Littlestuff Weekender-8-13-2011

From the Reuters Newswire yesterday the 11^th Circuit appears to get “most” of it.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law suffered a setback on Friday when an appeals court ruled that it was unconstitutional to require all Americans to buy insurance or face a penalty.
The U.S. Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, ruled 2 to 1 that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but it unanimously reversed a lower court decision that threw out the entire law.
The legality of the individual mandate, a cornerstone of the healthcare law, is widely expected to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Opponents have argued that without the mandate, which goes into effect in 2014, the entire law falls.
The law, adopted by Congress in 2010 after a bruising battle, is expected to be a major political issue in the 2012 elections as Obama seeks another term. All the major Republican presidential candidates have opposed it.
Obama has championed the individual mandate as a major accomplishment of his presidency and as a way to try to slow the soaring costs of healthcare while expanding coverage to the more than 30 million Americans without it.
The White House voiced confidence the law would be upheld. "We strongly disagree with this decision and we are confident it will not stand," Obama aide Stephanie Cutter said in a statement.
Because it conflicts with another appeals court ruling that upheld the law, the Supreme Court is expected to take it up during its term that begins in October with a ruling possible just months before the November 2012 presidential election.
Legal experts said it was impossible to predict how the high court will rule but agreed that it may be a close vote by nine ideologically divided justices, with moderate conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy as the possible swing vote.
SPLIT DECISION
Twenty-six states together had challenged the mandate, arguing that Congress had exceeded its authority by imposing such a requirement. But the Obama administration had argued it was legal under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
A federal judge in Florida sided with the states and struck down the entire law, leading the administration to appeal.
A divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit found that it did not pass muster under that clause or under the power of Congress to tax. The administration has said the penalty for not buying healthcare coverage is akin to a tax.
"This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them repurchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives," the majority said in its 207-page opinion.
That opinion was jointly written by Judges Joel Dubina, who was appointed to the appeals court by Republican President George H.W. Bush, and by Frank Hull, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat.-----end of citation-----

In other court news, the Supreme Court of Ohio slapped down Rothenberg vs. Husted wherein a challenge was filed against certain Healthcare Freedom Amendment petitions because they were :1) partially completed ;2) erroneously listed payers as employers. The Court determined that the (my paraphrase) complaint addressed minute issues that had no bearing on the validity of the signatures that were submitted. Therefore, the signatures, as validated by local boards, could be included in the total necessary for placement on the ballot. Good news for the good guys.

Congress is on recess, and the Vacationer-in-Chief is at Martha’s Vineyard, so a lot of our action this week is court-based. Here’s another one. The Libertarian Party of Ohio filed suit in Federal Court in the Southern District of Ohio, LPO vs Husted, case #2:11-722. Basically, the suit challenges certain provisions of HB 194 regarding ballot-access requirements for political parties. I urge you to go to   www.lpo.org  . The story about the suit is on the front page. HB 194 now has two challenges pending. The other is the requirement for picture I.D.

Moving from the suffocating atmosphere of the courts, we now merrily trip into the silliness of Presidential politics. Eight GOP hopefuls stood shoulder-to-shoulder in Ames, IA Thursday night and suffered through inane journalist questions, a lack of ample time to present a case and the “buzz” created by Rick Perry and Sarah Palin. No striking winners….no “shot-the-wad” losers.  On Friday I got the distinct impression that some folks fear the Ron Paul campaign may be gaining momentum. Limbaugh and Levin both tore into Congressman Paul re: his statements on Iran. I don’t listen to Hannity, but I assume as a good little lap dog, he probably followed suit.

Tuesday’s radio show will feature Michael Johnston, Vice Chair and Political Director of the Libertarian Party of Ohio, as he brings us up to speed on their lawsuit in Federal Court versus Secretary Husted and HB 194.  Tuesday, 16 August, 6:00-7:00pm, 1370 WSPD.  www.wspd.com for those who like streaming.

