It had to happen. Someone was going to declare a 'mandate'. Never mind that Ms Clinton actually won the popular vote. After all we are now officially in Trumplandia and reality or facts just do not matter.
There was a brief period during the last two days when I thought that perhaps there were enough adults in Congress that actually believe in American values that there might be some hope for government. Of course, it was an entirely vain hope not supported by recent history.
Here's a thought, how about during the 2018 elections we think about doing what we failed to do this time and actually elect a Congress that can govern based on some sense of reality and rational thought.
With a nod to Thomas Paine, Baron d'Holbach, and "Captain Obvious" perspectives on what should be, but remarkably often isn't, obvious common sense.
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Thursday, November 10, 2016
The Unchange Election
We elected Mr Trump. That election is largely viewed as a rejection of the existing political order, as a vote for change.
Personally, I completely agree that it is time for real change in government. But here's the thing,
Personally, I completely agree that it is time for real change in government. But here's the thing,
WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY CHANGE THE PART THAT MATTERED!We left in place the part of government that is actually responsible for the laws under which government operates.
Pick an issue. Any issue. Now ask yourself the simple obvious question, "What has CONGRESS done to address that issue?" If your answer is nothing or the wrong thing they next time you get to vote for Congress try voting for someone else to represent you.
Just a thought.
Media Fail
I was listening this mourning to PBS News Hour as it discussed the 2016 election. Part of that discussion addressed media failings. The consensus was that the media didn't do a good job of examining the disaffection that lead to Mr Trump's election. In that regard I offer the following observations.
So here's a thought; take a minute and read a bit about how Congress actually works. Here are some useful references:
- First, it's true. The main stream media did not understand or cover just how disaffected much of the country is with politics. For some time I have believed that Mr Sanders and Mr Trump are two sides of the common disaffection that the majority of citizens feel with government. Mr Trump harvested that disaffection with telling us who to blame. Mr Sanders addressed it with real proposals for what to do. It seems that it is far easier for most of us to decide who to blame than to actually engage real problems with real solutions. While entirely understandable, even predictable, it is a sad commentary of the state of America.
- Second, while true, that failure is entirely irrelevant. The real important failures are entirely elsewhere. The media, political parties, and common thinking continue to promote the absurd notion that the President some how runs the country. That notion is not simply untrue in that it distracts us from the way government really works! Congress, not the President, is responsible for making laws! It's just that simple. If you want good government, if you want a real problem addressed, then it is Congress and law that matters far more than the President. Want to get big money out of politics? That requires Congress to act. Want to do something about skyrocketing medical cost? That requires Congress to act. Want to do something about global warming? It's Congress! Most of us do not understand this simple civics truth. To paraphrase that old saw, IT'S CONGRESS STUPID! The media has failed because it treated an election where all of the House and much of the Senate was up for reelection as though it was a contest between two people representing a red team and a blue team. It simply wasn't!
So here's a thought; take a minute and read a bit about how Congress actually works. Here are some useful references:
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Congressional Follies - No budget, no pay?
Now there's a proposal floating around the House, remember the House is controlled by the Republican right, that suggest raising the nations debt ceiling for 3 months. Under the terms of this proposal, if Congress hasn't passed a budget in that time then Congress wouldn't get paid.
It seems like a fair idea. Congress, over the years, has created the fiscal issues facing the country. The ongoing Congressional follies have so offended voters that something around 80% have a negative opinion of congress. Not paying employees that are not doing their job seems like a fairly good idea. Actually firing them seems to Common Sense like a better idea, but sadly that's not on the table.
But is not paying Congress a good idea?
For openers, there is a problem with the proposal's violation of the 27th amendment. There might be a typically Congressional way around that issue using sequestration of pay and arguing that since the money is held in escrow the 27th amendment doesn't apply. That sort of begs the question. Is Congress doing their job playing games like this?
There's the reality that the Senate has a long history of not passing budgets. Life, and spending, goes on without budgets generally through the mechanism of continuing resolutions that roughly say everyone just keep spending like you've been. The simple reality is that lack of a budget doesn't in any way effect spending!
There's the reality that Congress can, and generally does, spend money absent a budget. Really. A budget is just that. It doesn't actually spend any money. Individual spending bills are where the money really gets spent. Here it should be noted, that spending bills need not, and frequently do not, conform to budgets. So the proposal to a significant degree just sets up a political fight without actually dealing with the reality of spending vs income, read taxes.
There's the reality that the debt ceiling has nothing to do with spending. The authorization for spending has already happened and the money has already been spent. The debt ceiling is really about allowing us to pay our bills (after all we are the government). Here, Common Sense supposes, not paying Congress might make some sense excepting that the bill requires Congressional pay be held in escrow so the Congressional pay actually will get spent!
