The big news in Congress this week? Healthcare! Glad I didn’t miss anything in the three weeks I was gone.
Yesterday, in a 14-9 vote, the Senate Finance Committee voted to approve the healthcare bill proposed by Senator Max Baucus. By far the most conservative of the bills passed by the various senate committees, the Finance Committee version does not contain a proposal for a public option and would impose fines on people who do not obtain health insurance.
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), the Senate majority leader (who you can usually see putting the moves on Nancy Pelosi during their joint press conferences), plans to combine the Finance Committee bill with the more liberal Health Committee bill and the final version will come before the full senate (tentatively) the week of October 26th.
With the vote yesterday, healthcare reform is officially the farthest it’s ever been in the U.S. Government. Since FDR first proposed reform almost an entire century ago, the fact that there is about to be a real debate on the floor of the full Senate is practically a miracle.
On the other hand, if you thought it was ugly before, this is just the beginning. The Democratic leadership on the Finance Committee has pledged that a public option will be part of the combined bill, which as you might imagine, is going to send insurance companies and their lobbyists spinning.
Plan to see scary articles about how much your insurance costs will go up if a public option goes into play. Including the letter to the editor in the San Jose Mercury News last Sunday, entitled “Public option would merely shift costs”:
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_13528549?nclick_check=1
Notice that the author of the letter is the CEO of the National Association of Health Underwriters Arlington, VA, the people who ultimately decide whether or not you are worthy of health insurance.
Oh, and don’t forget the study done by PricewaterhouseCoopers (sounds legit right?), paid for by health insurance companies which concludes that the costs to the average consumer for healthcare will skyrocket based on certain provisions in the Finance Committee bill. As it turns out, the study only looked at the four most costly provisions and did not include any analysis of the impact of new subsidies on insurance costs to households.
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1009/PWC_statement__Not_so_helpful_for_AHIP.html
Expect to see a backlash from the other side also. Almost thirty unions are already running ads in your newspaper letting everyone know they are opposed to the Senate Finance Committee healthcare reform bill. Citing the lack of a public option and the tax on expensive policies, labor leaders plan to use the tag line “real health care reform and nothing less.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091013/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul_union_ad
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Ringside Seats to Citizens United v. FEC
We don’t hear much about the Supreme Court unless there’s a vacancy. Traditionally, the court usually chooses to not hear arguments for cases that truly contentious unless they absolutely have to. Or unless they feel like choosing the next president of the United States. Arguably the most powerful of the three branches of government, the buck does not stop with the President, but with the nine Supreme Court Justices who may strike down all those unconstitutional laws that Congress and State Legislatures seem so fond of passing.
Last week, in a rare special session, the Supreme Court heard more arguments in Citizens United v. FEC (Federal Election Commission). The case was initially heard last March, but apparently has been unable to reach a decision. Citizens United brought suit against the FEC when the FEC and a federal court blocked the airing of Hillary: The Movie during the 2008 election season. You should check out the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOYcM1z5fTs, it is pretty heinous.
The FEC believes that it had the right to block the airing of the politically charged movie because of language included in campaign finance reform laws passed in 2002 (popularly known as the McCain-Feingold law). In an attempt to prevent unions or corporations from having more of a voice in elections than the rest of us, the law stipulates that any biased election message, about a candidate, financed by a union or corporation, may not be broadcast within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election.
Seems fair, I guess. I mean, I certainly couldn’t finance the production of a 90 minute documentary about Hillary Clinton, or any other major politician for that matter so the producers, arguably, have more sway over the general public than I do. But is this stifling of freedom of speech?
Can I get a refresher on the 1st Amendment please? “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Let’s do it again for good measure, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” I don’t believe it reads, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech unless you’re a union or a corporation.” Unless you’re going to argue that unions and corporations are not people, and the Constitution and the freedoms afforded therein only apply to individuals (While I’m sure there is a boatload of case law backing up that argument I, for one, am not going to go look for it otherwise I’d be here all week.)
