Last night, in bitter disappointment, I posted that our President lied to us when he claimed that Obamacare wasn’t a tax.  Scott Erb and Nickgb called shenanigans.  The claim is that when Obama was claiming that his law wasn’t a tax, he believed it.  Only later did it turn out that he would be wrong and the court would strike down the law based on the commerce clause and uphold it under congresses ability to tax.

Certainly valid points.  But what is Obama’s administration saying now?

The White House and the Obama campaign today insisted that the individual mandate in the president’s health care bill is a “penalty,” not a tax, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling to uphold the law under Congress’ taxing power.

“For those who can afford health insurance but choose to remain uninsured, forcing the rest of us to pay for their care, a penalty is administered as part of the Affordable Care Act,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters aboard Air Force One today.

“You can call it what you want. If you read the opinion, it is not a broad-based tax,” he said, stressing that the “penalty” would affect 1 percent of the population, based on CBO estimates. “It’s a penalty because you have a choice. You don’t have a choice to pay your taxes, right?”

Obama isn’t going to call this a tax.  It IS a tax, that’s the law.  As he sends his administration and his campaign out saying that it isn’t it does two things:

  1. That Obama knew this was a tax when he was working to pass this law.  The words know and the words then certainly are beginning to sound the same.
  2. That he’s lying now.

It’s settled.  This new law is a tax hike, rumor has it it’s the biggest tax hike in history.  In that lens , Obama is going to have to answer to that.

I have often thought that makes America unique in the history of the world is not her physical boundaries.  It’s not the vast expanse of land mass bordering two oceans.  It’s not the natural resources.

It’s the people that have cherished the concept of Liberty that have made America what she is.

More »

It’s telling that the only way Obama’s signature piece  of legislation could pass constitutional muster is to have the Supreme Court call him a liar.

He lied.  Straight up.

He didn’t change his mind, he didn’t adjust to new realities.

The bastard lied straight to your face.

And if you don’t like the way in which I reference the President:

 

It’s no secret that teacher’s unions don’t serve the interest of the students; they serve the interest of the union.  They’re about power.  Power to influence how their members are protected and compensated.  As more and more people come to this realization more and more people are beginning to realize that taking schools back from those unions is a good thing:

(Reuters) – Hundreds of mayors from across the United States this weekend called for new laws letting parents seize control of low-performing public schools and fire the teachers, oust the administrators or turn the schools over to private management.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors, meeting in Orlando, Florida, on Saturday unanimously endorsed “parent trigger” laws aimed at bypassing elected school boards and giving parents at the worst public schools the opportunity to band together and force immediate change.

Now, guess who opposes these types of laws?

Such laws are fiercely opposed by teachers’ unions, which stand to lose members in school takeovers.

I know you’re shocked.  Shocked that a union would oppose a law that diminished its influence.  But, has this process worked?

Parent trigger laws are in place in several states including California, Texas and Louisiana and are under consideration in states including Michigan, Pennsylvania and New York. So far, though, the concept has never successfully been used to turn around a school.

Damn!

But why not?

Parents in two impoverished, heavily minority California cities, Compton and Adelanto, gathered enough signatures to seize control of their neighborhood schools but the process stalled in the face of ferocious opposition from teachers’ unions. Both cases are now tied up in court.

Ahh, not because they were given the chance and then failed.  Rather, they haven’t worked because the unions fight ‘em every inch of the way.

The good news?  The power of the unions have continued to fade:

But in a sign of the unions’ diminishing clout, their traditional political allies, the Democrats, abandoned them in droves during the Orlando vote.

Democratic Mayors Michael Nutter of Philadelphia, Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles and Kevin Johnson of Sacramento led the charge for parent trigger – and were backed by scores of other Democrats as well as Republicans from coast to coast.

“Mayors understand at a local level that most parents lack the tools they need to turn their schools around,” Villaraigosa said. Parent trigger laws, he added, can empower parents to do just that.

Let’s hope that the victory in Wisconsin will usher in a new era not just in fiscal reform but in actual education reform.

What if we could, with perfection, create a nation that provided equal opportunity?

Whatever that may mean to you, suppose it’s true.  Every kid has the same chance to get to a good school and graduate from it.  College?  Available to all.  While not important to this conversation, we could say that college could be free.  There would be no need to worry about poor families being unable to send their bright children to the hallowed halls of higher eduction.

Poverty create hurdles due to inability to buy books, electricity or heat?  Gone.  We’ll adjust for it.