There's the reality that the proposal holds individual members of Congress hostage to the Congressional leadership's idea of what the budget should be. Note here that individual members of Congress while they get to vote on the budget don't actually get to create the budget. Rather the budget is the creation of Congressional leadership and various Congressional committees whose chairpersons and members are appointed by the Congressional leadership. Holding Congress hostage to it's leadership is certainly not democratic.
All things considered, this latest episode of the Congressional Follies is just, sadly, more of the same. Lets go have another political fight that means nothing and does nothing to solve the problem.
Here's an alternate common sense proposal, if the House and Senate can't deal with spending and taxes by the 90 days they want to allow themselves, they are all bared from any future elected or paid role in federal, state, or local government and are bared from being employed by any entity doing business with any government entity. The notion is that they would have to actually have a job like most Americans. We'd still have to put up with the Congressional Follies for another couple of years but perhaps with a different set of employees we might actually get a Congress that is interested in actually dealing with the countries problems and not so much interested in political follies.
It seems like a fair idea. Congress, over the years, has created the fiscal issues facing the country. The ongoing Congressional follies have so offended voters that something around 80% have a negative opinion of congress. Not paying employees that are not doing their job seems like a fairly good idea. Actually firing them seems to Common Sense like a better idea, but sadly that's not on the table.
But is not paying Congress a good idea?
For openers, there is a problem with the proposal's violation of the 27th amendment. There might be a typically Congressional way around that issue using sequestration of pay and arguing that since the money is held in escrow the 27th amendment doesn't apply. That sort of begs the question. Is Congress doing their job playing games like this?
There's the reality that the Senate has a long history of not passing budgets. Life, and spending, goes on without budgets generally through the mechanism of continuing resolutions that roughly say everyone just keep spending like you've been. The simple reality is that lack of a budget doesn't in any way effect spending!
There's the reality that Congress can, and generally does, spend money absent a budget. Really. A budget is just that. It doesn't actually spend any money. Individual spending bills are where the money really gets spent. Here it should be noted, that spending bills need not, and frequently do not, conform to budgets. So the proposal to a significant degree just sets up a political fight without actually dealing with the reality of spending vs income, read taxes.
There's the reality that the debt ceiling has nothing to do with spending. The authorization for spending has already happened and the money has already been spent. The debt ceiling is really about allowing us to pay our bills (after all we are the government). Here, Common Sense supposes, not paying Congress might make some sense excepting that the bill requires Congressional pay be held in escrow so the Congressional pay actually will get spent!
There's the reality that the proposal holds individual members of Congress hostage to the Congressional leadership's idea of what the budget should be. Note here that individual members of Congress while they get to vote on the budget don't actually get to create the budget. Rather the budget is the creation of Congressional leadership and various Congressional committees whose chairpersons and members are appointed by the Congressional leadership. Holding Congress hostage to it's leadership is certainly not democratic.
All things considered, this latest episode of the Congressional Follies is just, sadly, more of the same. Lets go have another political fight that means nothing and does nothing to solve the problem.
Here's an alternate common sense proposal, if the House and Senate can't deal with spending and taxes by the 90 days they want to allow themselves, they are all bared from any future elected or paid role in federal, state, or local government and are bared from being employed by any entity doing business with any government entity. The notion is that they would have to actually have a job like most Americans. We'd still have to put up with the Congressional Follies for another couple of years but perhaps with a different set of employees we might actually get a Congress that is interested in actually dealing with the countries problems and not so much interested in political follies.
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Senator Bernie Sanders, VT, and some common sense on corporate taxes
I'll admit it, Common Sense is a fan of Senator Bernie Sanders and his, well, common sense approach to government. Here's an interesting fact sheet from Bernie that should be required reading in the next act of the Congressional Follies.
Corporations Must Pay Their Fair Share
Today corporate profits are at an all-time high, while corporate income tax
revenue as a percentage of GDP is near a record low.
In 1952, 32% of all of the revenue generated in this country came from large
corporations. Today, just 9% of federal revenue comes from corporate
America.
At 1.6%, corporate revenue as a percentage of GDP is lower than any other
major country in the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development) including Britain, Germany, France, Japan, Canada, Norway,
Australia, South Korea, Switzerland, Norway, Italy, Ireland, Poland, and
Iceland.
In 2011, corporations paid just 12 percent of their profits in taxes, the lowest
since 1972.
In 2005, 1 out of 4 large corporations paid no income taxes at all even
though they collected $1.1 trillion in revenue over that one year period.
Large corporations and the wealthy are avoiding more than $100 billion in
taxes every year by setting up offshore tax shelters in places like the Cayman
Islands, Bermuda and the Bahamas.
In 2009, Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits. Not only did they not pay
any federal income taxes, they actually received a $157 million rebate from
the IRS.
In 2010, Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS,
even though it made $4.4 billion in profits. Bank of America operated 371
subsidiaries in offshore tax havens in 2010. 204 of these subsidiaries are
incorporated in the Cayman Islands, which has a corporate tax rate of 0%.
