Update from the Heartland
No.554
23.7.12 – 29.7.12
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
I finally made my way through the Supreme Court’s recent
health care ruling – National Federation of Independent Business
v. Sebelius [566 U.S. ___ (2012); no. 11–393] {henceforth, NFIB},
the combination of three primary appeals court cases. It was not an easy read – far too many collateral
detours. The law in question was
the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) [PL 111-148; 124 Stat.
119] [432]. The keystone in the entire PPACA arch
was the so-called individual mandate, specifically Title I, Subtitle F, §1501 (b) – Requirement to maintain
minimum essential coverage [124 Stat. 119, 244; 26 USC 5000A] [512]. In a rather odd decision, Chief Justice John Glover Roberts,
Jr., wrote for the 5-4 majority and concluded, “The Federal Government does not
have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be
unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on
those without health insurance. Section
5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a
tax.” While the Court upheld the
critical individual mandate, the Supremes struck down the Title I, Subtitle B, expansion
of Medicaid programs to cover low-income citizens who earn less than 133% of
the federal poverty level, as unauthorized overreach by Congress, imposing upon
the spending autonomy of the states.
In assessing the consequences of the Court’s judgment, the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) estimated the NFIB ruling would reduce the 10-year
cost of PPACA by US$84B, but will leave 3 million disadvantaged citizens
without access to health insurance. Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
writing a concurring opinion, spent considerable effort reviewing the social,
financial and political rationale for the PPACA, and she articulated quite well
the dilemma faced by this Grand Republic in addressing the broad health care
issue. She noted, “In the 1990's,
several States--including New York, New Jersey, Washington, Kentucky, Maine,
New Hampshire, and Vermont--enacted guaranteed-issue and community-rating laws
without requiring universal acquisition of insurance coverage. The results were
disastrous.” The attempts created
an insurance “death spiral” that leaves insurance companies with progressive
more ill patients and less healthy folks over which to distribute the costs, as
the threshold of affordability inevitably increases. Massachusetts broke the “death spiral” with passage of Mass.
Gen. Laws, ch. 111M, §2 (West 2011), reassuring the insurers that they would not
be left with only the sick as customers.
Beyond
the immediate impact of the PPACA implementation, the NFIB decision was far
more interesting and potentially far-reaching for the collateral debate among
the justices regarding the Commerce Clause (Article I, §8, clause 3). In their agreement, or at least
concurrence, Roberts and Ginsburg carried out a tête-à-tête on the interpretation of the Commerce Clause. The Chief Justice rejecting use of the Commerce
Clause, while Ginsburg defended the government’s use of the Commerce Clause in
such cases. The joint dissent
observed, “It is true that, at the end of the day, it is inevitable that each
American will affect commerce and become a part of it, even if not by choice. But if every person comes within the
Commerce Clause power of Congress to regulate by the simple reason that he will
one day engage in commerce, the idea of a limited Government power is at an
end.” In Wickard v. Filburn [317
U.S. 111 (1942)], the Court vastly expanded the reach of Congress via the
Commerce Clause when they sustained the Government’s authority to regulate an
individual farmer’s ability to raise wheat fir his familial use. At least in NFIB, the Court said no,
the Commerce Clause is not an acceptable authority to sustain the individual
mandate of the PPACA. The argument
to use the Commerce Clause as rationale and justification in such cases is the
very root cause of governmental intrusion into our private lives and
affairs. The Court was precisely
correct to reject the use of the Commerce Clause to support the PPACA
individual mandate. It is that
rejection that should overturn Wickard and the myriad of cases that
sustain the abuses of the Controlled Substances Act
[PL 91-513; 84 Stat. 1236, 1242].
The Government has full authority to regulate the interstate
transportation and sale of psychotropic substances, but it has NO authority to
regulate or interfere with the private consumption of such substances. The power to regulate interstate
commerce should have never been utilized to prohibit private conduct, including
not acting in any particular circumstance. If we count the portion of the NFIB decision that argued
the invalidity of the Commerce Clause relative to sustainment of the PPACA, the
ruling was more about that legal challenge than the PPACA itself.
