Recently I had the opportunity to attend a corporate event. At the event I watched a presentation by a security expert about the issues facing corporate security. The individual referenced recent changes in gun laws, particularly in Arizona, which would increase the risk of workplace violence. The two laws passed by Arizona were one which eliminated the requirement to have a permit to carry concealed, and another which allows CCW holders to lock their firearm in their vehicle at work.
What the expert failed to mention however, is that it is illegal to carry a firearm concealed anywhere a firearm is prohibited, such as a school, post office, or voting place, and also any place that posts that concealed weapons are not allowed, such as a place of business or a bar or restaurant. Also, he failed to mention that it is illegal to have a firearm locked in your car at your place of business if the business specifically prohibits it. The simple fact is, the expert was wrong.
Just because Arizona changed their law does not increase the probability of violence. If the law were not changed, the pre-existing law would not be a deterrent to a person committed to causing harm. As it is, it is against the law to murder someone. But that does not always deter criminals from committing murder. Laws do not exist solely for the purpose of preventing crime, because no law can prevent crime if someone is committed to breaking it. Laws exist so that punishment can be metered out to those who break the law. The use of a firearm to commit a crime is a felony. So why do we need laws that deny law-abiding citizens the right to carry? We don’t. We all know that it is the criminal who breaks the law and the law-abiding citizen who obeys the law. So laws that take rights away from the law-abiding citizen only harm the law-abiding citizen and do nothing to the criminal.
Extremus
Friday, July 23, 2010
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Leftist Says The Conservative Movement Is All About White People.
I was driving home from work on Wednesday June 9, 2010, and I happened to switch to a liberal talk radio station. Of course they don’t call themselves a liberal station, they call themselves a progressive station. And the person who was on said something that shocked me, though I guess I should not have been shocked. He said that the conservative movement in this country was all about white people, that it was all about creating a culture just for white people. In other words, if you are a conservative, you are a racist. Racism is at the core of the conservative movement. He was equating the racist morons in Prescott Arizona who were upset that a Hispanic child was prominently displayed on a mural, to conservatives in general. Well, I’m going to say it, if that’s what that commentator believes, then he is the racist, because all he can see is race.
I should not have been surprised by this individual’s ignorant comments. This is a ploy that the left uses. If you are white, religious, socially and economically conservative, then you are a racist, bigot, homophobe, ignorant, whatever. The left will describe you in the worst way possible. They do this because they know that good people, who believe in right from wrong, don’t want to be identified in that way, so those good people avoid taking conservative positions. Who likes being called a bigot? No one does. However, we cannot allow ourselves to be intimidated into abandoning our values because they want to call us disgraceful names and denigrate us.
The conservative movement is not racist. The conservative movement is raceless. The conservative movement doesn’t care what race you are. The conservative movement believes in equality of opportunity, not equality of income, and it believes in equality of opportunity regardless of race. Yes, the conservative movement has people in it that are ignorant racists. But do we abandon the core principles of the movement because of a few nut jobs who think the quality of a person is defined by the color of their skin? Of course not. The liberal movement has people in it who are socialists. Does that mean the liberal movement is socialist, that all liberals are socialists. No. Are all Muslims terrorists? No. But the left will label all conservatives, and the whole conservative movement as racist.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Limited government knows no race. Lower taxes knows no race. Liberty knows no race. So where is the racism? If there are conservatives who espouse racist views, they are not espousing conservative views, because conservative views do not look at race. As a conservative I want economic opportunity, freedom, and liberty for all people, not just white people. I want the black community to enjoy happiness and prosperity. I want the Hispanic community to enjoy happiness and prosperity. I want all people to enjoy those things, and there is nothing racist about that. So the next time you hear a liberal radio host say the conservative movement is racist; know that they are just propagating a lie.
Extremus.
I should not have been surprised by this individual’s ignorant comments. This is a ploy that the left uses. If you are white, religious, socially and economically conservative, then you are a racist, bigot, homophobe, ignorant, whatever. The left will describe you in the worst way possible. They do this because they know that good people, who believe in right from wrong, don’t want to be identified in that way, so those good people avoid taking conservative positions. Who likes being called a bigot? No one does. However, we cannot allow ourselves to be intimidated into abandoning our values because they want to call us disgraceful names and denigrate us.