At 15.7%, revenue as a percentage of GDP is at or near the lowest level in
sixty years.
'via Blog this'
Corporations Must Pay Their Fair Share
Today corporate profits are at an all-time high, while corporate income tax
revenue as a percentage of GDP is near a record low.
In 1952, 32% of all of the revenue generated in this country came from large
corporations. Today, just 9% of federal revenue comes from corporate
America.
At 1.6%, corporate revenue as a percentage of GDP is lower than any other
major country in the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development) including Britain, Germany, France, Japan, Canada, Norway,
Australia, South Korea, Switzerland, Norway, Italy, Ireland, Poland, and
Iceland.
In 2011, corporations paid just 12 percent of their profits in taxes, the lowest
since 1972.
In 2005, 1 out of 4 large corporations paid no income taxes at all even
though they collected $1.1 trillion in revenue over that one year period.
Large corporations and the wealthy are avoiding more than $100 billion in
taxes every year by setting up offshore tax shelters in places like the Cayman
Islands, Bermuda and the Bahamas.
In 2009, Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits. Not only did they not pay
any federal income taxes, they actually received a $157 million rebate from
the IRS.
In 2010, Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS,
even though it made $4.4 billion in profits. Bank of America operated 371
subsidiaries in offshore tax havens in 2010. 204 of these subsidiaries are
incorporated in the Cayman Islands, which has a corporate tax rate of 0%.
At 15.7%, revenue as a percentage of GDP is at or near the lowest level in
sixty years.
'via Blog this'
Monday, July 2, 2012
When ideological purity trumps common sense
Republicans’ repeal push: Is it the right move? - The Washington Post:
Florida says no to two U.S. healthcare law features | Reuters:
And so the games begin. Lets try some common sense.
Mitt Romney, the man who would be president, who believed in the principal provisions of the Affordable Care Act when he was governor of Massachusetts, now believes that these are, and here I'll quote Mr. Romney, "bad law." Curious that and certainly not common sense.
John Boehner and Mitch McConnell want to repeal the law in its entirety. Thus it follows that they object to elements of the law that prohibit insurance company abuses involving preexisting conditions, insurance cancellation if you become sick, extended coverage for minors, insurance exchanges so those who must buy their own insurance can get a better price. Clearly the ideology of the radical right trumps what is good for United States citizens. Certainly not common sense.
Radical right wing ideology extends to governor's offices, at least in Florida, Wisconsin, and Louisiana all of whom object to extending medical care for the poor and setting up insurance exchanges.
In the matter of Medicare the choice is simple, we can provide Medicare insurance to the poor so they are less sick less often or, as the governors seem to believe, we can allow them to become more sick, more often, and then go to Hospitals, the most expensive form of medical care where the cost is ultimately covered by the cost of insurance on everyone else. Certainly not common sense.
The nonsense with insurance exchanges is equally wrong headed, aka just plain dumb. By not setting up exchanges these governors require citizens without employer provided insurance to buy as individuals. Such insurance is, and here I speak from my own experience, much more expensive and consequentially leads many to become uninsured. The result is as above, more sick, more often, care in much more expensive hospital settings, cost born by everyone else. Certainly not common sense.
Ideological purity leads to bad government. It's time for Congress and Governors alike to look to the "general welfare" of United States citizens. That's one of the principals of our form of government. That's just common sense.
“I will act to repeal Obamacare,” said former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney on Friday.
“We will not flinch from our resolve to make sure this law is repealed in its entirety,” House Speaker John Boehner said Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation”.
“If I’m the leader of the majority next year, I commit to the American people that the repeal of Obamacare will be job one,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) on “Fox News Sunday”.
Florida says no to two U.S. healthcare law features | Reuters:
(Reuters) - Florida will not implement two provisions of the U.S. healthcare law involving an expansion of Medicaid for the poor and creation of a private insurance exchange, Governor Rick Scott said on Sunday.
Two other states with Republican governors, Wisconsin and Louisiana, opted out of the two provisions last week in the wake of the Supreme Court decision upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
And so the games begin. Lets try some common sense.
Mitt Romney, the man who would be president, who believed in the principal provisions of the Affordable Care Act when he was governor of Massachusetts, now believes that these are, and here I'll quote Mr. Romney, "bad law." Curious that and certainly not common sense.
John Boehner and Mitch McConnell want to repeal the law in its entirety. Thus it follows that they object to elements of the law that prohibit insurance company abuses involving preexisting conditions, insurance cancellation if you become sick, extended coverage for minors, insurance exchanges so those who must buy their own insurance can get a better price. Clearly the ideology of the radical right trumps what is good for United States citizens. Certainly not common sense.
Radical right wing ideology extends to governor's offices, at least in Florida, Wisconsin, and Louisiana all of whom object to extending medical care for the poor and setting up insurance exchanges.
