Thursday, June 30, 2011

Appeals court ruling gives Obama a health care victory

In the first ruling by a federal appeals court on President Obama’s health care overhaul, a panel in Cincinnati handed the administration a victory yesterday by agreeing that the government can require a minimum amount of insurance for Americans.

A Republican-appointed judge joined with a Democratic appointee for the 2-1 majority in another milestone for Obama’s hotly debated signature domestic initiative — the first time a Republican federal court appointee has affirmed the merits of the law.

The White House and Justice Department hailed the panel’s affirmation of an earlier ruling by a federal court in Michigan; opponents of the law said challenges will continue to the US Supreme Court.

At issue is a conservative law center’s lawsuit arguing on behalf of plaintiffs that potentially requiring them to buy insurance or face penalties could subject them to financial hardship. The suit warns that the law is too broad and could lead to more federal mandates.

The Thomas More Law Center, in Ann Arbor, Mich., argued before the panel that the law was unconstitutional and that Congress overstepped its powers.

The government countered the measure was needed for the overall goal of reducing health care costs and reforms such as protecting people with preexisting conditions. It said the coverage mandate will help keep the costs of changes from being shifted to households and providers.

White House adviser Stephanie Cutter called the ruling another victory for millions of Americans and small businesses benefiting from the overhaul.

“At the end of the day, we are confident the constitutionality of these landmark reforms will be upheld,’’ she said in a statement.

The law center predicted its case would have a good shot on appeal.

“Clearly, our case won’t resolve all the issues, because we don’t raise the state rights issue, but we are the only one that is currently ripe for Supreme Court review that raises the challenge on behalf of an individual,’’ said David Yerushalmi, an attorney for the law center.

The three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit delivered a lengthy opinion with disagreement on some issues, moving unusually quickly in delivering its decision, less than a month after hearing oral arguments.

“Congress had a rational basis for concluding that the minimum coverage provision is essential to the Affordable Care Act’s larger reforms to the national markets in health care delivery and health insurance,’’ Judge Boyce F. Martin, appointed by President Carter, wrote for the majority.

A President George W. Bush appointee concurred; a President Reagan appointee who is a US district judge in Columbus, Ohio, sitting on the panel disagreed. Judges are selected for panels through random draw.

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Obama couldn’t run a lemonade stand

The Obama administration has mindlessly flooded the country with hundreds and hundreds of billions of federal tax dollars. The government gurus claim the reason for opening the federal-money floodgates was to jump-start the sluggish economy, which was strangled to begin with by Fedzilla’s housing policies - or lack thereof.

Just as you would not pour gas on a fire in hopes of putting it out, infusing more than a trillion taxpayer dollars into the economy has not and will not work to put the economy on the path to prosperity. An artificial economy cannot be repaired with more artificiality. Who doesn’t know this?

President Obama’s economic and social engineering has been a flop, a disaster. The economy continues to sputter, gag and hemorrhage; unemployment and underemployment are getting worse, not better; housing prices continue to plummet; the dollar’s value is shrinking; and our debt is suffocating any hopes of a long-term economic recovery. Keep the Titanic on course, captain.

Dumping more than a trillion dollars into the market and claiming to want to stimulate the nation’s economy is analogous to intentionally allowing the Missouri River to flood towns and cities because the streets need cleaning.

Either the Obama administration does not know its history or it intentionally wants to kill off the nation’s private sector. It might be a little of both.

The Obama regime may be the least qualified when it comes to understanding how a free market operates, how jobs are created and how profits are made. I have yet to uncover any high-ranking Obama appointee with any free-market experience, including the secretary for the Department of Labor, which should be renamed under the Obama regime as the Department of Labor Unions.

The bottom line is that we have entrusted our economy to a group of people who would not know how to operate a child’s lemonade stand. What an inexcusable, tragic mistake.

We faced a similar economic problem back in the early 1980s. After soundly defeating President Carter, Ronald Reagan, a fan of the free market, took the opposite approach of what Mr. Obama is doing to turn the economy around.

What happened because of President Reagan’s approach of lowering taxes, reducing federal regulations and favoring the private sector over Fedzilla? Almost 40 million private-sector jobs were created and America experienced a 25-year economic boom.

What America needs is a vibrant, growing and strong economy that benefits everyone, especially the shrinking middle class. This will not happen with a guy in charge who believes Fedzilla knows best. It does not.

There has been no net increase in jobs created as a result of swamping the economy with federal dollars, and there will be none. When the free-market history books are written, this will be the central theme of surrendering the economy to central planners in Washington who have zero private-sector experience.

The Obama regime has given America a crystal-clear message that liberalism in big government is an economic wrecking ball. What America desperately needs is a much leaner, less bureaucratic federal government - the very kind of federal government our framers had in mind when they started this experiment in self-government more than 230 years ago.