Enjoy the remainder of the weekend.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com       or        www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Calling Out Congress

My columns have been rather tough on Speaker Boehner and the GOP House. Several readers have forcefully reminded me that the Democrats hold the Senate and the Socialists are entrenched in the White House. They seem to suggest that I should ease up a bit because Boehner et. al do not have the absolute power necessary for implementing significant change in government practices, policies and procedures. That observation is true……….but the GOP controls the budgeting process, and can initiate legislation that the Senate may reject or the President may veto. Said legislative initiatives would create clear lines of demarcation and force the Progressives/Statists/ Lefties to defend the indefensible….their insistence that the United States drift into Third-World status because of their massive spending, borrowing and taxing schemes. If the GOP House is unwilling to force the issue again and again, the people (voters) will rightly conclude that deal-making and business-as-usual politics remain the standard practice even with a divided House and a frustrated populace.

As Libertarians, Tea Party members and conservatives who desire smaller constitutional government, lower taxes and more personal freedom, we have no impact on the statists in government. They loathe us while they fear us, and they are not about to accept our proscriptions for sound governing. The conservative members of the House GOP caucus are another matter. They are aware of the potential support or fury of our liberty coalition. It is, therefore, absolutely mandatory for us to hold them accountable…..in all ways, all the time. Already we have witnessed some slippage during the debt ceiling fiasco. Some of the newer hot shot members as well as some of the incumbents decided to follow the path of deal-making expediency rather than stand for principle. We can send a daily barrage of emails and phone to Senator Schumer’s office, and they will have no positive effect for good government. If we follow the same tactical program for a newly elected “Tea Party conservative,” he or she will be more likely to hold the line against the overwhelming tsunami of big government. If we hesitate to “call out” the newer and conservative members, then we may be chagrined to discover that they have become enmeshed in the “business as usual” trap.

Every general knows that he cannot command the opposing troops. His influence and power are limited to his own command. He must maneuver his own troops to attack or counter the weaknesses and movements of the enemy. The battle for our nation is warfare of the highest order. At stake are liberty, prosperity and our future. So far the contest has been relatively non-violent, but a government that has demonstrated that it is willing to use coercion and force may resort to extraordinary measures to preserve its power and control. This observation may sound somewhat grim, but it should alert us to the necessity for maintaining pressure on those in government who claim to be our allies for the restoration of our republic. If we back off and permit them to falter, the consequences could degrade into a scenario far worse than our persistent badgering of our affiliated elected officials. In a medical analogy….we’ll be treating the scratch to prevent the infection.

One more analogy to illustrate the importance of maintaining the heat on right-thinking politicians: when an opposing baseball player commits a mental error, our team exploits it. When a member of our team has a “brain fart, “we get on his case to insure that he has the correct mental attitude to help us succeed. Holding the opposition accountable is a pipe dream. Our influence is best used to support and sanction our alleged compatriots in office. Firing off a bevy of emails and phone calls to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi may generate some perverse level of satisfaction, but they will have no substantive effect. Communication with those who share our principles and our goals will inform them that we are here, we are engaged and we are watching. Efforts and watchfulness are best spent where they can be most effective and rewarding. In addition, it is much easier to move a pound than it is a ton, so it follows that it will be much easier to influence someone whose position begins close to ours than a politician whose stance is light-years removed.

The sum total of my rough treatment of Boehner, Cantor, McCarthy, McConnell and their flock of GOP cohorts is that the statists are unsalvageable in my view, but the residing Republican members are either with us or may be convinced to join our movement. Unfortunately some RINO’s may be beyond recovery, but that’s what primaries are for. If too many of the GOP leadership and significant numbers of members resist the return to Constitutional government and principles, then a third-party alternative will become more likely. As a forty-two year member, activist and office-holder as a Republican, I made the third-party move to libertarianism to avoid the rush. Besides, the Arlen Specter’s, Lincoln Chaffee’s, Olympia Snow’s, John McCain’s, Lindsey’s Graham’s, and a collection of RINO’s, weasels and chickens convinced me that I no longer wished to be a part of such a compromising menagerie of weakness.

Comment:    cearlwriting@hotmail.com        or         www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Diving for Cover

There is a term that all career legislative politicians know and cherish. It is “voting from cover.” This is a device whereby your typical unprincipled politician can vote either way on a piece of legislation, but the leadership allows him or her to vote according to which way would most assist the politician’s re-election because the leaders had enough votes to pass the measure. In other words the politician was willing to vote for passage but voted against it because his vote was not needed. Given this frequent scenario, it is no wonder that citizens have become as cynical as their elected officials.