In the matter of Medicare the choice is simple, we can provide Medicare insurance to the poor so they are less sick less often or, as the governors seem to believe, we can allow them to become more sick, more often, and then go to Hospitals, the most expensive form of medical care where the cost is ultimately covered by the cost of insurance on everyone else. Certainly not common sense.
The nonsense with insurance exchanges is equally wrong headed, aka just plain dumb. By not setting up exchanges these governors require citizens without employer provided insurance to buy as individuals. Such insurance is, and here I speak from my own experience, much more expensive and consequentially leads many to become uninsured. The result is as above, more sick, more often, care in much more expensive hospital settings, cost born by everyone else. Certainly not common sense.
Ideological purity leads to bad government. It's time for Congress and Governors alike to look to the "general welfare" of United States citizens. That's one of the principals of our form of government. That's just common sense.
Friday, April 13, 2012
US Supreme Court and Health Care
The Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare is under review by the US Supreme Court. The case was brought by 26 states and a number of private parties. While the challenges vary in detail, the central issue is the law's provision that requires individuals to purchase health insurance. The say the least, the law is controversial. Herewith some facts and common sense.
What is the law
Herewith the principal provisions of the law from Wikipedia:
Why health care reform
Any rational consideration of health care reform needs to address the base issue of why should the government get involved in health care. There are several reasons supporting this involvement.
The first and arguably most compelling from a cost point of view is that the government is already the dominant health care payer. US health care spending in 2010 was some $2.6 trillion, 17.9% of the US GDP. In 2011 federal spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) was 21% of federal spending, some $769 billion. Wikipedia says that 60-65% of all health care spending is government funded. Absent effective reform future government health care spending will increase and continue to be a major contributor to federal deficits.
In addition various federal and state laws require certain health care providers, notably hospitals, to provide health care services independent of the recipients ability to pay. Other government programs regulate drugs, treatment technology, and services. In addition to being the largest payer for health care, government is the principal health care regulator.
US per-capita health care spending is over twice that of other first world nations yet key measures of health in the US are lower, often far lower than other nations. The WHO ranks the US health care system as 37th in overall performance despite being highest in cost.
Clearly, the current US health care system is seriously broken. Common Sense believes that notwithstanding any arguments of private sector v. public sector efficiency, the current system's inability to deliver reasonable health care results at a reasonable cost is undeniable.
Issues before the Supreme Court
Much, most of it stunningly self serving and distorted, has been said about support for the law. The facts are that general support and opposition are fairly evenly divided with significant numbers of Americans undecided.
Other polls vary.
Clearly, the central support issue is the individual mandate/penalty. Just as clearly support is sharply divided along political parties.
Conservative principles and health care
Conservative principles would argue for a free market approach to health care. Historically, the US has had a free market health care system with a mix of profit and not-for-profit hospitals and for-profit insurers. Obamacare preserves this system. It does have provisions that regulate insurers. These provisions have broad support. To fund these provisions it establishes an individual mandate/penalty.
Common Sense notes that this is, in fact, a generally conservative approach, at least in so far as profit making hospitals and insurers remain at the heart of the system. This is in sharp contrast to single payer models common in much of the industrialized world.
Where conservatives find issue is the individual mandate/penalty. They see it as an intrusion by the federal government in individual rights and a violation of the Constitution's Commerce Clause.
Common Sense notes that an alternative would be a single payer system. Such a system would be based on existing principles that allow medicare/medicaid and the federal government's ability to tax. Of course, the history of Obamacare and other health care reforms strongly suggests that conservatives would find this equally unacceptable. The US would be forced to continue using a health care system that is both expensive and ineffective to the point of jeopardize the entire economy.
The commerce clause
At the heart of the constitutional questions before the court is the commerce clause as interpreted by the courts. The commerce clause is one of the enumerated powers in the constitution. It states simply
It is reasonable to say that the commerce clause is one of the most hotly debated clauses in the constitution.
The Commerce Clause and the Individual Mandate
The Individual Mandate provision is the commerce clause issue before the court. Various lower federal courts have either dodged the issue or decided differently from one another. While much has been written about the issue at root the central question is does an individual decision to NOT purchase health insurance constitute commerce. The federal government argues that it does. Opponents argue that it doesn't. Intimately connected to this issue is the question of what limits the scope of the commerce clause. Given the history of the Commerce Clause litigation it is nearly impossible to predict what the Supreme Court will decide.
Severability
Obamacare contains many provisions beyond the individual mandate. Opponents of the law argue that absent the individual mandate the other provisions must fall. Proponents argue that they should stand. Common Sense notes that where similar laws exist without an individual mandate health insurance premiums have skyrocketed largely because of preexisting condition provision.