For more fun reading on this issue, check out these articles:
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14416613
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/04/mears.election.laws.1/
Last week, in a rare special session, the Supreme Court heard more arguments in Citizens United v. FEC (Federal Election Commission). The case was initially heard last March, but apparently has been unable to reach a decision. Citizens United brought suit against the FEC when the FEC and a federal court blocked the airing of Hillary: The Movie during the 2008 election season. You should check out the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOYcM1z5fTs, it is pretty heinous.
The FEC believes that it had the right to block the airing of the politically charged movie because of language included in campaign finance reform laws passed in 2002 (popularly known as the McCain-Feingold law). In an attempt to prevent unions or corporations from having more of a voice in elections than the rest of us, the law stipulates that any biased election message, about a candidate, financed by a union or corporation, may not be broadcast within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election.
Seems fair, I guess. I mean, I certainly couldn’t finance the production of a 90 minute documentary about Hillary Clinton, or any other major politician for that matter so the producers, arguably, have more sway over the general public than I do. But is this stifling of freedom of speech?
Can I get a refresher on the 1st Amendment please? “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Let’s do it again for good measure, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” I don’t believe it reads, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech unless you’re a union or a corporation.” Unless you’re going to argue that unions and corporations are not people, and the Constitution and the freedoms afforded therein only apply to individuals (While I’m sure there is a boatload of case law backing up that argument I, for one, am not going to go look for it otherwise I’d be here all week.)
For more fun reading on this issue, check out these articles:
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14416613
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/04/mears.election.laws.1/
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Know Your Future Governator: Jerry Brown
This week in Know Your Future Governator, meet Jerry Brown (although this guy, you probably already know)!
Mr. Brown has a rather interesting history, if I may say so myself. Born in San Francisco, he graduated from St. Ignatius High School, spent a year at Santa Clara University before answering God’s call to become a Jesuit Priest. Four years later, he went back to school at UC Berkeley and afterwards attended Yale Law. His political career looks something like this:
1969: Elected to Los Angeles Community College Board of Trustees
1970: Elected to be California’s Secretary of State
1974: Elected to be California’s Governor (Reelected in 1978.)
1982: Ran for U.S. Senate and lost to Pete Wilson, so he went to India to work with Mother Teresa
1989: Became Chairman of the State Democratic Party
1992: Ran for U.S. President against Bill Clinton in the Democratic primaries and won Maine, Colorado, Vermont, Connecticut, Utah and Nevada
1998: Elected to be Mayor of Oakland (Although I’m not sure he ever lived there before becoming Mayor. He was reelected in 2002.)
2006: Elected to be California State Attorney General
This is quite the record I have to admit. I know what you’re all thinking: What did he do as Governor of California in the 1970s? Most sources cite him as having a strong environmental record, including the creation of the California Conservation Corps by the former Governor and making the California Coastal Protection Act permanent law. He also takes credit on his campaign site (http://www.jerrybrown.org/about) for California producing 25% of the nation’s new jobs during his tenure. However, since that was the very beginning of the technology boom, I’m not sure I feel comfortable giving him all the kudos for that.
What I find the MOST interesting about Jerry Brown and his website, is the lack of information about the issues! If you check out his website, you’ll notice that it has more than you could ever possibly want to know about his political career and who Jerry Brown is, but zero information about his views on California’s budget crisis, the economy, the drought, or education.
Granted it is extremely early in election season, but what I find the most disturbing about this are the preliminary polls. You can find these on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_gubernatorial_election,_2010. Even with his lack of a plan, Mr. Brown appears to be the favorite in every single poll. I’m certainly not saying that he doesn’t have the potential to do great things, if you check out his “Fighting for You” tab on his Facebook page, http://www.facebook.com/jerrybrown#/jerrybrown?v=wall&viewas=0, it’s clear that he is all about reform. It would just be nice to know exactly what reforms we can look forward to (exactly what reforms we are in for), before we go to vote.
Mr. Brown has a rather interesting history, if I may say so myself. Born in San Francisco, he graduated from St. Ignatius High School, spent a year at Santa Clara University before answering God’s call to become a Jesuit Priest. Four years later, he went back to school at UC Berkeley and afterwards attended Yale Law. His political career looks something like this:
1969: Elected to Los Angeles Community College Board of Trustees
1970: Elected to be California’s Secretary of State
1974: Elected to be California’s Governor (Reelected in 1978.)
