Contrasts
Two stories over at HotAir really provide a nice contrast on the issue of public employee unions in Wisconsin. The first concerns the protest outside a school visited by Governor Scott Walker. With all the problems with education, you would think that Messmer Preparatory Catholic School would be celebrated for its success, as 85% of its students continue on to college. Sadly no.
While the teachers’ unions like to claim that they are out there fighting for better education for our children, in reality they don’t really care one wit about children. It is only about what they can get for their members. Messmer’s clear educational success is irrelevant at best, and more likely a threat. That they have improved the neighborhood is likewise irrelevant.
What matters is that they provide an alternative to the union dominated schools. In the video below, one protestor can be seen haranguing a Messmer staffer saying that he was “ashamed” to have them in his neighborhood (@1:46). Very strangely, he goes on to sarcastically ask her, “you must be really proud of what you have accomplished here” (@2:35) I would have liked to ask this protestor: A school successfully teaching children to succeed in life; what is not to be proud of? I think his answer would have been very enlightening.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHnbtkbgkfM
When you compare the actions of the protestors outside the school with the students inside, the contrast is really pretty stark, particularly when you consider that vandals filled a number of the school’s locks with glue. Schools like Messmer threaten the unions’ place at the government trough.
This position at the trough is highlighted by another story contrasting two Wisconsin cities, Oshkosh and Madison. While Oshkosh waited till after the new public employee union law had taken effect to conclude contracts, Madison rushed ahead so as not to be affected by the law. As a result, Oshkosh is looking to save millions of dollars, Madison is looking at cutting 38 police officers, 27 firefighters, reducing or ending a number of city services, and this is with a proposed 3% increase in property taxes.
Madison’s plight demonstrates that the public employee unions do not even care all that much about their members. They have a lifeboat mentality. Those thrown overboard (i.e., laid off) are irrelevant. What matters are those who are left. They certainly do not care one wit about the taxpayers who must yet again do with less, so that they can have even more.
Why the stark contrast between Madison and Oshkosh? Not only were the public employee unions bargaining for wages, they were requiring that health insurance be purchased from them. Under Walker’s new law government agencies are free to shop around for health insurance. The result is that in a time of rising health care costs, government agencies in Wisconsin are suddenly seeing millions of dollars in savings on health care. In short, the unions had a monopoly on health care, and were using their monopoly to overcharge local governments. Governor Walker’s bill broke the union’s monopoly and as a result cities like Oshkosh are saving huge amounts of money. Those, like Madison, that rushed to have contracts signed before the bill went to effect are not.
With the new school year kicking off, it is now clear why the unions opposed Walker’s bill. Rather than balancing the budget on the backs of public employees – who by the way have higher pay and better benefits than do their the non-government counterparts who pay their salaries – in reality what Walker’s bill did was end the direct siphon of government money into union coffers.
While the unions frequently complain about greedy businesses that exploit their workers, Walker’s bill has turned a spotlight on the situation. It turns out that it is the public employee unions that have been the ones caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Thus, at places like Messmer Preparatory Catholic School, they are screaming about the injustice of it all.
Who says the President is Unpatriotic for the debt
Obama July 3, 2008 in Fargo, N.D.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q
For course under Obama, spending, and thus debt, has exploded at record rates resulting in the country’s credit rating being downgraded.
A Great Ad
Roger Williams as…The Donkey Whisperer
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6etfJgZQ7A
Deliberation or Incompetence?
As we rapidly approach yet another budget crisis, a growing question is whether the actions of the Democrats in Washington are the result of some sort of deliberation, or are they simply a matter of incompetence?
Some will probably complain that I am I am not including the Republicans in this question, but while they are certainly deserving of some criticism, they are not the major problem at the moment. The start of the new fiscal year is approaching but there is little chance that Congress will have its work done on time. So as government in Washington lurches from one crisis to the next, the economy continues to struggle, and people suffer.
The process is really pretty simple. The law requires that the House and Senate each produce a budget, and then based on the budget, the various committees write appropriation bills. The bills are then passed by both houses, and a joint committee works out any differences between them. Once the final bills are passed they go to the President. While a pretty simply process, it is one that was pretty much ignored by the Democrats when they controlled the entire Congress, and is still being ignored in the democratically controlled Senate.
The last time the Congress passed all of the required appropriation bills was, coincidentally 2006, the last time Congress was under the control of the Republicans. Under the Democrats, the law, and in fact most of Congress, was just ignored. Government was run by the leadership through continuing resolutions.