Common Sense and Obamacare
Common Sense believes unequivocally that health care reform is necessary. Further that absent such reform health care cost are likely unsustainable. That is not to say that Obamacare is good law. Common Sense believes that it is not on the argument that it does not in fact address the issue of health care cost or does it do much to address the issue of health care results. What it does do is address the issue of mandated treatment v. cost by the individual mandate and to address some of the most egregious health insurance practices.
What is the law
Herewith the principal provisions of the law from Wikipedia:
Common Sense wonders if those making the most noise about this law actually know what it provides.
- Guaranteed issue and partial community rating will require insurers to offer the same premium to all applicants of the same age and geographical location without regard to most pre-existing conditions (excluding tobacco use).[18]
- A shared responsibility requirement, commonly called an individual mandate,[19] requires that all persons not covered by anemployer sponsored health plan, Medicaid, Medicare or other public insurance programs, purchase and comply with an approved private insurance policy or pay a penalty, unless the applicable individual is a member of a recognized religious sect exempted by the Internal Revenue Service, or waived in cases of financial hardship.[20]
- Medicaid eligibility is expanded to include all individuals and families with incomes up to 133% of the poverty level along with a simplified CHIP enrollment process.[21][22]
- Health insurance exchanges will commence operation in each state, offering a marketplace where individuals and small businesses can compare policies and premiums, and buy insurance (with a government subsidy if eligible).[23]
- Low income persons and families above the Medicaid level and up to 400% of the federal poverty level will receive federal subsidies[24] on a sliding scale if they choose to purchase insurance via an exchange (persons at 150% of the poverty level would be subsidized such that their premium cost would be of 2% of income or $50 a month for a family of 4).[25]
- Minimum standards for health insurance policies are to be established and annual and lifetime coverage caps will be banned.[26]
- Firms employing 50 or more people but not offering health insurance will also pay a shared responsibility requirement if the government has had to subsidize an employee's health care.[27]
- Very small businesses will be able to get subsidies if they purchase insurance through an exchange.[28]
- Co-payments, co-insurance, and deductibles are to be eliminated for select health care insurance benefits considered to be part of an "essential benefits package"[29] for Level A or Level B preventive care.[30]
- Changes are enacted that allow a restructuring of Medicare reimbursement from "fee-for-service" to "bundled payments."[31][32]
- Additional support is provided for medical research and the National Institutes of Health.[33]
Why health care reform
Any rational consideration of health care reform needs to address the base issue of why should the government get involved in health care. There are several reasons supporting this involvement.
The first and arguably most compelling from a cost point of view is that the government is already the dominant health care payer. US health care spending in 2010 was some $2.6 trillion, 17.9% of the US GDP. In 2011 federal spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) was 21% of federal spending, some $769 billion. Wikipedia says that 60-65% of all health care spending is government funded. Absent effective reform future government health care spending will increase and continue to be a major contributor to federal deficits.
In addition various federal and state laws require certain health care providers, notably hospitals, to provide health care services independent of the recipients ability to pay. Other government programs regulate drugs, treatment technology, and services. In addition to being the largest payer for health care, government is the principal health care regulator.
US per-capita health care spending is over twice that of other first world nations yet key measures of health in the US are lower, often far lower than other nations. The WHO ranks the US health care system as 37th in overall performance despite being highest in cost.
Clearly, the current US health care system is seriously broken. Common Sense believes that notwithstanding any arguments of private sector v. public sector efficiency, the current system's inability to deliver reasonable health care results at a reasonable cost is undeniable.
Issues before the Supreme Court
The Court has scheduled an unusual three days of hearings on the law addressing the following issues:
- Does the Tax Anti-Injunction Act apply to that portion of the law requiring all consumers to buy health insurance or pay a fine. If it's a fine then the Court can rule on the law soon. If it's a tax, then the court must wait until 2015 this portion of the law.
- Did Congress overstep its bounds by including the individual mandate itself in the law. This question hinges on the Commerce Clause of the constitution.
- Can the rest of the law stand if the individual mandate is deemed unconstitutional. Many argue that the premise of the law rest on requiring all consumers to buy health insurance to pay for the other previsions of the law.
Common Sense notes that only one provision of the law proper is before the court, the individual mandate. Other provisions of the law are only at issue as a consequence of the severability argument.
Support for the lawMuch, most of it stunningly self serving and distorted, has been said about support for the law. The facts are that general support and opposition are fairly evenly divided with significant numbers of Americans undecided.
Other polls vary.
Interestingly, support for most provisions of the law is generally high with the individual mandate/penalty the notable exception.
Clearly, the central support issue is the individual mandate/penalty. Just as clearly support is sharply divided along political parties.
Conservative principles and health care
Conservative principles would argue for a free market approach to health care. Historically, the US has had a free market health care system with a mix of profit and not-for-profit hospitals and for-profit insurers. Obamacare preserves this system. It does have provisions that regulate insurers. These provisions have broad support. To fund these provisions it establishes an individual mandate/penalty.
