Mirror, mirror on the wall, who was the most "childish" of them all?

[BigSkyBob]

Many Pubbies have been asserting that the mandate is unconsitutional since rocks cooled. To suggest that it was some kind of bait and switch or whatever you are doing, confused me really.

I don't remember hearing about that during the debate-- the main Republican objections seemed to be that it would cost too much money, 'death panels', procedural things like they were 'going too fast', and objection to the mandate on policy grounds. It's certainly possible that Republicans were also making a constitutional argument but it wasn't very prominent.

If something is unconstitutional, you'd expect that to be the first argument made, and we simply didn't see it. Most legal experts at the time the bill passed had no idea it would face such a strong challenge in the Courts. Had this discussion been more prominent from the beginning, the law might have been designed differently-- maybe the Torie finesse would have been taken. But it certainly seemed like a bait and switch to me, and most legal scholars would probably feel the same way.

In any case, this is not to rehash the health care debate.

Umm, if a law is Unconstitutional, it is Unconstitutional because the party whom has standing has had his Constitutional rights violated by the legislation. The opinion of each political party is irrelevent. If that political class takes offense, screw them!

[BigSkyBob]

I agree with Beet on the mandate issue as a matter of process in the health care debate.  In the negotiations of 2009, I don't remember hearing the alleged unconstitutionality of the mandate brought up until very late, when the bill was in the final stages of negotiations in the Senate, either.  As a matter of fact, I have a suspicion the language of the mandate was adjusted at the very end of the process, stripping away enforcement powers of the IRS if fines for violation weren't paid, in deference to the late objections.  Of course, it's true that when the GOP introduced their counter-proposal to Clintoncare in '93-94, which included a stronger mandate than is in current legislation, a lot of conservatives at the time balked, and by the end of that spectacle, Dole had abandoned the mandate too.  But, anyway, this discussion is about a different issue, and yes, the constitutionality of the mandate will now be decided by the courts.  The House throwing the mandate demand down in the face of Obama's request for Gang of Six revenue outlays the other day was an act of spite.  But, you know, I think the Obama people should have taken a little more time, maybe a day, to huddle with Senate Dems to get them more on board with the Boehner offer, or something closer to it; it may have just been that lack of consultation that ticked the Senate Dems off.

Well, if the Constitution enshired the rights of political parties you might have a point. But, the Constitution enshires the rights of the American people. The Constitution clearly places the onus on the legislature passing Constitiutional laws in the first place, and, not, on potential objectors filing their Constitutional objections prior to the passage of the legislation.

[BigSkyBob]

Read the article and it sounds right to me.  It's a little strange, since grabbing what Boehner was offering, $800 billion in taxes which seems to have included rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top 2.5% and maybe the Dem estate tax package, would have given the Dems more bragging rights too-they have been pushing for the upper-tier rollback for quite a while. 

The article says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's lowering the tax rate on the richest.  There is no chance the GOP would agree to anything they couldn't argue was a tax cut.  If they are too afraid of their caucus to go back with a plan that's 3/4 spending cuts, that's their issue.

Democrats and Obama should be uniting around a simple message.  We and Republicans agree we can't agree.  Let's take an easy step to raise the ceiling clean and enough to get us past the next election, we'll both present visions and you decide at the voting booth how you want to reduce the debt.  Anyone who votes to let us default is responsible for what happens.

Well, if there is consensus to raise the debt limit, and a consensus to cut spending, but no consensus to raise taxes, the obvious solution is to agree to a package of spending cuts with an increase in the debt limit.

This solution seems obvious, unless, of course, the Democrats don't really want to cut spending.

[BigSkyBob]

Well, if the Constitution enshired the rights of political parties you might have a point. But, the Constitution enshires the rights of the American people. The Constitution clearly places the onus on the legislature passing Constitiutional laws in the first place, and, not, on potential objectors filing their Constitutional objections prior to the passage of the legislation.

I don't know what the first comment about the constitutional rights of political parties means.  The point is that even the GOP, as far as I remember it, did not raise a constitutionality objection until very late in the negotiations, when it looked like the health care bill might pass in the Senate, and they knew about the mandate long, long before that point.

The relevent question is whether, or not, the underlying bill is Unconstitutional. What is irrelevent, is the timing the political class in its comments on the bill.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[BigSkyBob]

What it is odd is this notion that the opposition has some duty to help the other party avoid stubbing its toe and suffering political damage for doing so.  Good luck with that Beet.

Not help the other party, but at least debate in good faith. If you can't see anything wrong with the scenario I've outlined above, you're choosing not to look.

Edit: In response to your edit: Torie. A bill with 99% chance of being upheld is worth a lot more than a bill with a 40% chance of being upheld. Many who would fight like hell for the former-- give up 30 seats in Congress for the former-- would take a pass on the latter.

Yes, you could say that the Republicans simply had more determination in the Courts than the Democrats realized,

Again, you have asserted that this is an inside-the-beltway issue of subjection motivations.