Any problem you might have that produces unequal opportunities has been answered.  To your individual liking.

Everyone has the same chance.

Question:

What characteristic or quality would determine who succeeds?

Have you heard anything about the Occupy Wall Street idiots?

Me either.

Huh.

It would seem that the Democrat Convention is in trouble:

Democrats canceled a political convention kick-off event at the Charlotte Motor Speedway and will move the activities to Charlotte’s main business district, the convention’s host committee announced.

The move comes as party planners are grappling with a fundraising deficit of roughly $27 million, according to two people familiar with the matter who requested anonymity to discuss internal party politics. With a party ban on direct contributions from corporations, the host committee has raised less than $10 million, well short of its $36.6 million goal, said one of the people.

Happily for Obama, he has implemented no such ban on direct contribution from corporations to his Super PACs.

A recent post over at Poison Your Mind got my attention.  In it, nickgb ponders the assertion that we are all investors.

…I had a much different outrageous pull-quote to emphasize:

Romney’s opponents seem to be aghast that he has made money for investors (aren’t we all investors?), though they studiously ignore other greed-less facts: He never took a dime in salary for heading the Olympics in Salt Lake City nor as governor of Massachusetts, to mention a couple.

Those latter sentences are pretty stupid, because obviously Romney received gains from both of those ventures (both in reputation and financially). But aren’t we all investors? Who says that? Who still gets credit as a journalist after saying something like that?

So, I thought I’d take the bait and look into  how many of us are investors:

Not many.  At all.

In fact, the rate is depressingly low.  And even if we excuse the low number due to the economy the highest we’ve been is 67% back in 2002.

Before I could post this data, however, reflectionephemeral beat me to the punch.  The data he posted is below:

A revealing bit of data to be sure.  One more in the collection of charts that show the distribution of wealth is skewed.  However true that may be, the chart directly above doesn’t speak to investment participation.

At first I was struck by nickgb’s critique of the article, surely no one expects the reader to think that literally ALL of us are investors, but then when I saw the graph by reflectionephemeral, I was more struck by the thought process that would cause one of us to show data that explains the unequal distribution of wealth as the unequal distribution of risk.

Is it possible that as we all discuss this thing we call politic that we have failed to establish basic assumptions, have failed to agree upon a basic set of accepted bedrock givens?

I have full faith that the fellas over at PYM have the best interest of “folks” at heart.  I like to think that I do too.  Why is it that the two of us would take so different paths in responding to nickgb?

 

25. June 2012 · Write a comment · Categories: Liberty, Life · Tags: ,

I live in a contained neighborhood.  That is, to get to my place you have to turn off the main road and make you way through streets and turns that are self contained.  There’s only one other way out.

There is no through traffic, no concept of city blocks.  Generally the only people who drive our streets are us.

Now those streets are in horrible condition and need to be redone.  The county has no money and it doesn’t look like we’re gonna get resurfacing any time soon.  Which led me to wonder if we couldn’t raise the money ourselves.  Which, in turn, made me think about how we govern, or, how we vote to have others govern.

Should we vote for our own selfish self-interests or should we vote for the good of all?

In my example above, there are homes that literally use 30 feet of the neighborhood roads.  They’re the first home off the turn and literally only use that small little section to get in and then to get out.  Those at the end of the neighborhood?  They use it all, every inch of that road.

Should the cost of repaving this road be borne by all or should it be proportional?  I’m willing to entertain the concept that the initial home owner sees his home value degrade if homes at the end of the line can’t sell their houses due to horrible roads.

But the question remains; should people vote for their own personal self interest or for the larger good of society?

Or, is there another reason?

 

Update: As regards to 5(C).  I disagree with the policy but would have thought that the state could legislate that.  Technically speaking, that means I agree with the legality Arizona was getting at and disagree with the Court.

Supreme Court Announces Ruling

This morning the Supreme Court released it’s ruling on the controversial Arizona immigration law passed in 2010.  The highly anticipated ruling is one of two high visibility cases heard in this session.  The Federal government had sued Arizona as a result of the law.  Specifically 4 sections:

  1. Section 3 – This section made failure to comply with Federal alien-registrations a state misdemeanor.
  2. Section 6 – Authorizes state and local officers to arrest without a warrant a person “the officer has probable cause to believe . . . has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States”
  3. 5(C) – This section makes it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to look for or engage in work.
  4. Section 2(B) – Requires officers conducting a stop, detention, or arrest to make efforts, in some circumstances, to verify the person’s immigration status with the Federal Government

More »