Common Sense notes that this is, in fact, a generally conservative approach, at least in so far as profit making hospitals and insurers remain at the heart of the system. This is in sharp contrast to single payer models common in much of the industrialized world.
Where conservatives find issue is the individual mandate/penalty. They see it as an intrusion by the federal government in individual rights and a violation of the Constitution's Commerce Clause.
Common Sense notes that an alternative would be a single payer system. Such a system would be based on existing principles that allow medicare/medicaid and the federal government's ability to tax. Of course, the history of Obamacare and other health care reforms strongly suggests that conservatives would find this equally unacceptable. The US would be forced to continue using a health care system that is both expensive and ineffective to the point of jeopardize the entire economy.
The commerce clause
At the heart of the constitutional questions before the court is the commerce clause as interpreted by the courts. The commerce clause is one of the enumerated powers in the constitution. It states simply
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;The clause has been the subject of at least 46 historic supreme court cases and as interpreted by the courts has served as the legal basis for among other things
- federal regulation of in-state industrial production,
- federal regulation of worker hours and wages
- federal regulation of state activity when it has a "substantial economic effect" on interstate commerce or if the "cumulative effect" could have such an effect
- federal Civil Rights acts outlawing segregation and prohibited discrimination
There are some noteworthy limits on what is permissible under the Commerce Clause. In particular Lopez v. United States. 514 U.S. 549 (1995) that struck down the federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 and Morrison v. United States which overturned the Violence Against Women Act. Taken together, Lopez and Morrison have made clear that while the Court is still willing to recognize a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, if it does not find activity substantial enough to constitute interstate commerce it will not accept Congress's stated reason for federal regulation.
The Commerce Clause and the Individual Mandate
The Individual Mandate provision is the commerce clause issue before the court. Various lower federal courts have either dodged the issue or decided differently from one another. While much has been written about the issue at root the central question is does an individual decision to NOT purchase health insurance constitute commerce. The federal government argues that it does. Opponents argue that it doesn't. Intimately connected to this issue is the question of what limits the scope of the commerce clause. Given the history of the Commerce Clause litigation it is nearly impossible to predict what the Supreme Court will decide.
Severability
Obamacare contains many provisions beyond the individual mandate. Opponents of the law argue that absent the individual mandate the other provisions must fall. Proponents argue that they should stand. Common Sense notes that where similar laws exist without an individual mandate health insurance premiums have skyrocketed largely because of preexisting condition provision.
Common Sense and Obamacare
Common Sense believes unequivocally that health care reform is necessary. Further that absent such reform health care cost are likely unsustainable. That is not to say that Obamacare is good law. Common Sense believes that it is not on the argument that it does not in fact address the issue of health care cost or does it do much to address the issue of health care results. What it does do is address the issue of mandated treatment v. cost by the individual mandate and to address some of the most egregious health insurance practices.
Related articles
Thursday, February 23, 2012
What does a congressman's vote cost: Scott Brown
Looking at the data on Maplight (data on campaign contributions by company/industry organized by congressman and vote) got me wondering - What does a congressman's vote cost? Maplight provides data on individual congressmen and votes correlated with campaign contributions made shortly before or after the vote. Separately I've been interested in the Senate race between Scott Brown (R-Ma) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Ma). Here's an analysis of Mr. Brown's votes:
While it is not true that voting consistent with your contributor's opinion is corrupt on its face it is none the less alarming when a senator ostensibly elected to represent the interest of the electorate in his senate district votes almost 78% of the time following the wishes of campaign contributors.
Mr. Brown is not alone in this behavior. Here's an analysis of Joe Liberman (I-Ct):
And here's Jeanne Shaheen (D-Nh):
A couple of things seem apparent. While the effect campaign contributions have on senators votes, those contributions clearly DO effect votes. Congress has clearly been bought. Surprisingly, the cost for a vote is rather low, just a bit more than $1000 on average! Just a little money seems to go a long way. This kind of corruption is independent of political party. While Common Sense didn't look at all congressmen voting behavior was completely consistent among the congressmen analyzed.
If Congress is to represent the electorate it is clearly necessary to get special interest money out of politics. That's just common sense.
| Votes | 439 | |
| Vote follows opinion of contributor | 342 | |
| % matching contributor | 77.90% | |
| Total $ matching contributor | $373,428 | |
| $/matching contributor | $1,092 | |
Mr. Brown is not alone in this behavior. Here's an analysis of Joe Liberman (I-Ct):
| Votes | 361 |
| Vote follows opinion of contributor | 329 |
| % matching contributor | 91.14% |
| Total matching contributor $ | $410,877 |
| $/matching contributor | $1,249 |
And here's Jeanne Shaheen (D-Nh):
| Votes | 35 |
| Match contributor position | 22 |
| % match contributor position | 62.86% |
| Total $ match contributor position | $25,050 |
| $/match contributor position | $1,139 |
A couple of things seem apparent. While the effect campaign contributions have on senators votes, those contributions clearly DO effect votes. Congress has clearly been bought. Surprisingly, the cost for a vote is rather low, just a bit more than $1000 on average! Just a little money seems to go a long way. This kind of corruption is independent of political party. While Common Sense didn't look at all congressmen voting behavior was completely consistent among the congressmen analyzed.