1982: Ran for U.S. Senate and lost to Pete Wilson, so he went to India to work with Mother Teresa
1989: Became Chairman of the State Democratic Party
1992: Ran for U.S. President against Bill Clinton in the Democratic primaries and won Maine, Colorado, Vermont, Connecticut, Utah and Nevada
1998: Elected to be Mayor of Oakland (Although I’m not sure he ever lived there before becoming Mayor. He was reelected in 2002.)
2006: Elected to be California State Attorney General
This is quite the record I have to admit. I know what you’re all thinking: What did he do as Governor of California in the 1970s? Most sources cite him as having a strong environmental record, including the creation of the California Conservation Corps by the former Governor and making the California Coastal Protection Act permanent law. He also takes credit on his campaign site (http://www.jerrybrown.org/about) for California producing 25% of the nation’s new jobs during his tenure. However, since that was the very beginning of the technology boom, I’m not sure I feel comfortable giving him all the kudos for that.
What I find the MOST interesting about Jerry Brown and his website, is the lack of information about the issues! If you check out his website, you’ll notice that it has more than you could ever possibly want to know about his political career and who Jerry Brown is, but zero information about his views on California’s budget crisis, the economy, the drought, or education.
Granted it is extremely early in election season, but what I find the most disturbing about this are the preliminary polls. You can find these on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_gubernatorial_election,_2010. Even with his lack of a plan, Mr. Brown appears to be the favorite in every single poll. I’m certainly not saying that he doesn’t have the potential to do great things, if you check out his “Fighting for You” tab on his Facebook page, http://www.facebook.com/jerrybrown#/jerrybrown?v=wall&viewas=0, it’s clear that he is all about reform. It would just be nice to know exactly what reforms we can look forward to (exactly what reforms we are in for), before we go to vote.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
This Week in Health Care
Now that Congress is back in session (yup, as of yesterday, we are all screwed), the only thing anyone is talking about is health care. So guess what we’re talking about today?
The general theme is the same, but the tune is wildly different depending on who you talk to. So here are all the things you should know about the health care debate right now:
* The plan emerging from the Senate Finance Committee would create nonprofit cooperatives to compete with insurance companies instead of a government-run insurance plan (We’re going to call this the Baucus plan after the Chairman of the committee Senator Max Baucus, Democrat from Montana. More on this plan in a few bullet points.) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090908/ts_nm/us_usa_healthcare
* Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), has declared that a public option health insurance plan is pretty much essential to the passage of the health care bill in the House of Representatives.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090908/pl_afp/uspoliticshealthcareobamacongress
* The overview of the Baucus plan: The plan would cost approximately $900 billion over 10 years, paid for by Fees on insurance companies, drug makers, medical device manufacturers and insurers. Tax of 35 percent on insurance plans costing above $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families, applied to premium amounts over the threshold. Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. A fee on employers whose workers receive government subsidies to help them pay premiums. Fines on those who fail to get coverage, up to $950 for individuals, $3,800 for families. Oh, and everyone HAS to get coverage otherwise you have to pay those fines. As an example, $950 fine for me would be cheaper than one year of premiums, so do I really have a strong incentive to get health care? Of course not, so in the end we'll still likely end up with large amounts of people uninsured.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090908/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_glance
If you’re interested in what the president has to say (although after the whole speech to schoolchildren debacle I’m starting to think most people aren’t… how sad when people will no longer show any respect at all to the nation’s highest office), President Obama will be addressing the country tonight and afterwards, “the country will know exactly what he thinks is the solution to controlling spiraling health care costs.” http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090908/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_obama_health_care_speech
Also, for an interesting article from The Economist comparing the state of health care in the U.S. to that of health care in Britain, check this out: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14258877.