The conservative movement is not racist. The conservative movement is raceless. The conservative movement doesn’t care what race you are. The conservative movement believes in equality of opportunity, not equality of income, and it believes in equality of opportunity regardless of race. Yes, the conservative movement has people in it that are ignorant racists. But do we abandon the core principles of the movement because of a few nut jobs who think the quality of a person is defined by the color of their skin? Of course not. The liberal movement has people in it who are socialists. Does that mean the liberal movement is socialist, that all liberals are socialists. No. Are all Muslims terrorists? No. But the left will label all conservatives, and the whole conservative movement as racist.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Limited government knows no race. Lower taxes knows no race. Liberty knows no race. So where is the racism? If there are conservatives who espouse racist views, they are not espousing conservative views, because conservative views do not look at race. As a conservative I want economic opportunity, freedom, and liberty for all people, not just white people. I want the black community to enjoy happiness and prosperity. I want the Hispanic community to enjoy happiness and prosperity. I want all people to enjoy those things, and there is nothing racist about that. So the next time you hear a liberal radio host say the conservative movement is racist; know that they are just propagating a lie.
Extremus.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Radical Islamists are Our Enemy
According to White House counter terrorism adviser John Brennan we can no longer call our enemies Jihadists because it gives legitimacy to what they are doing. We cannot call them radical islamists either, because that describes them in religious terms. So, whom are we fighting, who is the enemy? Brennan said the enemy was members of Bin Laden’s network. Okay, but who are they and how do we identify them? Brennan says they are victims of "political, economic and social forces." So the murderous terrorists are victims.
It gets better. Brennan described jihad as “a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.” Well the Qu’ran says many things about jihad. Here are some of those sayings.
9:73 “O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed.”
25:52 “Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Qur'an). “
2:218 “Those who believed and those who suffered exile and fought (and strove and struggled) in the path of Allah,- they have the hope of the Mercy of Allah. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”
3:142 “Did ye think that ye would enter Heaven without Allah testing those of you who fought hard (In His Cause) and remained steadfast?”
4:95 “Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-“
5:54 “O ye who believe! if any from among you turn back from his Faith, soon will Allah produce a people whom He will love as they will love Him,- lowly with the believers, mighty against the rejecters, fighting in the way of Allah, and never afraid of the reproaches of such as find fault. That is the grace of Allah, which He will bestow on whom He pleaseth. And Allah encompasseth all, and He knoweth all things.”
60:1 “O ye who believe! Take not my enemies and yours as friends (or protectors),- offering them (your) love, even though they have rejected the Truth that has come to you, and have (on the contrary) driven out the Prophet and yourselves (from your homes), (simply) because ye believe in Allah your Lord! If ye have come out to strive in My Way and to seek My Good Pleasure, (take them not as friends), holding secret converse of love (and friendship) with them: for I know full well all that ye conceal and all that ye reveal. And any of you that does this has strayed from the Straight Path.”
So based on the parts of the Qu’ran above, the radical Islamists who engage in terrorism believe that they are engaged in a holy struggle against the Unbelievers. Would it not make sense then to acknowledge that they are followers of Islam regardless of the radical view they take of it? They believe that they will have a greater reward in heaven because they have striven and fought in the cause of Allah.
I no longer believe that the President is acting in the best interests of the American people. He and his advisors like John Brennan have weakened the security of the United States by refusing to take a practical look at the enemy we are facing and identify them so that we can take steps to protect ourselves. If you do not identify our enemy and clearly define the things about him that make him want to harm us, then how can you possibly have any hope of stopping him. How do you know what to look for?
I know who our enemy is. Our enemy are the radical adherents of Islam who strictly follow the Qu’ran and have identified us and our allies as their enemies. Let’s find out who they are and deal with them.
Extremus
It gets better. Brennan described jihad as “a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.” Well the Qu’ran says many things about jihad. Here are some of those sayings.
9:73 “O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed.”
25:52 “Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Qur'an). “
2:218 “Those who believed and those who suffered exile and fought (and strove and struggled) in the path of Allah,- they have the hope of the Mercy of Allah. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”
3:142 “Did ye think that ye would enter Heaven without Allah testing those of you who fought hard (In His Cause) and remained steadfast?”
4:95 “Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-“
5:54 “O ye who believe! if any from among you turn back from his Faith, soon will Allah produce a people whom He will love as they will love Him,- lowly with the believers, mighty against the rejecters, fighting in the way of Allah, and never afraid of the reproaches of such as find fault. That is the grace of Allah, which He will bestow on whom He pleaseth. And Allah encompasseth all, and He knoweth all things.”
