U.S. Politics 19

[Shryke]

Pointless Grandstanding Health Care Repeal Fails:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20030462-503544.html

Surprise is had by none

They did manage to fix one stupid provision in the Senate though that they've been attempting to fix for like a year now:

Another amendment to the health care repeal law did see passage, however - an amendment to repeal a provision that requires businesses to file a 1099 form with the IRS for every vendor with which they've done $600 worth of business or more. Both parties were sympathetic to complaints from the business community that the provision would create onerous paperwork requirements, and the amendment passed easily and with bipartisan support, 81-17.

The change is supported by the White House, and Democrats are pointing to it as evidence of their willingness to tweak - but not repeal - the law. The House last year failed to pass repeal of the 1099 provision despite bipartisan support, and must take it up this year before it can go to the president's desk.

I still can't figure out what those 17 idiots were thinking.

[Angalin]

Your subtitle for this installment terrifies me.

[Spaceman Hobbes]

I'm actually surprised people aren't talking about 2012 yet.

Why deal with real political issues when we can BS over who will be president in... 717 days. Stupid America Political System.

[Kosciuszko]

The next President will clearly be Ron Paul with Kucinich as VP. /nod

[Swordfish]

Great gods, Swordfish...I know you think the ACA is an abomination, but you have no real idea exactly how the law's going to play out. No one really does, although some opinions - like the CBO's - are more trustworthy than others. Your certainty that this law is a disaster is really just philosophy, and not empiricism. You're welcome to your worldview, of course, but own it.

Dear Mr. Pot,

How about this: I will if you will.

Sincerely,

Mr Kettle

[Shryke]

I'm actually surprised people aren't talking about 2012 yet.

They are. The GOP primaries are already starting to heat up.

[Spaceman Hobbes]

They are. The GOP primaries are already starting to heat up.

I kind of meant there wasn't a thread on it. FOX has been talking about the 2012 election since 2007 or so.

[TrackerNeil]

In the other thread, FLoW said:

Yeah, but the general election boiled down to the lesser of two evils. And while I'm sure a majority of Republicans would vote for Romney in the general election, just as they voted for McCain, he's got to win the primary to get to that point.

Agreed, and this time, as I understand, the Republicans will use the proportional allocation system the Democrats have used for awhile, which makes it a different ballgame. However, like Romney today, McCain himself was guilty of a number of apostasies (hello, McCain-Feingold Act) and that didn't keep him from getting the nomination. Of course, that was before the Tea Party...

First-past-the-post is going to produce a winner more quickly, as it did in 2008, but proportional allocation gives a more accurate reflection of what the voters want. As we learned in 2004, settling on a nominee quickly does no good if it's the wrong nominee. (John Kerry, I'm looking in your direction.) For example, both Clinton and Obama were broadly popular amongst Democrats, which is why the 2008 primary went on so long, but in the end I think that was a good thing. It created alot of interest and registered loads of new Democrats, and made Obama a better candidate. David Plouffe, campaign manager for the Big O, has said that Hillary Clinton was tougher to beat than McCain, so the campaign went into the general election lean, mean and battle-tested.

I'm not saying I think Romney will be the nominee - lots can happen in a year - but I still don't think "RomneyCare" will necessarily sink him. Any Republican who can survive a change from solidly pro-choice to full-throatedly pro-life can probably survive anything.

BTW, what I find hilarious about Mitt Romney is that, when he adopts a new position, he embraces it completely. Rudy Giuliani, for example, wouldn't really say he was pro-life, nor did he completely repudiate his gay-friendly attitudes. Romney, however...once he became pro-life, there was nobody more pro-life than he. No half-measures for Mitt! I heard Romney once described as a retail politician; he'll take whatever position is popular and/or necessary at the time. Kind of like a restaurateur, really. If he's catering to Italians he serves pasta, but if the clientele changes to Indians he'll go right to curry. Whatever he thinks the customer wants.

[Guest Raids]

I can't believe we've gotten to the point where I am terrified to find out who the Republican nominee will be and who they will pick as their VP. This must be what it was like for Republicans in the 1980s.

I actually hope to god it's Mitt Romney. At least I am fairly confident that he wouldn't take down the entire country.

If I were Mitt, I'd just be like, look, the people of Massachusetts wanted mandatory health care, and that's their right as a state, so it worked there. That's the beauty of the federal system. Many people in other states wouldn't want that, like most of you, but I bet most of you never seriously considered moving to Massachusetts either, ha! So, while, yes, I supported what the people of the state wanted on a state level, because that's a local solution that makes sense to them, I think it's a perversion of the constitution to take away individual choice on the matter on a federal level.

Hell, I mean, many of these people are still fine with state-supported religion as long as it's not the federal government, right? I think many tea-partiers are totally savvy enough to understand the states' rights disctinction.

And liberals aren't really going to argue with Mitt about that, because that position makes perfect logical sense, really.