The general theme is the same, but the tune is wildly different depending on who you talk to. So here are all the things you should know about the health care debate right now:
* The plan emerging from the Senate Finance Committee would create nonprofit cooperatives to compete with insurance companies instead of a government-run insurance plan (We’re going to call this the Baucus plan after the Chairman of the committee Senator Max Baucus, Democrat from Montana. More on this plan in a few bullet points.) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090908/ts_nm/us_usa_healthcare
* Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), has declared that a public option health insurance plan is pretty much essential to the passage of the health care bill in the House of Representatives.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090908/pl_afp/uspoliticshealthcareobamacongress
* The overview of the Baucus plan: The plan would cost approximately $900 billion over 10 years, paid for by Fees on insurance companies, drug makers, medical device manufacturers and insurers. Tax of 35 percent on insurance plans costing above $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families, applied to premium amounts over the threshold. Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. A fee on employers whose workers receive government subsidies to help them pay premiums. Fines on those who fail to get coverage, up to $950 for individuals, $3,800 for families. Oh, and everyone HAS to get coverage otherwise you have to pay those fines. As an example, $950 fine for me would be cheaper than one year of premiums, so do I really have a strong incentive to get health care? Of course not, so in the end we'll still likely end up with large amounts of people uninsured.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090908/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_glance
If you’re interested in what the president has to say (although after the whole speech to schoolchildren debacle I’m starting to think most people aren’t… how sad when people will no longer show any respect at all to the nation’s highest office), President Obama will be addressing the country tonight and afterwards, “the country will know exactly what he thinks is the solution to controlling spiraling health care costs.” http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090908/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_obama_health_care_speech
Also, for an interesting article from The Economist comparing the state of health care in the U.S. to that of health care in Britain, check this out: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14258877.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Know Your Future Governator: Tom Campbell
This week in Know Your Future Governator, meet Tom Campbell!
Currently a visiting professor at the Chapman University (Hey I went there!) School of Law, Campbell has a long history in politics, serving five terms as a Representative in the United States Congress and spent one year as the Director of Finance for the state of California from 2004-2005, the last year that the state balanced the budget without additional taxes, borrowing or dipping into reserves.
Campbell has a PhD in Economics (something that gives me a warm fuzzy feeling) from the University of Chicago and his JD from Harvard (ok, we get it, you’re a smart dude). He served as a clerk to Supreme Court Justice Byron White and was mentored by Milton Friedman. Campbell taught law at Stanford University for five years, and was also Dean of the UC Berkeley Haas School of Business for five years.
Ok, with a record like that how is this guy not 105 years old? Clearly, I think we can all agree that he is well qualified. If you’re not appropriately impressed by the short list that I have presented here, feel free to check out the full list at his website:
http://www.campbell.org/meet-tom/campbell-record
Now for the important stuff!
While Tom lists out several of his platforms individually, I am going to lump a few of them together because otherwise, 1) this will get extremely convoluted and repetitive and 2) I will be late for a barbeque and I’m getting hungry.
On the budget & tax reform: First, CA should be able to pass a budget with a simple majority (YES PLEASE!) provided expenditures have not increased more than inflation and population growth from the prior year. A greater increase should require 2/3 of the votes. Also, if the budget deadline passes and no budget has been agreed upon, we need a provision to continue the previous year’s budget so state citizens do not go without necessary services. Don’t forget the old Republican mantra: no new taxes. In fact, Campbell wants to lower taxes by constraining spending. How does he plan to do that? The infamous line-item veto. I have to say, I do not feel comfortable that a Governor can go through a budget passed by my state representative and cut out certain things that HE (and maybe not anyone else) thinks are unnecessary. Last, but certainly not least, Tom wants to completely overhaul our income tax system and make the state income tax a straight percentage of whatever you pay in federal income taxes. Hmmmm…..
On growing the CA economy, innovation and competitiveness: Campbell believes that it should be written into state law that mortgage writers and lenders in CA have to offer the best terms available to the purchaser, rather than the most lucrative. (Good luck convincing all the legislators’ bank buddies to go along with that.) To preserve California’s innovation and competitive edge, Tom is strongly against cutting any more into education, including K-12, community college, and the UC and state school. (I think I love this guy.)