60:1 “O ye who believe! Take not my enemies and yours as friends (or protectors),- offering them (your) love, even though they have rejected the Truth that has come to you, and have (on the contrary) driven out the Prophet and yourselves (from your homes), (simply) because ye believe in Allah your Lord! If ye have come out to strive in My Way and to seek My Good Pleasure, (take them not as friends), holding secret converse of love (and friendship) with them: for I know full well all that ye conceal and all that ye reveal. And any of you that does this has strayed from the Straight Path.”
So based on the parts of the Qu’ran above, the radical Islamists who engage in terrorism believe that they are engaged in a holy struggle against the Unbelievers. Would it not make sense then to acknowledge that they are followers of Islam regardless of the radical view they take of it? They believe that they will have a greater reward in heaven because they have striven and fought in the cause of Allah.
I no longer believe that the President is acting in the best interests of the American people. He and his advisors like John Brennan have weakened the security of the United States by refusing to take a practical look at the enemy we are facing and identify them so that we can take steps to protect ourselves. If you do not identify our enemy and clearly define the things about him that make him want to harm us, then how can you possibly have any hope of stopping him. How do you know what to look for?
I know who our enemy is. Our enemy are the radical adherents of Islam who strictly follow the Qu’ran and have identified us and our allies as their enemies. Let’s find out who they are and deal with them.
Extremus
Monday, April 26, 2010
Arizona Illegal Immigration Bill is Right.
Arizona got it right with their illegal immigration bill, and as it typical of the left they are spreading lies and misinformation about how the law will be enforced, it’s constitutionality, and it’s affects on the people in the state. The law directs police to verify the immigration status of any person they have “reasonable suspicion” to be in the country and the state illegally. Individuals found to be in the country illegally will be arrested and turned over to I.C.E.
The left is yelling that this will result in racial profiling and that people will be questioned because of the color of their skin. No lie could be worse than that one. The law requires that a police officer have “reasonable suspicion.” That means they can’t question someone because of the color of their skin. Skin color is not justifiable as a “reasonable suspicion.” Any officer that does so will be committing racial profiling which is illegal under state law.
The other lie is that the law is unconstitutional. That idea is founded in the belief that it intrudes on the Federal Government’s authority to enforce immigration law. No it doesn’t. Federal law makes it illegal to sell or possess narcotics. State laws say the same thing. Are states intruding upon the Federal Government’s role to enforce drug trafficking laws? No. Likewise, by making illegal immigration in the state of Arizona a state crime, it does not interfere with the role of the Federal Government. This is why. Arizona is not deciding what makes an individual legal or illegal. The Federal Government decides what makes a person legal or illegal. State law is not exceeding Federal law in this instance. Also, Arizona is not going to deport people, I.C.E. will deport them. So Arizona will not be performing the deportation role of the Federal Government.
Lastly we see that violence is a creature of the left. Because of this issue we have seen leftists fighting with police and a swastika was smeared on the state capital building using refried beans. Guess I’ll have to stop eating refried beans now. For a year the left has accused the Tea Party of inciting violence, and the first real of act of violence is not committed by the Tea Party, but by the pro-illegal immigrant crowed on the left.
Arizona is stepping up where the Federal Government has failed to take a stand. My hope is other states impacted by illegal immigration like Arizona will do the same.
Extremus.
The left is yelling that this will result in racial profiling and that people will be questioned because of the color of their skin. No lie could be worse than that one. The law requires that a police officer have “reasonable suspicion.” That means they can’t question someone because of the color of their skin. Skin color is not justifiable as a “reasonable suspicion.” Any officer that does so will be committing racial profiling which is illegal under state law.
The other lie is that the law is unconstitutional. That idea is founded in the belief that it intrudes on the Federal Government’s authority to enforce immigration law. No it doesn’t. Federal law makes it illegal to sell or possess narcotics. State laws say the same thing. Are states intruding upon the Federal Government’s role to enforce drug trafficking laws? No. Likewise, by making illegal immigration in the state of Arizona a state crime, it does not interfere with the role of the Federal Government. This is why. Arizona is not deciding what makes an individual legal or illegal. The Federal Government decides what makes a person legal or illegal. State law is not exceeding Federal law in this instance. Also, Arizona is not going to deport people, I.C.E. will deport them. So Arizona will not be performing the deportation role of the Federal Government.
Lastly we see that violence is a creature of the left. Because of this issue we have seen leftists fighting with police and a swastika was smeared on the state capital building using refried beans. Guess I’ll have to stop eating refried beans now. For a year the left has accused the Tea Party of inciting violence, and the first real of act of violence is not committed by the Tea Party, but by the pro-illegal immigrant crowed on the left.