ETA: So...we're not probably not going to get an amendment specifying that the authority for the individual mandate comes from the tax and spending power are we?

I personally don't want the mandate to be severable, the more, I think about it, so I don't care about that.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I'm actually surprised people aren't talking about 2012 yet.

Why deal with real political issues when we can BS over who will be president in... 717 days. Stupid America Political System.

Well, Obama officially declared his candidacy for President in February 2007, so it's not like early declarations or early discussions are out of bounds. Although I'm not yet aware of any Republican who have officially declared.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

If I were Mitt, I'd just be like, look, the people of Massachusetts wanted mandatory health care, and that's their right as a state, so it worked there. That's the beauty of the federal system. Many people in other states wouldn't want that, like most of you, but I bet most of you never seriously considered moving to Massachusetts either, ha! So, while, yes, I supported what the people of the state wanted on a state level, because that's a local solution that makes sense to them, I think it's a perversion of the constitution to take away individual choice on the matter on a federal level.

I think you're right, and that sort of has been his position all along. He also claims that the system eventually implemented in Massachusetts was a lot different from the one he wanted, although he did sign the law so I'm not sure how far that gets him.

We may actually be in agreement on this, Raids. I think health care is a perfect thing to do on a state by state basis because the different political makeups of each state create a wider range of possibilities than we can get enacted federally. There's nothing preventing a state from going single payer if that's what it wants to do, and other states can try out more "conservative" approaches. Then see what works best. Something like the ACA was bound to be divisive, and more importantly, carries the risk of putting all our eggs in one basket.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I'm not saying I think Romney will be the nominee - lots can happen in a year - but I still don't think "RomneyCare" will necessarily sink him. Any Republican who can survive a change from solidly pro-choice to full-throatedly pro-life can probably survive anything.

The field currently is so weak that you may be right. Certainly, the way the GOP has usually worked, it is Romney's "turn" to be the nominee. His hope has to be that if comes down to him v. Palin, that he's the default guy because Palin is perceived as too beatable. BUT, the thing about a more proportional system is that it also opens the door for a consensus candidate to emerge if the top two are just too polarizing.

Of course, the real wild card here is what happens if the ACA gets tossed out by the Court. That likely would help Romney because it would remove the issue from the front burner.

BTW, what I find hilarious about Mitt Romney is that, when he adopts a new position, he embraces it completely. Rudy Giuliani, for example, wouldn't really say he was pro-life, nor did he completely repudiate his gay-friendly attitudes. Romney, however...once he became pro-life, there was nobody more pro-life than he. No half-measures for Mitt! I heard Romney once described as a retail politician; he'll take whatever position is popular and/or necessary at the time. Kind of like a restaurateur, really. If he's catering to Italians he serves pasta, but if the clientele changes to Indians he'll go right to curry. Whatever he thinks the customer wants.

I think you're right, and I think that's because Romney is an administrator rather than an ideologue. He takes positions on controversial issues only because he has to, when what he really wants to do is just run things efficiently. Of course, the problem with that is that the President's job isn't limited just to being "efficient", but rather also charting the course down which he is supposed to guide us so efficiently.

[Guest Raids]

We may actually be in agreement on this, Raids. I think health care is a perfect thing to do on a state by state basis because the different political makeups of each state create a wider range of possibilities than we can get enacted federally. There's nothing preventing a state from going single payer if that's what it wants to do, and other states can try out more "conservative" approaches. Then see what works best. Something like the ACA was bound to be divisive, and more importantly, carries the risk of putting all our eggs in one basket.

Oops, sorry. Didn't mean to make it sound like that's something I think. Ha. I want a public option and an individual mandate on a federal level. The problems with the whole thing are much more evident for me, because I get my health care in Virginia, and yet I'm a resident of the District of Columbia. The states just aren't that separate.

[TrackerNeil]

I think you're right, and that sort of has been his position all along. He also claims that the system eventually implemented in Massachusetts was a lot different from the one he wanted, although he did sign the law so I'm not sure how far that gets him.

Not very far, I think. Most Americans, I find, don't care a whit about the principle of federalism; they either like [insert issue here] or they don't. I remember Fred Thompson in 2008 answering a question on same sex marriage with his position on federalism, and I swear you could hear the eyes glazing over. About that topic, as about many others, all most voters want to know is if you're for or against it, period. So Mitt Romney may think a nuanced answer on "Romneycare" (I hate that term) will save him, but I am less certain.

I'll echo Raids and say that, of all the Republican 2008 field, Romney is the one I could probably have best lived with as president. He's a spineless toad, but at least I'd have the assurance that in most cases he'd have moved with public opinion, and not struck out defiantly in pursuit of some crazy policy goal. (George W. Bush, I am looking in your direction.) If I can't have a good president, I want a spineless one.