On education: See above! He also suggests programs to increase parental involvement and mentorship such as one that is currently implemented between the Haas School of Business and the city of Oakland. He also cites a Pleasanton program which embeds character education into the curriculum as a way to keep public school’s safe. To attract and retain good teachers, he suggests relaxing the certification standards so professionals with masters or doctorate degrees could also be eligible to teach elementary or secondary schools. Also, he wants to increase bonuses for good teachers and reduce class sizes even further.
On immigration: Besides imposing severe sanctions on employers who hire illegal immigrants, Campbell wants to implement an e-verify system to make it easier for employers to ensure that their employees are legal. With the system, an employer can simply log in and make sure that the employee’s name matches the social security number he or she gave.
On water: Clearly, we need more storage water to buffer California when we are in serious drought (like right now). He does not claim to have all the answers on this issue, but believes that we can solve this problem by possibly raising dams, developing on-stream storage, and recharging aquifers. He also suggests desalination, which is currently too expensive because of the high amounts of energy needed. Campbell believes that California should lead the way in designing innovative solutions to solve this problem using alternative energy sources as well as finding new ways to desalinate ocean water without harming the environment.
I confess, I never thought these words would come out of me when discussing a political candidate, but this guy really seems to have a plan. I strongly suggest checking out his website www.campbell.org, if you’re even remotely interested because I only skimmed the surface here. He goes into great detail on all the issues including exactly what he sees as the problem and what he thinks could be a possible solutions. Happy reading!
Currently a visiting professor at the Chapman University (Hey I went there!) School of Law, Campbell has a long history in politics, serving five terms as a Representative in the United States Congress and spent one year as the Director of Finance for the state of California from 2004-2005, the last year that the state balanced the budget without additional taxes, borrowing or dipping into reserves.
Campbell has a PhD in Economics (something that gives me a warm fuzzy feeling) from the University of Chicago and his JD from Harvard (ok, we get it, you’re a smart dude). He served as a clerk to Supreme Court Justice Byron White and was mentored by Milton Friedman. Campbell taught law at Stanford University for five years, and was also Dean of the UC Berkeley Haas School of Business for five years.
Ok, with a record like that how is this guy not 105 years old? Clearly, I think we can all agree that he is well qualified. If you’re not appropriately impressed by the short list that I have presented here, feel free to check out the full list at his website:
http://www.campbell.org/meet-tom/campbell-record
Now for the important stuff!
While Tom lists out several of his platforms individually, I am going to lump a few of them together because otherwise, 1) this will get extremely convoluted and repetitive and 2) I will be late for a barbeque and I’m getting hungry.
On the budget & tax reform: First, CA should be able to pass a budget with a simple majority (YES PLEASE!) provided expenditures have not increased more than inflation and population growth from the prior year. A greater increase should require 2/3 of the votes. Also, if the budget deadline passes and no budget has been agreed upon, we need a provision to continue the previous year’s budget so state citizens do not go without necessary services. Don’t forget the old Republican mantra: no new taxes. In fact, Campbell wants to lower taxes by constraining spending. How does he plan to do that? The infamous line-item veto. I have to say, I do not feel comfortable that a Governor can go through a budget passed by my state representative and cut out certain things that HE (and maybe not anyone else) thinks are unnecessary. Last, but certainly not least, Tom wants to completely overhaul our income tax system and make the state income tax a straight percentage of whatever you pay in federal income taxes. Hmmmm…..
On growing the CA economy, innovation and competitiveness: Campbell believes that it should be written into state law that mortgage writers and lenders in CA have to offer the best terms available to the purchaser, rather than the most lucrative. (Good luck convincing all the legislators’ bank buddies to go along with that.) To preserve California’s innovation and competitive edge, Tom is strongly against cutting any more into education, including K-12, community college, and the UC and state school. (I think I love this guy.)
On education: See above! He also suggests programs to increase parental involvement and mentorship such as one that is currently implemented between the Haas School of Business and the city of Oakland. He also cites a Pleasanton program which embeds character education into the curriculum as a way to keep public school’s safe. To attract and retain good teachers, he suggests relaxing the certification standards so professionals with masters or doctorate degrees could also be eligible to teach elementary or secondary schools. Also, he wants to increase bonuses for good teachers and reduce class sizes even further.