Arizona is stepping up where the Federal Government has failed to take a stand. My hope is other states impacted by illegal immigration like Arizona will do the same.
Extremus.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Arizona Sales Tax Increase Bad For The State
Facing billion dollar deficits and a drop in tax revenue, the state of Arizona is proposing a temporary 1% increase in their state sales tax, which would raise it to 6.6%. Of course, the usual arguments for supporting a tax increase are being made, it will prevent cuts to education, to hospitals, to police and fire, etc. You get the point. But I believe that an increase in the sales tax will have the same effect, and will not be temporary.
Back in 1991 the State of Rhode Island passed a similar 1% increase in their sales tax, increasing it from 6% to 7%. It too was supposed to be temporary. The reason for the increase was to pay back depositors who had placed money in Rhode Island state banks backed by RISDIC, Rhode Island Share and Depositors Insurance Corporation. RISDIC was going bankrupt, largely due to embezzlement by Joseph Mollicone. The citizens of the State, leery of any tax increase were assured that this increase was only going to be temporary. And the citizens of Rhode Island agreed to it. After all, this was about helping each other impacted by this event. And Rhode Island is a close nit state.
Well, as the saying goes it’s easier to raise taxes than to cut spending, so years later the temporary 7% sales tax was made permanent. The state saw all the revenue being pulled in, and decided they couldn’t lost that in the budget, so the sales tax was made permanent. The state really hasn’t recovered from the effects of that increase.
Massachusetts had a 5% sales tax which they increased to 6.25% in 2009, and Connecticut has a 6% sales tax. Since Rhode Island increased their sales tax Emerald Square Mall was built in North Attleboro, just over the Rhode Island border and twenty minutes away from the Lincoln Mall, and businesses along state route 6 in Seekonk have grown. A Super Walmart was built in Whitinsville MA. There is also the Shoppes at Blackstone Valley that went up, and Putnam, Connecticut has seen it’s share of growth as well. In comparison, Woonsocket’s retail business has declined and Providence has also suffered, though the construction of Providence Place Mall has reversed that decline somewhat. After Rhode Island increased it’s sales tax to a full 2% above Massachusetts it was like the state of Massachusetts put up a sign that said “Shop Here.”
Rhode Island is also known to have one of the highest tax burdens in the country and is routinely criticized for having the worst business climate in the country. The result is an unemployment rate right now of 12.6% and a state budge deficit of $220 million.
Arizona should be looking at Rhode Island right now as a lesson of what not to do. If the voters of Arizona increase that state sales tax, it’s my belief that when May 31, 2013 comes around, the government of Arizona will see the money they stand to lose by reducing the sales tax. They will be unwilling to make the cuts they would have to make by reducing the sales tax and will seek to either extend it another 3 years or make it permanent. After all, in 3 years I expect people will say that Arizona has grown accustomed to paying the higher tax and will try to keep it in place. People will say, “Look at what this money does for education, for hospitals, for police and fire. We can’t lose this money.” I think you get the argument that will be made.
Higher taxes are not the way to go. Responsible tax policy promotes economic growth by allowing people and businesses to keep more of what they earn which gets reinvested into the economy. I believe that when you increase economic activity you increase tax revenue. This has been shown to be the case, because economic activity means more people working and more businesses engaging in commerce which increases tax revenue. The more people who are working, the less are on government assistance, and the number of people on government assistance declines which decreases the cost to government. In that way the people who really need help can be helped and those who are able to work can find work. And those who want to start a business will have an easier time starting one.
Arizona needs to be smart. It needs to reject the increase in the sales tax and focus on tax policies and economic policies that will increase investment in the state and increase economic growth and employment. We’ll see if Arizona is smart enough to make the right decision on May 18.
Extremus
Back in 1991 the State of Rhode Island passed a similar 1% increase in their sales tax, increasing it from 6% to 7%. It too was supposed to be temporary. The reason for the increase was to pay back depositors who had placed money in Rhode Island state banks backed by RISDIC, Rhode Island Share and Depositors Insurance Corporation. RISDIC was going bankrupt, largely due to embezzlement by Joseph Mollicone. The citizens of the State, leery of any tax increase were assured that this increase was only going to be temporary. And the citizens of Rhode Island agreed to it. After all, this was about helping each other impacted by this event. And Rhode Island is a close nit state.
