links for 2011-01-19

1. I think that providing care to all Americans is a good thing. However, if the government can force us to by health insurance, or force us to pay a “tax” for not doing so, what is the limitation for that power? Will I have to buy a Chevy Volt to keep that program going? And if the limiting factor is that it’s health care and everyone needs it eventually, how is that different from food or water? If you think that I’m just being a paranoid crank, review the history of Commerce Clause litigation. The story is one of ever-broadening scope of what Congress can regulate (and require) – often leading to improvement in the health and welfare of citizenry, I grant you.

   I believe we should take expansion of federal power seriously – and not simply being for it or against it – but to really figure out what the trade offs could be. As I said, I generally favor the aims of the ACA, I’m just not certain that the means of achieving them are acceptable.

2. “If the government can force us to by health insurance, or force us to pay a “tax” for not doing so, what is the limitation for that power?”

   (This is not directed at DGL specifically, ’cause I don’t know where you’re coming from, but more towards this line of reasoning on the right in general.)

   Where were all of you people before now, claiming that the tax break home loan recipients get is such an incredible infraction on the constitution? The tax code is built so that those of us who rent are being penalized to encourage us to buy homes, even at the height of the housing bubble. It’s awful policy, and by the right-wing rhetoric floating around, it’s been violating the commerce clause for a lot longer than the healthcare law.

   Not to mention, I find all the fretting over constitutionality of the healthcare mandate to be kind of… sickening given the gung-ho attitude most people have about the destruction of due process and the first and fourth amendments in pursuit of War on Terror. It’s like someone finding religion on their death-bed, but only the fag-hating, sinner-punishing, they’re-going-to-heaven bits. Only I don’t have to pretend that I think the founding fathers love you because of it.

   Let me know when the right gets serious about the constitution — not only the parts they like — and I’ll start giving them more consideration on their constitutional arguments commerce clause.

   And yeah, of course the left has its problems about the commerce clause and the second amendment as well. I’d love more people to take this stuff seriously. I’m only singling out the right for the incredible gap between the lip service they give the constitution and their actual amazing disregard for it in general (again — much like their religious beliefs).

3. I’m no fan of the war on terror (or the war on drugs, for that matter), and will concede that there are flaws to various tax policies in this country. I don’t consider myself particularly conservative or liberal. I’m rather pragmatic.

   I agree that the right invokes or ignores the constitution when it suits them to do so, but the left is not immune to that either. That said, focusing on the shortcomings of the parties doesn’t really help answer the questions we should be asking (no snark intended, there).

4. While it would be good to get unneeded directories off the streets, until the phone companies are willing to provide high-speed data access to everyone they serve they should be required to print the directories. Give folks the ability to drop out – if you don’t want one, you shouldn’t have to have one – but for us folks in the disconnected parts of this area the phone book is still essential.

5. DGL,

   So, I am still interested, why do you believe that the health care mandate, which would make me pay a couple hundred dollars a year for failing to buy health insurance, is unconstitutional, while the tax break for buying a house with a loan, which costs me thousands of dollars a year in taxes, is not? Or, if you believe that violates the commerce clause too, that’d be interesting to hear.

6. I don’t think that the mortgage interest deduction is unconstitutional since Congress justifies its existence using their taxing power. Historically, the Court has interpreted this power rather broadly. And, if the Congress had characterized the health care mandate as a tax (which some argue it really is and would like its constitutionality as a tax ruled on by the Court), I think it would be an easy answer. That said, you may argue that the mortgage interest deduction is bad public policy and there are lots of reasons you would be on sound footing to say so. But that’s a matter of policy and not Constitutional jurisprudence.

   As for the health insurance mandate, as I said, I think it’s arguably unconstitutional because Congress is justifying its passage using its power to regulate interstate Commerce. But it’s hard to see how that could be upheld when the behavior in question is a non-action that doesn’t effect commerce. At least not obviously.

7. So the issue is purely semantic? If we call it a tax and justify it under the congress’ taxing power, it’s not a problem, even if it works entirely the same way?

   If so, I think this seems like an entirely defensible position, though a pedantic one. The courts’ view of the commerce clause in the last century leads me to believe they’ll have no problem with it, since the mandate is there for entirely commercial purposes (to include healthy people in the risk pool as well as unhealthy people), but I’ll be interested to see how they actually rule.

8. Well, no. Whether you call it a tax or a regulation of commerce matters because the Constitutional scope and ends of the powers are different. And in this case, the Adminstration is playing a bit of a Constitutional shell game. In the run up to the vote, and in oral arguments in front of courts, the justification was the regulation of commerce. If they had called it a tax before the vote, it would not have been likely to pass either the house or the senate. After the fact, the Admin has been calling it a tax (which was their alternative argument in the Virginia case; and, in truth, it seems to me to be set up like a tax, but what I don’t know about tax law is a lot). But that kind of sleight of hand – calling it a tax in court, but not before a vote because it’s too risky, is EXACTLY why words matter. The Admin can’t have it both ways. That’s in essence what the Virginia judge said as well. The Constitution is a document limiting government power. Therefore, exercises of that power must be justified and justified consistently. As I said, neither side of the aisle is immune to this kind of game, but when we stop asking the questions and reacting instead to who did what first, we’ve pretty much left any kind of a check on government and are in pure political mumbo jumbo.

   I’ll stop now as I think we’ve come full circle. Thanks for letting the discourse proceed, Mr. J.

9. Totally in favor of vastly reduced production of phone books based on request. I haven’t had a land line for 7 years and probably don’t refer to a phone book twice a year. I suspect this is the case for millions of people. Every year when I find a new one on my door step, I consider the enormous waste.

   As for the Internet emotions, guilty of, and mortified by every one. Guilty at this very moment for having taken about 10 minutes to consider the two inane sentences in this paragraph.

   Great stuff again, Waldo.

10. about once every six months, a woman comes into my place of business to drop off somewhere between 7 and 10 (identical) phone books. I’ve tried to get her to stop doing this, but clearly she’s not actually an employee of the phone company, just some poor schmoe being paid a minimum hourly wage to hand out their phone books. usually I keep 1 and give the rest to one of my employees to use as firewood.

11. There were originally four Minnesotans working on Oregon Trail, but one of them died of dysentery exactly half way through the code.

12. Oregon Trail: The Movie!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHps2SecuDk

Comments are closed.