Nonetheless,
the Court affirmed the constitutionality of the PPACA. Now, we must focus on improvement of
PPACA and figuring out how to ensure low-income citizens have access to
adequate health care. We all pay
for the uninsured. The only
question is how best to perform that task. Getting those costs into the sunshine is far better than the
hidden costs of the status quo ante. Let us move on.
News from
the economic front:
-- State-owned Cnooc is the largest offshore oil company by
production in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and reportedly will buy
Canadian oil and gas producer Nexen for US$15.1B in cash, making the deal the largest
overseas energy acquisition to date for the PRC. If the deal is consummated, Cnooc will gain ownership of oil
and gas reserves in western Canada, along with previous acquisitions in the U.K.'s
North Sea, the Gulf of Mexico and offshore Nigeria.
-- The HSBC Purchasing Mangers’ Index (PMI) for the PRC is on
track to rise from 48.2 last month to 49.5 in July, which still would be below
the 50 threshold that indicates growth.
-- The Wall Street
Journal reported their assessment of interviews, speeches and testimony to
Congress of Federal Reserve officials, suggests an impatience with the
economy's sluggish growth and high unemployment, and their willingness to take
new steps to spur activity and hiring. They find the current state of the economy
unacceptable. Don’t we all!
-- The United States Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew at a meager
annual rate of 1.5% between April and June. The GDP contracted from the revised 2% growth rate for 1Q2012
and a 4.1% rate for 4Q2011.
Comments and contributions from Update no.553:
“Would be curious to hear your thoughts on Moyer's
video. I have always been a
proponent of outlawing certain guns.
You have always countered with the (imho) overused statement of
"Guns don't kill people.
People kill people."
Then my counter to that would be over the past 200+ years and more specifically
the last 50 years, we as a People have demonstrated that we're not intelligent
enough to allow guns in our society. Period. What's it going to take for change? More education? FAIL. Do I honestly believe there will be change? No. We're too far imbedded in our own ideologies (the much outdated
2nd Amendment to be specific) for change.
But alas, C'est la vie!”
[Video URL in question:]
My response:
I
appreciate the frustration. Life
is rarely simple, or easily understood.
Like you, I wish there were no bad people and we could all just get
along. Alas, human beings are not
always governed by logic, reason and respect for their fellow mankind. James Holmes could not see human beings
in front of him; he had NO respect for life. We do not yet know his motive(s), but none of them can be
good, rational or justified.
I
trust that your questions were not rhetorical, so I shall treat them as bona
fide queries.
Re:
“What's it going to take for change?”
The answer depends upon the change you seek. If the change you imply is the eradication of all firearms
from civil society, then I am afraid that objective is NOT possible and retain
our freedom. Prohibition of
firearms will be no more successful than our disastrous attempts to prohibit
alcohol, gambling, psychotropic substance consumption, or any other activity
eliciting our moral disapproval.
The change I would advocate for is not prohibition, restriction or
constraint, but rather an invigoration of our communities to care about our
citizens and expose those who do not abide the law. I believe there are always signs (although I do not yet know
what they were in the Holmes case) that are clues to potentially violent or
injurious behavior. The Aurora
massacre is an ugly failure, not unlike a habitual drunk driver who continues
to violate our safety, or the drug-addled criminal bent of finding his next
dose at any cost. Bad things
happen in a free society because freedom tolerates bad people.
Re:
“More education?” Agreed;
FAIL! “Just say no” always has
been a myopic, simplistic, juvenile misadventure, just as “abstinence-only” is
an incredibly lame attempt to control human sexuality. This issue is NOT for the government to
solve; it cannot; it does not have the authority. This one, like all the other social issues, is up to We, the
People. We must decide on conduct
that we can no longer tolerate.
Re:
“Do I honestly believe there will be change?” There will be change, if we debate in earnest and seek the
necessary compromise for solutions to emerge, take root and flourish.
The
fundamental right to privacy and self-defense are the very bedrock of this
Grand Republic. There are no
guarantees of safety and peace, or even that freedom would be pretty and copacetic. Freedom is like marriage; it demands
constant hard work to maintain.
Guns
are inanimate objects no different from rocks, automobiles, airplanes, boats,
bicycles or any other object that can move. It is easy to look at the details of the Aurora massacre, or
Columbine, or all the other bloody events, and say, let’s make assault rifles
illegal, or ban lead-shot for shotguns, or pass laws that only small caliber,
short barrel, six-shot (or less) revolver pistols are tolerable, and all that
will not alter the reality of bad men like James Holmes, Eric Harris, Dylan
Klebold, Buford Furrow, and all the other bad men, obtaining the weapons they
seek to perpetrate their heinous crimes.