Whatever criticism there may be for the Republicans in the House, they passed a budget earlier this year. Democrats in the Senate have not, even though they are required to do so by law. Not only did they not pass one, they have not even proposed one, have no plans to do so, and it is coming up on 900 days since they have done so.
Thus while House Republicans have passed their budget and have already passed 6 of the required 12 appropriations bills, with 3 more already through the appropriations committee, their Democratic counterparts have no budget and have passed no appropriation bills. In fact, they have only gotten one out of the appropriations committee.
The new fiscal year starts in October, so why can’t the Democrats complete what should be one of their most basic functions, writing the appropriation bills that fund the government? Are they really looking for yet another shutdown showdown with Congressional Republicans?
If so, this would say that their failure to do their job is deliberate; a calculated ploy to use the threat of a government shutdown in an effort to gain a political advantage. At first blush, this would seem incredibly misguided. To avoid a shutdown both houses of Congress simply need to do their job and get all 12 appropriation bills to the President before the beginning of the fiscal year. When Republicans have done their part, but Democrats have failed to do theirs, how could the Democrats successfully expect to blame the Republicans?
Easy! Democrats can count on the major news outlets to take their side. Annoying little facts, such as the Democrats have not even passed a budget in several years will just be ignored. Annoying little details such as if the Democrats had appropriation bills the difference between their bills and the Republicans could be worked out, will likewise be ignored. Instead, if the last several such crises are any indication all the “news coverage” will focus on Republican intransigence and how they are constrained by the Tea Party from doing what is in “the best interests of the country.”
Democrats get another huge benefit from all this, which may indicate that this is deliberate: Secrecy. With no budget, there is no way to know or criticize the “Democratic plan” simply because there is no plan. With no appropriation bills, there is no way to criticize Democratic spending plans because there are no plans. Thus Democrats can attack Republican plans, while hiding behind platitudes and slogans until the time has run out and the crisis is upon us. Then they cannot say what their plan is because they are in the middle of negotiations with Republicans.
Normally negotiations proceed with both sides setting forth a starting position, and then the negotiations are over what concessions from their respective starting points each side will make. Boehner likened negotiating with White house to “dealing with Jell-O” and it is little wonder. Since Democrats do not have a plan, there is no starting point from which they can make concessions.
Finally when a deal is struck, Democrats can take credit for all the parts they like, and blame the rest on Republicans, again without ever having to develop an actual coherent plan of their own. Thus there are plenty of reasons to believe that our current government-by-crisis is a deliberate strategy on the part of Democrats.
But however effective the strategy, it is not good for the country, and given the polls, it does not even seem to be working all that well for the Democrats. By failing to actually put forth a plan, there is the real question as to whether or not Democrats actually understand the serious situation we are in. It is one thing to run around talking about the Bush tax cuts “for the rich” and complaining about corporate jets, but quite another to put forth an actual coherent plan that would address the problems that the country faces.
Forcing Republicans to compromise on their plans, such as with the debt limit, may be politically advantageous, but it is not itself a solution. So while Obama and the Democrats successfully blocked the Republican plan to Cut, Cap and Balance, the result was that the country’s credit was downgraded.
Even worse, democracy depends on openness. Proposals are put forth, debated and modified. Bills are written in committees and debated on the floor before being passed. But under the Democrats everything was kept secret. The committee process was basically ignored, and thousand page bills were given to members to vote on before they even knew what was in them. “You have to pass the bill to know what is in it,” ruled.
If this is all deliberate, then the Democrats are crassly failing to do their jobs for their own selfish interests. If that is not putting their own interests ahead of the country’s, I do not know what would be. On the other hand, this could simply be a matter of utter incompetence. Either way, we can look for another crisis towards the end of September, as a government shutdown looms, though they might decide to postpone this till after the budget committee setup after the last crisis finished their work towards the end of the year by passing yet another continuing resolution.
The Choice
One of the key differences between liberals/progressives and conservatives is highlighted by Michael Tomasky’s analysis of the upcoming Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare and its impact on Obama’s reelection chances. Basically Tomasky argues that Liberals are in a no win situation. If the court strikes down ObamaCare, then they lose the gains they worked so hard to win. On the other hand, if the court upholds the bill, chances are it will energize conservatives even more, ensuring Obama’s defeat, which Tomasky believes “could be even worse for the progressive cause.”
Tomsaky gives a brief and I believe accurate overview of court history, with the dividing line in 1937. Prior to 1937 the court was hostile to the liberal/progressive cause. Then “FDR finally was able to start naming justices to the court who granted Congress wider leeway in regulating economic activity.”