When one examines the voting record of a political professional, one often discovers some contradictory results. A politician may vote for a measure the first time around, but vote against a nearly identical version on the second pass. The suggestively schizophrenic behavior is generally an indicator that the so-called public servant was voting from cover. You may recall the legendary John Kerry statement from the 2004 campaign that he “voted for funding the Iraq war before he voted against it.” There were some commentators and of course, Republicans, who ridiculed Kerry’s apparent two-faced approach to such a vital issue. Many in the mass media, however, did not condemn Kerry because they understood that his votes reflected a total self-serving attempt to appear on both sides of the issue. They correctly understood that Kerry’s waffling…his unprincipled position…was not rare, but it was all too common among our United States’ political class.

At first blush an observer might seek to find some mechanism or penalty for those who choose to vote from cover to enhance their political fortunes. The problem with a remedy that directly addresses the issue is that there is no allowance for the politician who actually changes her or his position because of conscience, principle or payoff. We cannot fully trust the politician’s explanation for the position switch because so many of them are either slick liars or self-delusional. The observer can assume from the beginning that the leadership allowed the member to vote from cover if the vote was close, and the member voted against the majority. An overwhelming vote on either side of an issue is not a good barometer for testing the legislator’s principles because aside from the chicken or weasel, congress critters most often resemble lemmings. One of the first skills developed by a legislator is learning how to jump in front of a parade and pretending to lead it.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to detect which unprincipled politicians were voting from cover on any particular bill unless one is closely observing the roll call on C-SPAN. If the watcher knows who the Whips are for the party, they can see who they’re “babysitting” as the vote rolls in. As the numbers of “Ayes and Nays” approach finality, the Whips will release their wards to vote. If the Speaker “needs” their votes, they’ll vote for his position, but if there are a sufficient number supporting the Speaker’s stance, the captive Congresspersons will be allowed to vote consistent with their constituents’ preferences. So, what if the leaders are wrong (we have 100 years of recent history to suggest that our political leaders are often wrong)? Are our elected representatives so politically motivated that they would sacrifice principle in order to prevent embarrassing the leadership? Apparently so and historical evidence supports the premise. Certainly it is helpful if there is unity within the caucus when they are pursuing an ideal or policy that is based on principle and integrity. Unity for unity’s sake, however, when promoted and enforced to achieve damaging compromise merely reinforces the cynicism of the voters. Deal-making, deal-cutting and bet-hedging are reprehensible positions when the integrity of the nation is at stake. Yes, this type of legislating has been in place since the beginning of our Republic, but heightened scrutiny and moments of sustained crisis have illustrated the folly and damage that such an approach creates. “Business as usual” should become unusual and undesirable.

Our political system has become so corrupt and decayed that fixing it seems nearly impossible. I am convinced that most of those who are first elected to Congress or their respective legislatures enter with high hopes and sincere desires to make a difference. They become part of the system without realizing how compromised they are. Voting from cover is just another example of how unrepresentative our political system is. If you recall, 22 House members voted against Boehner’s sell-out deal on the debt ceiling, but the real number of steadfast fiscally-responsible patriots is 19. Three Members were being herded by Whip Kevin McCarthy until the vote was “locked.” They were willing to vote with Boehner, but because there were sufficient votes, they were “allowed” to vote for principle. I’m still trying to confirm who those three were, and they do not merit inclusion in the roll call of courage and conviction. There were 19 Spartans standing at the gates as the Persians advanced. There were three opportunists standing behind them….under cover….away from the arrows. Luke’s Gospel is good. Lukewarm is tepid.

Comment:   cearlwriting@hotmail.com       or     www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

  

Baseline Bamboozle

For several years I was an umpire for baseball and softball games. We had two clearly defined baselines and two more subjectively defined base paths. To compound the issue, the foul line is in reality a fair line. So, let’s discuss government and clarity of language regarding the term “baseline.” A baseline as defined by the federal government is not as firm or as permanent as a 3” line of white chalk that runs from home plate to first base or from third base to home plate. The government’s baseline is repositioned every year, and, on occasion, is moved more than once per year.