I will say and I truly believe that if just one person had possessed a
concealed carry pistol and knew how to use it, the carnage and injury would
have been far less that night.
This debate is not about guns; it is about people and how we interact
with each other. The root cause is
in James Holmes, not the weapons he carried.
So,
lastly, you asked for my thoughts on Bill Moyer’s video essay. I have always admired Moyer’s
craftsmanship with the English language.
He is an accomplished orator and writer. In this instance, I think he is naively and idealistically
misguided, short-sighted and conveniently selective regarding the history of
this Grand Republic. Idealism is a
magnificent intoxicant, but it must be tempered with the reality of the world
we live in. I laud his idealism,
while I condemn his failure to recognize the root cause of bloody events such
as this most recent and not our last.
Presumably, Moyer’s believes Holmes is an inherently good, young man,
who simply went astray because such powerful firearms were legally
obtainable. I fundamentally do NOT
agree. Something went wrong in
Holmes’ brain; that is what we must learn to recognize and defend against.
. . . round two:
“I respect your thoughts and agree with some but there are
few concerns I have.
“I think you give too much credit to the idea of our
communities caring for our citizens and expose those who do not abide the
law. Remember, we are not
smart. We are a selfish People. And most importantly, we are animals by
nature. Furthermore, it only takes
one person (in this case James Holmes) to fall through the cracks. Our communities can't be responsible
for EVERYONES well being. You say
the Moyers opinions are idealistic.
To me, your answer is far more unrealistic.
“I am not saying eradication of all firearms will solve the
problem. But in the same
vain as our ideas of legalizing drugs because the current system is not and
will not work, we advocate to trying something different. Let's legalize everything and see what
happens. Can't hurt to try. The current system with gun control IS
NOT WORKING. Time to try something
new.
“I think what's most unfortunate is that I am now very
seriously considering purchasing a handgun and obtaining a concealed carry license. I hate this idea but I also hate the
idea of not being able to defend myself because some asshole decides he wants
to be a martyr. I succumb to the
idea that nothing will change.
Damn, is Texas wearing off on me?
. . . my response to round two:
Re:
concerns. This is precisely why
public debate is so bloody important.
Vigorous debate in earnest is how workable compromise solutions are
found.
Just
a related FYI: my current opinion regarding legalization / regulation of
psychotropic substances evolved over many years and many energetic debates with
not quite a dozen equally concerned citizens. Truth be told, I supported President Nixon’s signing of the
Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (not that he needed my support), because the
principle seemed correct at the time.
I had no idea of what the law said or how it was to be implemented or
enforced. I learned my lesson the
hard way as a witness to the grotesque governmental abuses of our precious
freedom and unacceptable collateral damage done to our citizenry and other
peoples of the World . . . all because we are morally offended by the choices
another citizen makes.
Re:
communities caring. Perhaps I did
not adequately explain my position.
I am not suggesting some laissez faire, Pollyanna,
can’t-we-all-get-along process. My
suggestion is much closer to a community watch, neighborhood posse, amplification
of police enforcement of public conduct – littering, turnstile jumping,
spitting on the sidewalk, jaywalking, on out to more serious “signs” like
animal abuse, neglecting children, or violent behavior. I have long held the position of a
notional “social police” to bring the gap between law enforcement, social
services, and the unengaged community.
Proof of concept: several communities have fathers rotate through school
watch assignments . . . watching, looking for aggressive conduct, bullying,
intimidation and such; they have been very successful; the fathers have a
vested interest. There were plenty
of signs Dennis Rader was a bad man, but the community looked the other way,
just as another community looked the other way when Catherine Susan ‘Kitty’
Genovese (1964) was murdered in NYC.
If we want guys like Holmes to be stopped before they kill, we cannot
look the other way.
Re:
Moyers. Perhaps I am unrealistic,
but at least I am going after the root cause instead of a symptomatic
tool. We must address the root
cause.