But while Tomsaky is clear that the Supreme Court overturning ObamaCare would “be a disaster in terms of legal precedent” he provides no legal reasoning as to why. In fact his reasoning is basically that this would take the court back to “pre-1937 thinking.”
For Tomsaky, everything is judged in terms of the results, i.e., its effect on the progressive cause. Thus the quandary, if the court overturns the law the progressive cause for health care is harmed. If the court upholds the law, Obama’s reelection is threatened, and that “could be even worse for the progressive cause.”
Missing from all this is the effects on the Constitution. In terms of the Constitution, this case turns on the commerce clause and, in a more general sense, its purpose in the Constitution itself. Conservatives hold the historical view of the Constitution, i.e., that it specifics the powers of the federal government. The founders clearly wanted a limited federal government. Their first attempt, with the Articles of Confederation, proved to be too limited. These were replaced by the Constitution in 1789. This was again to be a limited federal government and the big debate over the Constitution was whether or not it went too far and gave the Federal Government too much power.
Article 1 section 8 lists the powers of the Congress and the 3rd clause, called the commerce clause, says that Congress has the power,
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
Article 1 Section 8 lists these powers because the founders believed that the Constitution was a limit on the Federal government; it had no powers except those granted to it by the Constitution. In fact the reason the Bill of Rights was not included, and was initially opposed by the man considered to be the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, is that he believed it was unnecessary. For example, the government could not infringe on free speech because the Constitution did not give it the power to do so. He argued that adding any list of rights was dangerous as it would imply that only the rights listed were protected. Thus when the Bill of Right was added, it included the 10th amendment,
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to do something, they don’t have that power, the state or the people have that power. Under this view, which prevailed until 1937, the commerce clause granted Congress the power to regulate commerce “among the several states,” but not commerce within states.
When we come to ObamaCare, the choice is pretty easy. ObamaCare requires people to purchase health insurance. Under a pre-1937 view of the Constitution this is a no-brainer. How can someone who is choosing not to engage in commerce, i.e., is not buying health care insurance, be regulated under a provision of the Constitution that regulates interstate commerce? The issue is further compounded by the fact that even if a person chooses to purchase health care insurance, they currently cannot purchase across state lines. Since there is no interstate commerce in health insurance, how can the federal government regulate it on the basis of interstate commerce?
A deeper and more troubling issue would be, if the government can mandate that you purchase health insurance, then just want can’t they do? Obama recently said that we “have to eat your peas.” Why couldn’t they mandate that we eat a certain federally approved diet? Or that we have to purchase membership in health clubs and exercise 3 times a week. If they can force a citizen to purchase health insurance, what does the whole concept of limited government mean?
So at one level, the Supreme Court’s decision will determine whether or not ObamaCare is constitutional. But on a deeper level, the Court will be ruling on whether or not the Constitution really means anything at all. If the commerce clause is any sort of limit on the Federal Govenment, then the provision requiring people to purchase health insurance must be struck down. If it is not, then the commerce clause, and all the other clauses are meaningless, and the Federal Government can regulate anything it wants.
Some might object that we would still have the Bill of Right, and things like free speech. Perhaps. But this would not be because of anything actually written in the Constitution. Our Rights would not be something guaranteed in the Constitution, but rather something we current have, subject to the current majority of the Supreme Court.
Consider Tomasky’s statement, “As we know all too well, this court appears ready to go back to pre-1937 thinking and in fact already has, in the Citizens United case.” The left is up in arms over the Citizens United case, because it allows corporations to spend money on political campaigns. But again they only see the results, not the Constitutional basis.
The case involved Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit corporation that had made a 90 minute move called, “Hillary: The Movie” which they wanted shown and wanted to advertise. Their efforts were blocked by the Federal Election Commission. But if the government can suppress this film, why couldn’t they also suppress the movie about Bin Laden’s death planned for release a month before the election in 2012? If they can ban a movie, why not a book or other forms of speech? As Justice Kennedy said in the majority opinion of Citizens United, “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”
Tomasky sees this ruling as a major step back towards pre-1937 thinking and a major threat to the progressive agenda. He is correct. It was a step back towards a view where the Constitution actually meant something and was a limit on what the federal government could do. So it looks like next year the Supreme Court and the country will be facing a similar choice, a choice between the Constitution and the progressive agenda. Let’s hope the Constitution wins, both in Congress, and at the ballot box.
