debate, the legislators expressly rejected classifying the individual mandate as a tax, and if the legislators insist that calling it a tax means they will not vote for the bill, then the Court must assess the law on those expressly argued and formally articulated grounds.  Instead, the Court, through Roberts, morphed this law into something it is not.  On that point, Scalia was right:  Roberts re-wrote the law from the bench in order to find some way to make it constitutional.

         Nothing in Roberts’ confirmation hearings made me think he would or could do such a thing, much less declare it his solemn duty.   He seems to me to have betrayed his own jurisprudential principles and his own sworn testimony in his confirmation hearings in order to reach this decision, as if stare decisisincluded invoking Benedict Arnold.

         Roberts manipulated the law in order to treat it as a tax.  He then held that the taxing power of Congress is broad enough to rest this newly altered law upon it.  By doing so, he ignored the President and the Congress, who argued strenuously that the individual mandate was not a tax.  Both said explicitly that Congress did not impose a tax; it imposed a penalty for failure to comply with a regulatory mandate.  If the individual mandate is a tax, and if the Supreme Court, not the House, made it a tax, then we stand in transgression of Article I, Section 7.  Further, if it is a tax, then I conclude that the Anti-Injunction Act prevents the Court even from hearing the case, much less deciding it.

         If that is what happened, and if, as some speculate, Roberts’ motive was to prevent the Court from appearing politicized or from having its legitimacy undermined in the eyes of some, he has accomplished the opposite.  If that is what happened and why, then he should resign, period.  He swore to uphold the Constitution, not to prevent folks from thinking his court was or was not political.

         For the second time in a week, the Chief Justice has failed to uphold the Constitution.  The federal government’s constitutional obligation to enforce border security was the victim earlier.