Update no.554

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:

Subject: Bill Moyers NRA video

From: tloe@austin.rr.com

Date: Tue, July 24, 2012 12:39 pm

To: cap@parlier.com

Dad,

“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:]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/bill-moyers-nra-enabler-of-death-colorado-shootings_n_1695658.html?utm_hp_ref=media

My response:

Tyson,

            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.

“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

Love,

Dad            :-)

 . . . 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.

“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

Back to you . . .

Love,

Dad           :-)

 . . . 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:]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments-against-gun-control/

. . . my response to round three:

Tyson,

            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:

Calvin,

            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.

   “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

Cheers,

Cap

My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                 :-)