Re:
system. What system do you
suggest? What would you like to
see happen to solve the problem? I
do not want another Aurora, or Columbine, or any other gun crime; two in the
chest, one in the head, would have worked just fine when he popped those
grenades. Aurora threatens my
ability to protect my family; I do not take kindly to such threats. I want my right to keep and bear arms
protected, not restricted or curtailed.
Once again, this has never been about guns; it is about deviant people.
Re:
concealed carry. Texas
indeed! You are not alone. While I have owned firearms all my
adult life, and I am amply trained to use them accurately and properly, I have
yet to get my concealed carry permit.
I have never had to use my skills or a gun in anger, and I hope I never
will; but, if I do, I will not hesitate to achieve a definitive and final
outcome for any assailant.
. . . round three:
“Yes, this is the exact situation none of us ever want to
face. But if it were to happen,
damn straight the idea of having a gun around my ankle is appealing. The real question is how easy do you
think it was for those thugs to obtain their guns? Do you think that if they couldn't go into their local gun shop
and have one sold to them they would have barged in there with knives? I think not. Guns are easy.
Mr. Holmes would not have attempted what he did had it not been for the easily obtainable small
army of guns in his general vicinity.
“I don't have the answer. I like your idea of a community presence but I still feel
that's giving too much credit to our general public. Remember, it only takes one asshole to fall through the
cracks. Maybe the answer IS to
have every citizen armed. Then
criminals would think twice about barging into a convenient store, pawn shop,
theatre, etc.
“I do disagree with your idea that if guns were to be
outlawed it would take away your freedom.
Yes, the 2nd Amendment was made.
But are you saying our founding fathers had the idea based on what is
happening today? No. No way. Are you saying the people of England are not free because
they can't buy a firearm? Is their
country so oppressed because of this fact? It's time to update the Amendment. Some how. Some
way.
“I did find this article which I found interesting. He has a few typos and yes, he uses
humor but he makes some good points.”
[URL for the article:]
. . . my response to
round three:
Re:
weapons. I think you are tickling
the periphery of the real issue.
Holmes clearly had little if any respect for human life. Our focus should be on interceding with
those disturbed individuals who would perpetrate such crimes. Restricting the freedom of 99.9999% of
our citizenry in some lame attempt to deny weapons to a bad person is simply a
non-starter in a free society. I
am not willing to relinquish my freedom to stop a bad man from hurting
people. The reality is, if it was
not guns, it would be explosives; if not explosives, it will be communicable
diseases – someone intent to kill will find the weapon he needs.
Re:
answer. I do not have the answer
either, yet that does not stop me from searching for a compromise solution to
protect the freedom of all citizens while trying to identify the bad people
before they can injure another living soul. My instinct, education and training drives me to find the
root cause and treat that rather than the symptoms or indications. I am perfectly willing and supportive
of the police dealing with criminals and potential criminals, but again the
police simply cannot be everywhere.
We do NOT want them everywhere.
Our obligation as citizens is to help the police localize the bad men so
they can be dealt with by the justice system. We also have a right (I might say obligation as well) to
defend our families and ourselves – the police cannot do it all.
Re:
2nd Amendment. The answer lies in
history. I think the Founders /
Framers recognized / acknowledged / understood the government could not
possibly protect every citizen from bad men, and even that they did not want a
standing army large enough to defend all corners of the new republic. They need a citizen militia and indeed
an armed citizenry capable of being mobilized for the nation’s defense. England did not mature as we did as a
nation. We can argue the history
of various free societies.
Israel and Switzerland are free as well, and virtually every household
has high-powered rifles, automatic weapons and pistols. We are not going to change our history.
Re:
article. I am perfectly willing to
debate anyone on this or any other topic.
Cody clearly does not own a gun or want to own a gun, and he is quite
comfortable entrusting his family’s safety to others. Good for him. I
am not! I am quite comfortable
with his intellectual position. He
has no right whatsoever to dictate his position to me or any other citizen –
that is the essence of this debate.