If Congress is to represent the electorate it is clearly necessary to get special interest money out of politics. That's just common sense.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Money, Congress, Corruption
The fora.tv presentation on money, Congress, and corruption got Common Sense wondering, what's the relationship between Congressional salaries and campaign contributions? So here are the facts:
- Number of Congressional representatives: 535
- Congressional salary: $174,000. Total benefits include insurance, retirement, and other perks that significantly increase actual equivalent compensation.
- Total direct salary cost of congress: $93,090,000/year
- Total House/Senate cost (actual FY 2011): $2,266,000,000
- Campaign contributions by interest groups (7/09 - 6/11 reported only): $813,402,892
So in two years Congress makes about $180 million and accepts $813 million, 4.37 times their direct compensation! Now a campaign contribution is not the same as money in your pocket but given Congressional propensity for re-election Common Sense is not surprised that Congress is all to willing to put special interest ahead of the people's interest. After all special interest are worth over 4 times what the voters are worth. Clearly Congress is not beholding to their employers, the voters. Perhaps its time for public funding of elections. That's just common sense.
Friday, February 17, 2012
FORA.tv - How Money Corrupts Congress and a Plan to Stop It
FORA.tv - How Money Corrupts Congress and a Plan to Stop It:
Common Sense thinks this is well worth your time if you care about good government.
Common Sense thinks this is well worth your time if you care about good government.
Birth control and religious freedom part 2
Birth control and religious freedom continues in the news. Common Sense offers the following from the recent Public Religious Research Institution survey:
So the simple fact is that with rare exception a majority, often a significant majority of Americans agree with President Obama.
But your Congress, you know the one with a 10% approval rating, lead by wing nuts on the right, doesn't feel the need to agree. Case in point Senator Blunt's amendment to a bill principally focused on highway construction aid would allow employers and insurers to limit specific health care coverage, that's any coverage whatsoever including contraception based on religious or moral objections!
But wait, there's more,
Common Sense thinks that Bill Moyers has it right when he writes "Freedom of and Freedom From" religion. Believe what you will. Within reason practice what you will. Do not, however, presume to impose your beliefs on everyone else. Common Sense thinks that Congress should reflect the will of the people, the 98% of women who use contraception at some time in their life, the 67% of Catholic women who agree that insurance should cover contraception services, and not a minority of ultra conservative religious zealots who would impose their beliefs of the rest of society.
So the simple fact is that with rare exception a majority, often a significant majority of Americans agree with President Obama.
But your Congress, you know the one with a 10% approval rating, lead by wing nuts on the right, doesn't feel the need to agree. Case in point Senator Blunt's amendment to a bill principally focused on highway construction aid would allow employers and insurers to limit specific health care coverage, that's any coverage whatsoever including contraception based on religious or moral objections!
But wait, there's more,
Two female Democrats walked out of a House oversight committee hearing on the contraceptive coverage rule Thursday morning, accusing Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) of manipulating committee rules to block female witnesses from testifying.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72971.html#ixzz1menoZClY
Common Sense thinks that Bill Moyers has it right when he writes "Freedom of and Freedom From" religion. Believe what you will. Within reason practice what you will. Do not, however, presume to impose your beliefs on everyone else. Common Sense thinks that Congress should reflect the will of the people, the 98% of women who use contraception at some time in their life, the 67% of Catholic women who agree that insurance should cover contraception services, and not a minority of ultra conservative religious zealots who would impose their beliefs of the rest of society.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Philosophy of Gridlock
Full Show: How Do Conservatives and Liberals See the World? | Moyers & Company | BillMoyers.com:
How do Conservatives and Liberals See the World? from BillMoyers.com on Vimeo.
Common Sense is not a big fan of Bill Moyers but his provocative and thoughtful interview with Jonathan Haidt is well worth the effort. It sheds considerable light on some of the reasons Congress has become hopelessly dysfunctional. Be warned though, you'll actually have to put aside your biases and think.
Of some note, Mr. Haidt offers two suggestions for how to change our broken Congress. The first is to make demonetization, attributing evil motives, of our opponents socially unacceptable. In this political season of Obama bad, Romney Obama light thus bad, Gingrich evil, etc. this would certainly be an improvement hopefully allowing ideas to displace name calling. The second is to eliminate the corruption that has lead to a bought and paid for Congress. Efforts to get big, particularly big corporate money, out of government should be vigorously supported. Common Sense thinks these are good steps forward.
Here is the Ted talk from Mr. Haidt.
How do Conservatives and Liberals See the World? from BillMoyers.com on Vimeo.