Well, as the saying goes it’s easier to raise taxes than to cut spending, so years later the temporary 7% sales tax was made permanent. The state saw all the revenue being pulled in, and decided they couldn’t lost that in the budget, so the sales tax was made permanent. The state really hasn’t recovered from the effects of that increase.
Massachusetts had a 5% sales tax which they increased to 6.25% in 2009, and Connecticut has a 6% sales tax. Since Rhode Island increased their sales tax Emerald Square Mall was built in North Attleboro, just over the Rhode Island border and twenty minutes away from the Lincoln Mall, and businesses along state route 6 in Seekonk have grown. A Super Walmart was built in Whitinsville MA. There is also the Shoppes at Blackstone Valley that went up, and Putnam, Connecticut has seen it’s share of growth as well. In comparison, Woonsocket’s retail business has declined and Providence has also suffered, though the construction of Providence Place Mall has reversed that decline somewhat. After Rhode Island increased it’s sales tax to a full 2% above Massachusetts it was like the state of Massachusetts put up a sign that said “Shop Here.”
Rhode Island is also known to have one of the highest tax burdens in the country and is routinely criticized for having the worst business climate in the country. The result is an unemployment rate right now of 12.6% and a state budge deficit of $220 million.
Arizona should be looking at Rhode Island right now as a lesson of what not to do. If the voters of Arizona increase that state sales tax, it’s my belief that when May 31, 2013 comes around, the government of Arizona will see the money they stand to lose by reducing the sales tax. They will be unwilling to make the cuts they would have to make by reducing the sales tax and will seek to either extend it another 3 years or make it permanent. After all, in 3 years I expect people will say that Arizona has grown accustomed to paying the higher tax and will try to keep it in place. People will say, “Look at what this money does for education, for hospitals, for police and fire. We can’t lose this money.” I think you get the argument that will be made.
Higher taxes are not the way to go. Responsible tax policy promotes economic growth by allowing people and businesses to keep more of what they earn which gets reinvested into the economy. I believe that when you increase economic activity you increase tax revenue. This has been shown to be the case, because economic activity means more people working and more businesses engaging in commerce which increases tax revenue. The more people who are working, the less are on government assistance, and the number of people on government assistance declines which decreases the cost to government. In that way the people who really need help can be helped and those who are able to work can find work. And those who want to start a business will have an easier time starting one.
Arizona needs to be smart. It needs to reject the increase in the sales tax and focus on tax policies and economic policies that will increase investment in the state and increase economic growth and employment. We’ll see if Arizona is smart enough to make the right decision on May 18.
Extremus
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Individual health insurance mandate started as a Republican idea - yeah, so what?
One of the most recent things being brought by the left about the individual health insurance mandate, is that it was originally proposed by Republicans years ago. And the only thing I can say in response to that is, that is good enough reason for liberals to oppose the individual mandate.
Think about it, liberals are opposed to anything Republicans propose right? I mean, if Republicans originally proposed it, and they are supported by the insurance companies, then it has to be a bad idea because it supports the insurance companies.
In fact, guess who supports the individual mandate in the current law? The insurance companies. AHIP, America's Health Insurance Plans has been supporting the individual mandate for the past year. They have told the Democrats that they can accomplish the goal of universal health care, lower costs, and no denial of pre-existing conditions so long as there is an individual mandate that pushes everyone to have insurance. Go to AHIP's website and look up their press releases for the past year.
So who are the hypocrites, Republicans for opposing the individual mandate, or the Democrats for adopting the individual mandate and siding with the insurance companies? I'll leave that for you to figure out.
One other thing though, papers are saying Senator John McCain (R-AZ) proposed the idea and saying he's a conservative. Interesting that McCain is a moderate when they like him and a conservative when they don't. They are also attacking Mitt Romney. For the ignorant liberals who see a contradiction that isn't there, the Federal Government does not have the plenary powers that states like Massachusetts have. What is constitutional for Massachusetts to do may not be constitutional for the Federal Government. For some reason liberals have trouble telling the difference between Federal and State.
Think about it, liberals are opposed to anything Republicans propose right? I mean, if Republicans originally proposed it, and they are supported by the insurance companies, then it has to be a bad idea because it supports the insurance companies.
In fact, guess who supports the individual mandate in the current law? The insurance companies. AHIP, America's Health Insurance Plans has been supporting the individual mandate for the past year. They have told the Democrats that they can accomplish the goal of universal health care, lower costs, and no denial of pre-existing conditions so long as there is an individual mandate that pushes everyone to have insurance. Go to AHIP's website and look up their press releases for the past year.