Comment to the Blog:
“The article from the Wall Street Journal takes a Wall
Street perspective, which leaves it looking a bit distorted out here in Middle
America. First of all, let me say that I empathize with you. People in corner
offices on Wall Street never have to experience the human side of their
decisions, unfortunately. I also agree with your opinion that the majority
favors a moderate position over either extreme. Also, I do not believe that the
Republicans can now seize control of the debate. The author(s) miss the point;
America is losing its respect for the wealthy and beginning to focus on voters’
own well-being. Even if the Journal article writer(s) came closer to the
central issue (good jobs, not Romney’s “success”), the Democrats have presented
compelling images of what Bain Capital means for voters. The Democrats even
have ammo available for Solyndra. Solyndra went under because prices in their
industry fell, which is free-market capitalism at work and is not cronyism.
"Syria reinforces something I have said over and over. Nobody
has achieved peace in the Middle East since the Romans, and they had a lot of
trouble with it. We will not reach that goal either.
"I disagree with your statement that “No gun caused this
crime!” Guns made this crime possible. Nobody on earth could have committed
this atrocity without firearms. Knives, swords, clubs, or other lesser weapons
could not be used to take on hundreds of people. I take no real position on Mr.
Holmes’ punishment, but I will note that the death penalty has no deterrent
effect, particularly on insane people.
"I will note that people at the finance-minister level seem
more concerned with not upsetting the markets than with the crashes that come
from letting them have free rein.
HSBC is ugly but hardly surprising. Corporations exist for
the primary purpose of making money. Expecting them to act on any other motive
is ridiculous. The same goes for Mr. Wasendorf of Peregrine Financial. His goal
was to make money, pure and simple. He still sees anyone who would limit that
as immoral.
"My contribution to the weather discussion is that we are
having rain today here in Ohio, USA, and we celebrate this. Endless strings of
sunny days add up to drought and the heat has been oppressive for six weeks.
There is indeed a cycle of warming and cooling in Earth’s history, but it is
going dramatically faster than ever before, except during the mass extinction
believed to have been caused by an asteroid. Someone’s jury may still be out on
this question, but you need to investigate the sources of disagreement.
Mainstream scientific sources no longer debate whether climate change is under
way, although estimates of the severity of the results keep rising.
"The Governor of the Bank of England, Sir Mervyn King, has
shown signs of good sense and far-sightedness. We may hope that he can reform
the LIBOR situation and have some influence on banking in general."
My reply to the Blog:
Re:
Bain v. Solyndra. Good
observations. Whether Solyndra
involved cronyism based on some quid pro quo, I do not know, and we may never
know given Citizens United; nonetheless, cronyism is certainly how the
Republicans have tried to paint it.
Re:
Syria. I would have no problem
leaving them alone to slog it out to the bloody end, if we could only wall-off
the country to preclude collateral damage. That is not possible.
I also think John McCain drove the nail with one strike when he said the
principal concern is the potential for Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile
falling into the hands of al-Qa’ida or Hezbollah. As it has been from the beginning of Islamo-fascism, our
national interest is the exportation of their violence.
Re:
guns. You are not alone in your
view; yet, I shall respectfully disagree.
Yes, the gun amplifies the violent intent of the perpetrator, but it
does not create the disrespect for human life in the heart of the assailant
that is the real root cause. The
gun is simply an implement.
Further, the notion of disarmament only affects peace-loving,
law-abiding citizens; it has no effect on the criminal.
Re:
death penalty. Deterrent or not,
it is an appropriate punishment for crimes of this nature. Guys like Holmes do not deserve our
mercy.
Re:
finance minister level. Spot
on. Yet, I am thankful they are
concerned about the markets. My
worry is they may be penny-wise, pound-foolish.
Re:
HSBC. Correct; their conduct is
certainly no surprise. Bankers are
all flawed, weak men who have proven time and again they are incapable of
moderation or policing themselves.
Re:
Wasendorf. You may well be correct
in this case; he may not see his fraud and embezzlement as the felonious crimes
they are. At least Bernie admitted
his wrong-doing. Nonetheless, he
will eventually feel the consequences of his transgression regardless of who he
blames.
Re:
climate change. I am not debating
whether the Earth’s weather cycles, only whether it is man-induced. The hypothesis has always seemed rather
presumptuous and self-aggrandizing to me.
Again, regardless of the causes, weaning ourselves off fossil fuels is a
necessity whether it contributes to climate change or not.
Re:
Sir Mervyn. Unfortunately, I
suspect he is more culpable than publicly acknowledged so far. However, banking reform is warranted.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