Our inspired leaders of the federal government have apparently determined that the budgeting process is too difficult and acrimonious. To expedite the process they have implemented the baseline budgeting system wherein each item in the budget automatically qualifies for a nearly 8% increase from the previous year. Through the magic of compounding, a simple annual increase of 8% will result in a given line item appropriation nearly doubling after 10 years. This increase continues without regard for the efficacy or necessity of the program. Baseline budgeting is the fiscal version of the “In-laws from Hell” who come to your peaceful home to visit but refuse to leave. In baseline budgeting terms the words “merit and value” are alien concepts. Since the “Control Act of 1974” our elected public officials have allowed this fiscally irresponsible and politically unaccountable method of budgeting drive our nation toward the cliff of financial and economic disaster.

Clearly thirty-seven years of a failed mechanism that is unresponsive to economic conditions or to actual requirements for government sustainability is long enough. The GOP House majority should make baseline budgeting a sensible target for elimination…..not tweaking, eliminating. If an agency, program or department cannot justify and detail budget items on an annual basis, they do not warrant any funding….let alone an automatic 8% increase. If the Members of Congress believe that requiring justification for every agency or program would be too time consuming for the budgeting process, then obviously the government and the budget are too large. No one, I repeat, no one….no Corporation, no household has the benefit of an “automatic pilot” annual increase in funding. To the contrary most of our citizens and companies must struggle year after year in an unfriendly taxation environment and coping with an overburdening regulatory situation. Government should not ever enjoy an imperial status that far exceeds the circumstances of the people.

The baseline budgeting system immunizes government and government beneficiaries from all of the many intervening disruptions those of us in the private sector regularly encounter. It creates an artificial justification for additional and usually excessive government spending. An historical and efficiency analysis of many government programs or agencies would discover that their effectiveness and usefulness are of minimal value. Yet…the money train continues running as their budgets escalate with no consideration of the programs’ value or need. That’s no way to run a railroad, but our elected officials are too lazy and uninspired to thoughtfully examine each line item and appropriation, so they set them on automatic pilot. Most of us are either personally or anecdotally familiar with the public agency that scrambles to spend its excess at the end of a budget cycle in order to qualify for the increased funding of the next budget. Those types of fiscal and mental gymnastics are a direct result of the baseline budgeting madness.  Thus, the two primary motivations for implementing such a stupid and irresponsible system are: cowardly politicians and big-government advocates…..neither of which serve the best interests of the nation, our fiscal security or individual freedom. In essence, the baseline budgeting system guarantees that the cost and size of government will routinely grow without any justification….feeble or valid.

There are thirteen congressional committees that deal with various appropriations throughout the federal government. The chairs of those august committees are euphemistically described as the “Cardinals” because of their power to impact our lives through the appropriations process. It seems however, that they are opposed to reducing expenditures and budgets because their power may be diminished. Baseline budgeting has given the “Cardinals” the cover to allow for automatic increases in spending and power, and it also offers the flexibility to insert individual expenditures to bolster the reelection chances for members (baseline plus pork). The additional targeted expenditures merge into the baseline to ratchet the base upward for the next budgetary cycle. The pork spending is added to the automatic increases to form a new “minimum” for the following budget. But that’s not all…..

President Obama’s politically-laden stimulus spending was dispersed through various departments and agencies. In every case the additional funding through borrowed stimulus funds increased the baseline for the affected department, agency or program. In effect, our excessive indebted spending has been radically increased with no inherent mechanism for reducing it. Fiscally, this is a tragic and deadly consequence of Washington’s spending addiction, but even more troubling is the failure of the GOP House to address this travesty. They promised to repeal ObamaCare, and they have not. They haven’t even attempted to defund it. All of the facets of the Healthcare monstrosity are integrated into the baseline budgeting system. Also, we have not heard anyone from Congressional leadership suggest that the budget-busting 1974 Act should be repealed. Why not? Are they contented with this system and the growing power over our lives that it promotes?