On immigration: Besides imposing severe sanctions on employers who hire illegal immigrants, Campbell wants to implement an e-verify system to make it easier for employers to ensure that their employees are legal. With the system, an employer can simply log in and make sure that the employee’s name matches the social security number he or she gave.
On water: Clearly, we need more storage water to buffer California when we are in serious drought (like right now). He does not claim to have all the answers on this issue, but believes that we can solve this problem by possibly raising dams, developing on-stream storage, and recharging aquifers. He also suggests desalination, which is currently too expensive because of the high amounts of energy needed. Campbell believes that California should lead the way in designing innovative solutions to solve this problem using alternative energy sources as well as finding new ways to desalinate ocean water without harming the environment.
I confess, I never thought these words would come out of me when discussing a political candidate, but this guy really seems to have a plan. I strongly suggest checking out his website www.campbell.org, if you’re even remotely interested because I only skimmed the surface here. He goes into great detail on all the issues including exactly what he sees as the problem and what he thinks could be a possible solutions. Happy reading!
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
The Tenthers
I don’t know about you, but I am sick of health care. I’m tired of hearing about it; I’m tired of arguing about it. I don’t see why we’re making such a big, hairy deal out of having a public option. Keyword: option, it’s not a takeover. All I can say is that when a mother can’t get health insurance for her 15 month old baby because he’s needed two heart surgeries since he was born and will likely need another one, and we’re actually arguing over whether or not we need a public option in this country, we have clearly lost all of our compassion and humanity.
So instead of talking about health care, which is the only thing congress is talking about this week, we’re going to talk about a small movement that some liberals have fondly nicknamed the “tenthers” (like the birthers, I know, sad attempt at political humor).
To make a long story short, tenthers basically believe that President FDR illegally expanded the federal government’s power to unconstitutional levels by instituting programs such as Social Security. According to tenthers Social Security and other programs, like Medicare, Medicaid, federal education funding, the Veterans Affairs health system and the G.I. bill are all illegal under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
What exactly does the 10th Amendment say you ask? Boy, I’m glad you did (happy to facilitate a U.S History 101 course). The 10th Amendment states, “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.” Now, I know what you’re thinking: What the hell does that mean?
Basically, (in my own non-legal terms) the 10th Amendment is to ensure that the states retain their sovereignty, autonomy, and basic rights and that the federal government only retains control over powers specifically mentioned in the constitution. Tenthers argue that since the constitution does not specifically mention health care, Medicare, Medicaid and the possible public option, are all illegal. However, the Commerce Clause of the constitution gives congress the power to regulate interstate commerce and is broadly interpreted to give Congress the power to implement all these programs.
Historically, the Supreme Court rarely finds laws unconstitutional for violating the 10th Amendment, and the opinions tend to be only cases when the federal government has attempted to force participation of the state.
Now, do I think that these tenthers have a point? Well, no, not really. But, I do think that our federal government is out of control big. I’m not going to lie, I don’t have a solution, but I actually agree that we could probably stand to do away with a federal program or two and let the states handle it if they see fit. I just really wish these people could find a better (dare I say more thought out?) way to express that idea.
So instead of talking about health care, which is the only thing congress is talking about this week, we’re going to talk about a small movement that some liberals have fondly nicknamed the “tenthers” (like the birthers, I know, sad attempt at political humor).
To make a long story short, tenthers basically believe that President FDR illegally expanded the federal government’s power to unconstitutional levels by instituting programs such as Social Security. According to tenthers Social Security and other programs, like Medicare, Medicaid, federal education funding, the Veterans Affairs health system and the G.I. bill are all illegal under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
What exactly does the 10th Amendment say you ask? Boy, I’m glad you did (happy to facilitate a U.S History 101 course). The 10th Amendment states, “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.” Now, I know what you’re thinking: What the hell does that mean?
Basically, (in my own non-legal terms) the 10th Amendment is to ensure that the states retain their sovereignty, autonomy, and basic rights and that the federal government only retains control over powers specifically mentioned in the constitution. Tenthers argue that since the constitution does not specifically mention health care, Medicare, Medicaid and the possible public option, are all illegal. However, the Commerce Clause of the constitution gives congress the power to regulate interstate commerce and is broadly interpreted to give Congress the power to implement all these programs.