[awesome possum]

Reagan's Solicitor General "is quite sure the mandate is Constitutional"

I am quite sure that the health care mandate is constitutional. ... My authorities are not recent. They go back to John Marshall, who sat in the Virginia legislature at the time they ratified the Constitution, and who, in 1824, in Gibbons v. Ogden, said, regarding Congress' Commerce power, "what is this power? It is the power to regulate. That is--to proscribe the rule by which commerce is governed." To my mind, that is the end of the story of the constitutional basis for the mandate.

The mandate is a rule--more accurately, "part of a system of rules by which commerce is to be governed," to quote Chief Justice Marshall. And if that weren't enough for you--though it is enough for me--you go back to Marshall in 1819, in McCulloch v. Maryland, where he said "the powers given to the government imply the ordinary means of execution. The government which has the right to do an act"--surely, to regulate health insurance--"and has imposed on it the duty of performing that act, must, according to the dictates of reason, be allowed to select the means." And that is the Necessary and Proper Clause. [...]

I think that one thing about Judge Vinson's opinion, where he said that if we strike down the mandate everything else goes, shows as well as anything could that the mandate is necessary to the accomplishment of the regulation of health insurance.

[Guest Raids]

Well, sure Reagan's solicitor general thinks that. Most people, I think, still think that. For 50 years it was basically the law that there were no limits to Congress' power under the Commerce Clause (I mean, the argument in Morrison was basically that abused people are less productive and buy less stuff, ta da, commerce).

But that's not the case anymore. That's why you don't hear the guy citing to Morrison or Lopez, because those cases signaled a huge change for the Court's position on the issue. Some people thought they came back around a bit with Gonzalez, but no, that's just an instance where Scalia and Thomas showed that they have no intellectual integrity.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Reagan's Solicitor General "is quite sure the mandate is Constitutional"

"My authorities are not recent."

Well, at least that explains why he ignored U.S. v. Lopez.

"The government which has the right to do an act"--surely, to regulate health insurance--"and has imposed on it the duty of performing that act, must, according to the dictates of reason, be allowed to select the means." And that is the Necessary and Proper Clause. [...]"

Well, that's certainly the argument that will be used. But whether it prevails or not is a different question. In which Article, Section, and Clause is the government's broad power "to regulate health insurance"? It doesn't exist. If it did, this argument would be a slam dunk and over at the outset.

What Congress does have the right to do is regulate interstate commerce, which presumably includes the right to regulate health insurance to the extent it constitutes interstate commerce. That's the right that has to be defined at the outset, before looking at what the N&P clause gives you in terms of any other authority. And to the extent the ACA seeks to regulate activities that are not interstate commerce, the exercise of related powers can't be either necessary or proper.

Fried's argument runs straight into the GM and broccoli hypotheticals at issue in the Florida case, which should be a hint that the argument isn't as open and shut as he seems to suggest.

Kennedy's dissent in Lopez is really interesting, and I've read it a couple times since this issue arose to get a handle on what he might do. That was where Kennedy voted with the majority to strike down a federal law barring the carrying of weapons within a designated distance of a school. The argument was that education clearly affects interstate commerce, violence in schools affects the quality of education received, so regulating the carrying of guns is necessary and proper exercise of the feds legitimate interest in Education.

Kennedy agreed with the majority that carrying a gun wasn't "commerce". Perhaps he'll see a parallel in that not buying insurance isn't commerce either. The other major point he made in Lopez was that it is incredibly important that commerce clause jurisprudence be stable and predictable, and he didn't want to expand that right to a sphere where it had never been used before. That, to me, suggests he is more likely to draw a line at mandates as well, because once you open the door to them, consistency will require that it's open to all of them. So he's likely to be very susceptible to the "parade of horribles" such as the broccoli and GM hypotheticals.

[Shryke]

Well, Obama officially declared his candidacy for President in February 2007, so it's not like early declarations or early discussions are out of bounds. Although I'm not yet aware of any Republican who have officially declared.

No one wants to be "The guy/girl who declared first". It's like some crazy game of chicken.

Or, more accurately, like wildebeests crossing a river in some documentary on the African savanna. They all mill about the edge, and then one accidentally falls in and then they all suddenly rush across at once.

And then a bunch get trampled to death or eaten by crocodiles.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

No one wants to be "The guy/girl who declared first". It's like some crazy game of chicken.

Or, more accurately, like wildebeests crossing a river in some documentary on the African savanna. They all mill about the edge, and then one accidentally falls in and then they all suddenly rush across at once.

And then a bunch get trampled to death or eaten by crocodiles.

Frontrunners never do, because that just makes them bigger targets than they usually are. Obama was smart to do it when he did because he needed the stage to himself for a bit before Hillary tossed her hat in the ring. But I don't think Palin, Romney, Gingrich, or Huckabee will be first. All of them, with the exception of Gingrich, will have enough of an organization in place that they don't need to announce early and put a target on themselves.

So my guess for the first to announce will be Pawlenty or Thune.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Regarding the DNC in Charlotte. That means I'm going to have to watch for traffic if I'm traveling to visit relatives in NC.

*grumble*