This is a question of law. The Republicans are doing better in the Courts than you expected because they have a more meritorious  case than you initially believed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[BigSkyBob]

I don't believe the Republicans have anything close to a 'meritorious' case. Health care insurance is one of the most complex industries in the whole economy, and it passes the interstate test with flying colors if any form of commerce does. And forcing someone to buy something on the private market is actually a lot less intrusive than forcing someone to buy something from the government, which is what programs like Medicare and Medicaid do. If the former is unconstitutional, the latter should be unconstitutional even more so.

1) Well, Courts haven't always shared your opinion.


2) Why are you bitching and moaning about a lack of Republicans stating their Constitutional objections to the bill when they aren't meritorious? If they are bound to lose, why complain?

[BigSkyBob]

I don't believe the Republicans have anything close to a 'meritorious' case. Health care insurance is one of the most complex industries in the whole economy, and it passes the interstate test with flying colors if any form of commerce does. And forcing someone to buy something on the private market is actually a lot less intrusive than forcing someone to buy something from the government, which is what programs like Medicare and Medicaid do. If the former is unconstitutional, the latter should be unconstitutional even more so.

Then you should have no worries!    Why all the angst?

Moving right along, Medicare and Medicaid are government largess, funded with taxes. And you need not toke. The test is not the quantum of government "intrusion," and never has been, when it comes to the Constitution and SCOTUS. That is a public square issue.

Actually, the case is all about government "intrusion," in theory, although in practice it is quite often about politics too.

In theory, the case is about whether the doctrine of limited, enumerated powers has any real  meaning, or is an defacto fiction.

[BigSkyBob]

Even Niall Ferguson is not on board with the GOP's anti-tax dogmatism:

"In the words of CBO Director Doug Elmendorf: “If Social Security and the major health programs faced no cuts,

I'm not going to allow lumping Medicaid with Medicare without comment. Social Security and Medicare could be left untouched, but cuts to Medicaid could amelorate the alleged necessary cuts below.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[BigSkyBob]

I wonder if Obama-Pelosi-Reid are really just really banking on the House being beholden to the Republican's who don't want any debt ceiling increase whatsoever to kill any plan they offer. Perhaps they know that even Reid's all-cuts plan will not sit well with the Tea Party elements

Well, that is because there aren't any cuts proposed in the Reid Bill. We now see the specter of accounting gimmicks being tortured one step further. Everyone knows that the "baseline" assumption is that we will withdraw from Afghanistan, and Iraq eventually. Somehow, that eventuality is being deemed a trillion dollar "cut."

The Tea Party folks aren't stupid.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[BigSkyBob]

In other news, Rush Limbaugh claimed 45 minutes ago on his show that Boehner called him up a couple of hours ago and told him he had a deal that the debt limit would be raised 1.1 trillion carrying cash flow to next April, and that an evenly split by party panel of 6 members from each house would specify the spending cuts, and then there would be a round two. Although what Rush said Boehner said was not as conclusive on the matter has Rush interpreted it, Rush's interpretation was that Reid had folded and agreed to this deal, and that it would be put on Obama's desk to sign or veto.  This version of events has not yet been confirmed elsewhere in the media to my knowledge.

I just thought I would toss this one on the pile to add to the confusion and chaos of it all. Why not!

Nothing says Good Government like asking Rush Limbaugh to give his seal of approval before you take any action.

What exactly has our current political class got us? A 14 trillion dollar national debt? 100 trillion dollars of real actuarial debt? Porous borders? 16% unemployment? Need I go one?

Why follow the same narrative of failure?

[BigSkyBob]

BigSkyBob,

I really don't see how the 'peace dividend' and interest savings could account for the entire $2.7 Trillion in Reid's proposal.  Even the most optimistic estimates regarding the 'peace dividend' only gets us to $1.3 trillion in deficit reduction. Where does the difference come from?

This is all you have to know: White House organ in press announces of the Reid plan, "Nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to." That is, there is not single dime of current spending that the Democrats are willing cut for the sake of fiscal discipline no matter what is done about the debt ceiling.

In a nutshell, if the debt ceiling is not raised, they are against any cuts whatsoever. That is why we have a 14 trillion dollar national debt.

[BigSkyBob]

Obama's going to address the Nation at 9 PM on the debt ceiling.

Now, about "100" GOP congressmen are resisting any hike in the debt ceiling, according to Politico. They even oppose Boehner's two-step plan. They're just that hell bent on it.

Well, it's to the brink, I guess.

 

Well, I suppose this means that Obama is going to be lying to the American People because he is already being cited as contacting banksters to reassure them if the debt ceiling isn't raised by August 2nd all our debts will be honored. Instead of telling the American people what he is telling banksters, I'm sure he continue to hype the doomsday scenario. Irresponsible.

[BigSkyBob]

Obama's going to address the Nation at 9 PM on the debt ceiling.

Now, about "100" GOP congressmen are resisting any hike in the debt ceiling, according to Politico. They even oppose Boehner's two-step plan. They're just that hell bent on it.

Well, it's to the brink, I guess.

 

Well, I suppose this means that Obama is going to be lying to the American People because he is already being cited as contacting banksters to reassure them if the debt ceiling isn't raised by August 2nd all our debts will be honored. Instead of telling the American people what he is telling banksters, I'm sure he continue to hype the doomsday scenario. Irresponsible.

Care to provide a link?

As reported by Charlie Gasperino.