Historically, the Supreme Court rarely finds laws unconstitutional for violating the 10th Amendment, and the opinions tend to be only cases when the federal government has attempted to force participation of the state.
Now, do I think that these tenthers have a point? Well, no, not really. But, I do think that our federal government is out of control big. I’m not going to lie, I don’t have a solution, but I actually agree that we could probably stand to do away with a federal program or two and let the states handle it if they see fit. I just really wish these people could find a better (dare I say more thought out?) way to express that idea.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Know Your Future Governator: Steve Poizner
This week in Know Your Future Governator, meet Steve Poizner!
Currently Mr. Poizner is our elected Insurance Commissioner and, as such, oversees everything insurance in our great state of California from car insurance to health insurance (yipes, I see this getting ugly). Mr. Poizner is also a very successful businessman and entrepreneur. His latest company SnapTrack established the great idea of putting GPS receivers into cell phones so you won’t get lost as long as you have your phone.
Now for the juicy stuff, the issues! Steve’s pet issues include economic growth, education, government reform, water and fiscal accountability.
Straight from the Steve Poizner for Governor website: http://stevepoizner.com/
On economic growth: Mr. Poizner believes we must overhaul our tax and regulatory structure. Currently, California is ranked as one of the worst states to do business in.
On education: Apparently Mr. Poizner spent a year teaching at a public school so he considers himself an expert on the subject. (Wow, a whole year! Don’t hurt yourself!) He believes that we should shift control of the classroom, facilities and budget back to the local level to improve accountability as well as grade-level proficiency.
On government reform: It appears that Steve wants to completely dismantle the current structure in Sacramento (with its 300 boards and commissions, 11 agencies, and 79 departments) and rebuild it to be more efficient. His most specific suggestion for reform: a part time legislature. Rather than having full time assembly-people and representatives, make them part time. Giving them less time to pass laws will focus their efforts on what’s truly important and giving them less money will give them incentive to have other, “real world” jobs so they can actually appreciate their constituents’ issues.
On water: I’m glad Steve brought this up; I think this is one of the more important, but least discussed issues facing our state today. His long term policy solutions of empowering local agencies to innovate or build new infrastructure and increasing surface and groundwater storage to provide stability during droughts are all well and good. But, I’m not going to lie, two of his short term solutions make me cringe. 1) Calling for the “flexible” application of the endangered species act during times of drought. I’m still not sure how that would actually help our water problem. 2) Utilizing the governor’s executive power to get water where it needs to go. Personally, I am highly suspicious of any policy that gives one person all the power.
On fiscal accountability: The only thing I actually got out of this section was that, well, we need it. Thank you Captain Obvious. The other interesting statistic he cites is that the CA legislature approved a tax increase for 95% of Californians. While this sounds terrible, I’m pretty sure he’s talking about the temporary 1% sales tax increase passed in the original budget for the year (back in Feb/March of 2009) which is scheduled to expire on July 1, 2011. But I do generally agree, yay for fiscal accountability.
Again, what does this sound like?
“I will not fail you. I will not disappoint you. And I will not let you down. For two months, I've been speaking out about the needs of bringing back fiscal responsibility to this state, bringing back the positive business atmosphere, bringing back businesses, bringing back jobs, and bringing back our education.” -Governor Schwarzenegger in his 2003 victory speech.
So Mr. Poizner, let’s talk…
HOW will you overhaul our tax and regulatory structure. I agree it needs to be done, but what exactly will you be changing?
HOW are we going to shift back control of our classrooms to the local level and still ensure that poor and underprivileged areas get the resources they need to give those kids the education they deserve? (I’m assuming that when you shift control back to the local level you shift the funding back to the local level also.)