Bottom line: If the GOP House leadership were absolutely serious about reining in our spending explosion, they would seek to repeal The Control Act of 1974 and defund Obamacare and other budget-busting programs, agencies and departments. The power of the purse should be used to change the direction of our country….not on a glide path, but with a “180” directional shift. Government bureaucracies should be put on notice that the gravy train has been sidetracked, and the Constitution of the United States is the new sheriff in town. Duty calls, Congress, please stop ducking your responsibility.

Comment:    cearlwriting@hotmail.com         or       www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Littlestuff Weekender-8-7-2011

Whew! Some traumatic week that we have been through. The Senate and the House with Presidential agreement accepts a deal (probably pre-arranged) that creates a “super legislature of 12 members to propose “up or down” spending cuts or tax increases. This mini-Politburo allows Congress to do what it does best: shift blame and duck responsibility. The whole debt-ceiling fiasco has demonstrated that most of the old timers and many of the “Tea Party” House members lack courage and integrity.  There were, however, a few who held firm and may have had an incremental influence on the outcome. Their intransigence may have forced the leadership to implement the super legislative ruse rather than boldly vote to raise the debt ceiling and taxes.

Because the government did not seriously or honestly address the excessive spending and the increasing debt, Standard and Poor’s lowered the U.S. debt quality rating from AAA to AA. Watch carefully in the next few weeks because interest rates may begin to creep upward since the FED has been artificially forcing them lower. China issued a statement that condemned our government and its wasteful practices. It’s never a good sign when the communists think you are consuming too much of your nation’s GDP.

We had a wonderful week at the Wood County Fair. Bowling Green City Council write-in candidate, Nathan Eberly…E-B-E-R-L-Y, the chair of the Libertarian Party of Wood County did a great job of organizing the tent, and LPWC members stepped up to host it. Met a lot of radio listeners and Littlestuff readers during our scheduled times. It was comforting to observe that my readers and listeners aren’t too crazy….though we may be driving them that way.

It was a pleasure for me to work at the Ron Paul booth at the Ohio State Fair on Thursday. What a difference a year makes. The response this year was dramatically better than last year as more and more people (following the debt ceiling fiasco) realize that Dr. Paul is NOT the wacky old uncle. They understand that he has been right since before “right” was cool. The younger folks who are politically astute are attracted to his candidacy, but I was impressed by how many 60-somethings were driven to support him because of the congressional ineptitude that was so obvious in recent weeks.

Another reminder for you about our radio program that airs every Tuesday and Wednesday evening from 6:00pm to 7:00pm on 1370 WSPD.  www.wspd.com   ---we are streamed---.  We view all things local, regional, statewide, national and global through the prism of liberty. We also have podcasts of each program that are usually posted within 24-48 hours of the live broadcast. The name of the show is “Eye on Toledo.”

Enjoyed my Mother’s family reunion Saturday. We are blessed that Mother and her seven siblings are still with us, and six of the eight spouses are living. The food was plentiful and tasty, and it was great to see some of my cousins.

Yesterday’s (Friday’s) column was about “Crisis Management,” and we added an addendum to our FaceBook page: Remember that politicians are middle managers for the community, state or nation. They are hirelings…we hire them to oversee the day to day functions of government. We the People are the CEO’s, the COO’s and the CFO’s of this great American enterprise. We have a fiduciary responsibility to fire the middle managers if they squander our resources and violate our policies (the Constitution). If the politicians consistently govern against our will and we fail to replace them, we are the ones at fault. It requires that we the people undergo a dramatic attitudinal change from governed beneficiary to responsible stakeholder. Our efforts to restore the nation will be futile until the citizenry understands that ownership of the nation means that WE assume responsibility for its performance.

Monday’s column will address “baseline budgeting.” It is the primary fiscal impetus behind our precarious financial situation. Wednesday we will examine the political concept of “voting from cover” wherein your/our elected servants can appear to vote as we wish but are ready, willing and able to underwrite big government if their votes are “needed.” Sham and scam artists are not representing the people who pay, but they do protect those who receive.

Comments:    cearlwriting@hotmail.com          or       www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com