So who are the hypocrites, Republicans for opposing the individual mandate, or the Democrats for adopting the individual mandate and siding with the insurance companies? I'll leave that for you to figure out.
One other thing though, papers are saying Senator John McCain (R-AZ) proposed the idea and saying he's a conservative. Interesting that McCain is a moderate when they like him and a conservative when they don't. They are also attacking Mitt Romney. For the ignorant liberals who see a contradiction that isn't there, the Federal Government does not have the plenary powers that states like Massachusetts have. What is constitutional for Massachusetts to do may not be constitutional for the Federal Government. For some reason liberals have trouble telling the difference between Federal and State.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
More About the Individual Health Insurance Mandate
After my post yesterday I spent some more time reading opinions about the Individual Health Insurance Mandate. A couple almost had me convinced, but after I shook my head and cleared my eyes of the hypnotized look I came back to reality.
One of the principle uses of the commerce clause to defend the mandate is that even if you don’t have health insurance you affect interstate commerce when you pay out of pocket. You are not part of a pool to keep costs down yet you still contribute to the demand for health insurance. Therefore the Government can require you to join a private health insurance plan where you become part of a risk pool and the cost of health care is spread out by premiums, thus the group as a whole benefits and that is good for everyone.
The penalty is defended as a tax penalty. Which is allowable under the government’s taxation authority. That one almost had me convinced.
As far as the commerce clause goes, there is just one problem. When you purchase health care in a state, you are not engaging in interstate commerce. When you purchase health insurance, you are not engaging in interstate commerce. The states control the health insurance companies in their own state, and health insurance companies are prohibited by the Federal Government from selling across state lines. So how do I affect interstate commerce when I pay out of pocket?
One of the examples about interstate commerce is a case involving a wheat grower, Roscoe Filburn who grew wheat for his own consumption above his allowed quota. Back in the 1930s, the price of wheat had dropped to all time lows. Farmers were growing wheat faster than it could be sold. Storehouses were filled up, railroad companies were rejecting shipment, and thus supply was outstripping demand. This was a problem around the world and the price of wheat globally was in decline. Therefore, to make money, farmers had to grow more wheat, and thus the price dropped more because they couldn’t sell it.
To combat the problem, the Federal Government put quotas in place to limit the amount of wheat grown and raise the price of wheat through the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. Well, Filburn decided to grow wheat for his own consumption and keep it apart from the wheat he wanted to sell in the market under the quota system. He was allowed to grow 20.1 bushels on 11.1 acres, but grew on 23 acres. He was taken to court in Wickard v. Filburn, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled that even though he was growing wheat for his own consumption, it still affected interstate commerce because he was growing wheat for himself instead of buying it from the market. If everyone did that, than the controls the government put in place to raise the price of wheat would be useless and the price of wheat would continue to drop.
This example is used to support the individual mandate, because if you buy health insurance out of pocket you are buying health care that you would otherwise get through insurance, and thus you are affecting the price of health care to the insured. Your additional demand for healthcare contributes to rising costs.
The difference between these two examples is that in Filburn’s case, the government was trying to control supply. In the health care example, they are trying to control demand.
One point I have and others have raised is, can the government compel you to buy a product because failure to do so negatively impacts interstate commerce? General Motors is often used as an example. General Motors, as we know, went bankrupt. The reason was, they could not sell enough vehicles to keep up with the cost to make them. Very simple economics, if I make a product I need to sell enough of it to make up the cost, if it costs more to make a product than to sell it, then I go out of business. That’s what happened to General Motors.
Instead of bailing out General Motors, what if the government had instead told all of us to go buy a new car. Your failure to buy a new car from General Motors negatively impacts interstate commerce. Because you are driving around in a used car or a foreign car, General Motors stands to go out of business, which would affect their employees, their suppliers, the suppliers to the suppliers, and so on down the line. It would devastate the economy. So the Government will compel you to buy a new car from General Motors, and if you can’t afford one, they will subsidize it. They’ll create new taxes to pay for it, they’ll have a real Cadillac tax, and they’ll even tell you the minimum type of vehicle you must own. And they’ll tell General Motors what type of vehicles they have to make. And you’ll be required to buy a new care every three years, and it’ll be great. It will stimulate the economy and drive new technologies, and we’ll all be better for it. And if you don’t buy a new car, you’ll pay a tax penalty to the IRS, and the IRS will be setup to know when you have bought a new car and how long you’ve driven your current one. They can get it from State Departments of Motor Vehicles.