WHAT makes you think that by calling legislators “part-time” will make them run out and get another, regular part time job? As of 2007, CA legislators make the most money of any state legislature (followed by Michigan, the only state which seems to be doing worse than California). http://www.empirecenter.org/html/legislative_salaries.cfm Even if you halved their salaries (which I doubt they would be too keen on and I’m pretty sure they would have a vote in the approval process), they would still be making over $55,000 a year. For something really nifty, check this out: http://www.capitolweekly.net/salaries/index.php?_c=y8cnuzmg4kh5nt
HOW do you plan to convince the rest of Sacramento to go along with your government reforms?
Currently Mr. Poizner is our elected Insurance Commissioner and, as such, oversees everything insurance in our great state of California from car insurance to health insurance (yipes, I see this getting ugly). Mr. Poizner is also a very successful businessman and entrepreneur. His latest company SnapTrack established the great idea of putting GPS receivers into cell phones so you won’t get lost as long as you have your phone.
Now for the juicy stuff, the issues! Steve’s pet issues include economic growth, education, government reform, water and fiscal accountability.
Straight from the Steve Poizner for Governor website: http://stevepoizner.com/
On economic growth: Mr. Poizner believes we must overhaul our tax and regulatory structure. Currently, California is ranked as one of the worst states to do business in.
On education: Apparently Mr. Poizner spent a year teaching at a public school so he considers himself an expert on the subject. (Wow, a whole year! Don’t hurt yourself!) He believes that we should shift control of the classroom, facilities and budget back to the local level to improve accountability as well as grade-level proficiency.
On government reform: It appears that Steve wants to completely dismantle the current structure in Sacramento (with its 300 boards and commissions, 11 agencies, and 79 departments) and rebuild it to be more efficient. His most specific suggestion for reform: a part time legislature. Rather than having full time assembly-people and representatives, make them part time. Giving them less time to pass laws will focus their efforts on what’s truly important and giving them less money will give them incentive to have other, “real world” jobs so they can actually appreciate their constituents’ issues.
On water: I’m glad Steve brought this up; I think this is one of the more important, but least discussed issues facing our state today. His long term policy solutions of empowering local agencies to innovate or build new infrastructure and increasing surface and groundwater storage to provide stability during droughts are all well and good. But, I’m not going to lie, two of his short term solutions make me cringe. 1) Calling for the “flexible” application of the endangered species act during times of drought. I’m still not sure how that would actually help our water problem. 2) Utilizing the governor’s executive power to get water where it needs to go. Personally, I am highly suspicious of any policy that gives one person all the power.
On fiscal accountability: The only thing I actually got out of this section was that, well, we need it. Thank you Captain Obvious. The other interesting statistic he cites is that the CA legislature approved a tax increase for 95% of Californians. While this sounds terrible, I’m pretty sure he’s talking about the temporary 1% sales tax increase passed in the original budget for the year (back in Feb/March of 2009) which is scheduled to expire on July 1, 2011. But I do generally agree, yay for fiscal accountability.
Again, what does this sound like?
“I will not fail you. I will not disappoint you. And I will not let you down. For two months, I've been speaking out about the needs of bringing back fiscal responsibility to this state, bringing back the positive business atmosphere, bringing back businesses, bringing back jobs, and bringing back our education.” -Governor Schwarzenegger in his 2003 victory speech.
So Mr. Poizner, let’s talk…
HOW will you overhaul our tax and regulatory structure. I agree it needs to be done, but what exactly will you be changing?
HOW are we going to shift back control of our classrooms to the local level and still ensure that poor and underprivileged areas get the resources they need to give those kids the education they deserve? (I’m assuming that when you shift control back to the local level you shift the funding back to the local level also.)
WHAT makes you think that by calling legislators “part-time” will make them run out and get another, regular part time job? As of 2007, CA legislators make the most money of any state legislature (followed by Michigan, the only state which seems to be doing worse than California). http://www.empirecenter.org/html/legislative_salaries.cfm Even if you halved their salaries (which I doubt they would be too keen on and I’m pretty sure they would have a vote in the approval process), they would still be making over $55,000 a year. For something really nifty, check this out: http://www.capitolweekly.net/salaries/index.php?_c=y8cnuzmg4kh5nt
HOW do you plan to convince the rest of Sacramento to go along with your government reforms?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