Common Sense is not a big fan of Bill Moyers but his provocative and thoughtful interview with Jonathan Haidt is well worth the effort. It sheds considerable light on some of the reasons Congress has become hopelessly dysfunctional. Be warned though, you'll actually have to put aside your biases and think.
Of some note, Mr. Haidt offers two suggestions for how to change our broken Congress. The first is to make demonetization, attributing evil motives, of our opponents socially unacceptable. In this political season of Obama bad, Romney Obama light thus bad, Gingrich evil, etc. this would certainly be an improvement hopefully allowing ideas to displace name calling. The second is to eliminate the corruption that has lead to a bought and paid for Congress. Efforts to get big, particularly big corporate money, out of government should be vigorously supported. Common Sense thinks these are good steps forward.
Here is the Ted talk from Mr. Haidt.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
National debt and lies by BOTH Democrats and Republicans
FactCheck.org : Dueling Debt Deceptions:
In this year's Republican primary farce there is a more or less constant drumbeat around Obama and the national debt. FactCheck.org, a site that Common Sense thinks is well worth subscribing to published a factual and very informative article. Here's the gist of their analysis:
What interesting about this is that both Republicans and Democrats have so distorted the facts as to rise to outright lying!
Republicans would have us believe that Obama is responsible for the worst increase in the national debt. He's not! The Republican sainted Ronald Reagan actually increased the national debt by almost 5 times as a percentage as Obama albeit on a dramatically lower base. GW Bush who's policies largely brought us the current economic crisis increased the national debt by a larger dollar amount and a larger percentage (again on a much smaller base).
Democrat's hands are almost as dirty on this issue. Nancy Pelosi has circulated a 35% increase in the national debt under Obama based on some dated data. But that's not true either. Mr Obama has increased the National Debt almost as much as Mr Bush.
In defense of Mr Obama, he inherited Mr Bush's collapsed economy and financial crisis, and a do nothing Republican House that steadfastly refuses to recognize that to address an out of control unbalance budget it is necessary to both cut spending and raise taxes. That's just common sense.
In this year's Republican primary farce there is a more or less constant drumbeat around Obama and the national debt. FactCheck.org, a site that Common Sense thinks is well worth subscribing to published a factual and very informative article. Here's the gist of their analysis:
What interesting about this is that both Republicans and Democrats have so distorted the facts as to rise to outright lying!
Republicans would have us believe that Obama is responsible for the worst increase in the national debt. He's not! The Republican sainted Ronald Reagan actually increased the national debt by almost 5 times as a percentage as Obama albeit on a dramatically lower base. GW Bush who's policies largely brought us the current economic crisis increased the national debt by a larger dollar amount and a larger percentage (again on a much smaller base).
Democrat's hands are almost as dirty on this issue. Nancy Pelosi has circulated a 35% increase in the national debt under Obama based on some dated data. But that's not true either. Mr Obama has increased the National Debt almost as much as Mr Bush.
In defense of Mr Obama, he inherited Mr Bush's collapsed economy and financial crisis, and a do nothing Republican House that steadfastly refuses to recognize that to address an out of control unbalance budget it is necessary to both cut spending and raise taxes. That's just common sense.
Common sense and federal pay
Pay freeze bill comes up for a vote - The Washington Post:
FactCheck.org : CBO Offers Its Two Cents on Federal Pay:
The direct cost of congress:
While Common Sense is often critical of the House Republicans this is one proposal that makes a good deal of common sense. Government, all of government, should face the same economic constraints as the rest of society. This measure helps and Common Sense thinks that the Senate should pass the measure and send it to the president.
That said, there is more that congress should do to cut its own excessive spending. As mentioned last year, the cost of congress itself has risen much more rapidly than the consumer price index. Common Sense thinks congress should reduce its own salaries and spending to closely follow the CPI. That's just common sense.
FactCheck.org : CBO Offers Its Two Cents on Federal Pay:
The direct cost of congress:
While Common Sense is often critical of the House Republicans this is one proposal that makes a good deal of common sense. Government, all of government, should face the same economic constraints as the rest of society. This measure helps and Common Sense thinks that the Senate should pass the measure and send it to the president.
That said, there is more that congress should do to cut its own excessive spending. As mentioned last year, the cost of congress itself has risen much more rapidly than the consumer price index. Common Sense thinks congress should reduce its own salaries and spending to closely follow the CPI. That's just common sense.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
SOPA & PIPA
Your congress, you know the one that doesn't seem to be able to do much about the critical problems facing the average American, lobbied effectively by large copyright holders proposes to place unreasonable burdens on internet companies to monitor the internet for copyright violations and to deny US citizens access to sites that allegedly violate copyrights by blocking IPs. These bills are wrong headed, heavy handed, and simply won't work in Common Sense's view. They should be vigorously opposed. Write your congressman to oppose SOPA and PIPA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)