So what the government is doing in that example is they are using you to manage the economy. That throws the ideas of free commerce on its head. It’s not the governments role to tell you what product you must buy and from whom and threaten you with penalties if you don’t. It’s your role to decide for yourself what goods and services you want and can afford to buy. It’s the role of suppliers to attract you to buy their product and manage their costs to make a profit. But what’s happening here with health care is the Federal Government is ordering you to buy healthcare regardless of it’s cost, regardless of if you want it, regardless of the insurance industries ability to control costs and attract you to buy product. Now you will not have a choice. The government will tell you the minimum product you must buy and you will have to buy it. Is there anything more backwards than that?
As for the penalty, I have read other people’s writing saying it’s just a tax. If you don’t have insurance, you’ll just pay more in tax. No where in the bill is the penalty defined as a tax or a tax penalty. It is called a penalty, that’s it. I also saw someone say that the bill doesn’t require you to buy health insurance. Well that person apparently didn’t read the bill. Here is what the bill says;
Subtitle F—Shared Responsibility for
Health Care
PART I—INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY
SEC. 1501. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
(b) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new chapter:
‘‘CHAPTER 48—MAINTENANCE OF MINIMUM ESSENTIAL
COVERAGE
‘‘Sec. 5000A. Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage.
‘‘SEC. 5000A. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
‘‘(a) REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.—
An applicable individual shall for each month beginning
after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the
individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum
essential coverage for such month.
‘‘(b) SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENT.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If an applicable individual fails to meet
the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months during
any calendar year beginning after 2013, then, except as provided
in subsection (d), there is hereby imposed a penalty
with respect to the individual in the amount determined under
subsection (c).
‘‘(2) INCLUSION WITH RETURN.—Any penalty imposed by
this section with respect to any month shall be included with
a taxpayer’s return under chapter 1 for the taxable year which
includes such month.
‘‘(3) PAYMENT OF PENALTY.—If an individual with respect
to whom a penalty is imposed by this section for any month—
‘‘(A) is a dependent (as defined in section 152) of
another taxpayer for the other taxpayer’s taxable year
including such month, such other taxpayer shall be liable
for such penalty, or
‘‘(B) files a joint return for the taxable year including
such month, such individual and the spouse of such individual
shall be jointly liable for such penalty.
With that said, I’ll repeat what I’ve been saying about this requirement. If this is Constitutional, then it represents the greatest threat to liberty and freedom we know. It will give the National Government unprecedented power to compel its citizens to engage in commerce, something it has never done in history. If this remains law it only represents the beginning of what the current Congress and Administration are prepared to do. There is no telling how far they will take this new power.
Extremus.
One of the principle uses of the commerce clause to defend the mandate is that even if you don’t have health insurance you affect interstate commerce when you pay out of pocket. You are not part of a pool to keep costs down yet you still contribute to the demand for health insurance. Therefore the Government can require you to join a private health insurance plan where you become part of a risk pool and the cost of health care is spread out by premiums, thus the group as a whole benefits and that is good for everyone.
The penalty is defended as a tax penalty. Which is allowable under the government’s taxation authority. That one almost had me convinced.
As far as the commerce clause goes, there is just one problem. When you purchase health care in a state, you are not engaging in interstate commerce. When you purchase health insurance, you are not engaging in interstate commerce. The states control the health insurance companies in their own state, and health insurance companies are prohibited by the Federal Government from selling across state lines. So how do I affect interstate commerce when I pay out of pocket?
One of the examples about interstate commerce is a case involving a wheat grower, Roscoe Filburn who grew wheat for his own consumption above his allowed quota. Back in the 1930s, the price of wheat had dropped to all time lows. Farmers were growing wheat faster than it could be sold. Storehouses were filled up, railroad companies were rejecting shipment, and thus supply was outstripping demand. This was a problem around the world and the price of wheat globally was in decline. Therefore, to make money, farmers had to grow more wheat, and thus the price dropped more because they couldn’t sell it.
To combat the problem, the Federal Government put quotas in place to limit the amount of wheat grown and raise the price of wheat through the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. Well, Filburn decided to grow wheat for his own consumption and keep it apart from the wheat he wanted to sell in the market under the quota system. He was allowed to grow 20.1 bushels on 11.1 acres, but grew on 23 acres. He was taken to court in Wickard v. Filburn, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled that even though he was growing wheat for his own consumption, it still affected interstate commerce because he was growing wheat for himself instead of buying it from the market. If everyone did that, than the controls the government put in place to raise the price of wheat would be useless and the price of wheat would continue to drop.
This example is used to support the individual mandate, because if you buy health insurance out of pocket you are buying health care that you would otherwise get through insurance, and thus you are affecting the price of health care to the insured. Your additional demand for healthcare contributes to rising costs.
The difference between these two examples is that in Filburn’s case, the government was trying to control supply. In the health care example, they are trying to control demand.
One point I have and others have raised is, can the government compel you to buy a product because failure to do so negatively impacts interstate commerce? General Motors is often used as an example. General Motors, as we know, went bankrupt. The reason was, they could not sell enough vehicles to keep up with the cost to make them. Very simple economics, if I make a product I need to sell enough of it to make up the cost, if it costs more to make a product than to sell it, then I go out of business. That’s what happened to General Motors.
Instead of bailing out General Motors, what if the government had instead told all of us to go buy a new car. Your failure to buy a new car from General Motors negatively impacts interstate commerce. Because you are driving around in a used car or a foreign car, General Motors stands to go out of business, which would affect their employees, their suppliers, the suppliers to the suppliers, and so on down the line. It would devastate the economy. So the Government will compel you to buy a new car from General Motors, and if you can’t afford one, they will subsidize it. They’ll create new taxes to pay for it, they’ll have a real Cadillac tax, and they’ll even tell you the minimum type of vehicle you must own. And they’ll tell General Motors what type of vehicles they have to make. And you’ll be required to buy a new care every three years, and it’ll be great. It will stimulate the economy and drive new technologies, and we’ll all be better for it. And if you don’t buy a new car, you’ll pay a tax penalty to the IRS, and the IRS will be setup to know when you have bought a new car and how long you’ve driven your current one. They can get it from State Departments of Motor Vehicles.
So what the government is doing in that example is they are using you to manage the economy. That throws the ideas of free commerce on its head. It’s not the governments role to tell you what product you must buy and from whom and threaten you with penalties if you don’t. It’s your role to decide for yourself what goods and services you want and can afford to buy. It’s the role of suppliers to attract you to buy their product and manage their costs to make a profit. But what’s happening here with health care is the Federal Government is ordering you to buy healthcare regardless of it’s cost, regardless of if you want it, regardless of the insurance industries ability to control costs and attract you to buy product. Now you will not have a choice. The government will tell you the minimum product you must buy and you will have to buy it. Is there anything more backwards than that?
As for the penalty, I have read other people’s writing saying it’s just a tax. If you don’t have insurance, you’ll just pay more in tax. No where in the bill is the penalty defined as a tax or a tax penalty. It is called a penalty, that’s it. I also saw someone say that the bill doesn’t require you to buy health insurance. Well that person apparently didn’t read the bill. Here is what the bill says;
Subtitle F—Shared Responsibility for
Health Care
PART I—INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY
SEC. 1501. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
(b) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new chapter:
‘‘CHAPTER 48—MAINTENANCE OF MINIMUM ESSENTIAL
COVERAGE
‘‘Sec. 5000A. Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage.
‘‘SEC. 5000A. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
‘‘(a) REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.—
An applicable individual shall for each month beginning
after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the
individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum
essential coverage for such month.
‘‘(b) SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENT.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If an applicable individual fails to meet
the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months during
any calendar year beginning after 2013, then, except as provided
in subsection (d), there is hereby imposed a penalty
with respect to the individual in the amount determined under
subsection (c).
‘‘(2) INCLUSION WITH RETURN.—Any penalty imposed by
this section with respect to any month shall be included with
a taxpayer’s return under chapter 1 for the taxable year which
includes such month.
‘‘(3) PAYMENT OF PENALTY.—If an individual with respect
to whom a penalty is imposed by this section for any month—
‘‘(A) is a dependent (as defined in section 152) of
another taxpayer for the other taxpayer’s taxable year
including such month, such other taxpayer shall be liable
for such penalty, or
‘‘(B) files a joint return for the taxable year including
such month, such individual and the spouse of such individual
shall be jointly liable for such penalty.
With that said, I’ll repeat what I’ve been saying about this requirement. If this is Constitutional, then it represents the greatest threat to liberty and freedom we know. It will give the National Government unprecedented power to compel its citizens to engage in commerce, something it has never done in history. If this remains law it only represents the beginning of what the current Congress and Administration are prepared to do. There is no telling how far they will take this new power.
Extremus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)