Calling John Galt

With the monstrosity of a healthcare bill sidelines in the House and Senate, is this the time to try for real healthcare reform?

1. Open up competition across state lines
2. Crack down on fraudulent law suits
3. Incorporate price visibility

BoomerJeff pulls together a pile of steaming data on individual and corporate tax receipts to paint a very grim picture of the impact of Obamanomics on the US economy.

ObamaNomics is built on the assumption that politicians are better stewards of economic resources than the millions of individuals and business enterprises who created those resources.  The Democrats’ plan is to dramatically increase taxation to fund programs through which government can exert greater control over our lives.

But these data show that the private sector’s ability and willingness to generate wealth for government to seize through taxation is rapidly diminishing.  These data show that Obama’s own actions are are literally killing the goose that lays the golden eggs he needs to fund his agenda.

It’s really not all that surprising; take more money from the productive part of society and it has less capital left over to pay employees, invest for the future, and, yes, pay taxes.

Read the whole thing…

This political cartoon is making the rounds in the hours before the State of the Union:

While I’m sure many agree with the sentiment intended by the cartoonist, this would be a huge mistake.

The English-speaking world reads from left to right.

So looking at the teleprompter glass from the President’s perspective, we’d see a constant reminder to

Over Do.
Over Do.
Over Do.

The failures of this administration lie chiefly in the reality it is trying to do far more than is Constitutional, and far more than the aggregate electorate is comfortable with. We don’t want a government to Over Do anything. If anything, do less.

Much of the furor over the housing/lending/banking/bailout “crises” was a lack of general understanding about what was to blame. Politicians seized the moment of confusion, and set about their predictable path of demagoguery and power acquisition, “for our own good.”

I’m glad to see others (like the Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation) are using simple language to explain what used to be common sense.

The editorial board at the New York Times is none too happy about the ruling in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission:

The majority is deeply wrong on the law. Most wrongheaded of all is its insistence that corporations are just like people and entitled to the same First Amendment rights. It is an odd claim since companies are creations of the state that exist to make money. They are given special privileges, including different tax rates, to do just that. It was a fundamental misreading of the Constitution to say that these artificial legal constructs have the same right to spend money on politics as ordinary Americans have to speak out in support of a candidate.

The majority also makes the nonsensical claim that, unlike campaign contributions, which are still prohibited, independent expenditures by corporations “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” If Wall Street bankers told members of Congress that they would spend millions of dollars to defeat anyone who opposed their bailout, and then did so, it would certainly look corrupt.

I like that line about Wall Street bankers. I also applies to Move On, and to SEIU.

The fact is that campaign contributions are open and available for all to see. If a company moves in with an onerous amount of cash, that actually has a negative effect. Instead of moving money through PACs, and hiding influence through individual donations, all the giving can be out front for anyone to see.

The final nail, though, is the Times’ supposition that money translates instantly into votes. Martha Coakley raised four dollars for every one garnered by Scott Brown, and outspent him by a factor of five.

That a program isn’t working. That is no reason to kill it…

George Will refuses to let go of the argument that health-care reform legislation needs to overcome a serious hurdle: the Constitution.

Supporters of the mandate say Congress can impose the legislation under the enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce. Since the New Deal, courts have made this power capacious enough to include regulating intrastate activity that “substantially affects” interstate commerce. Hence Congress could constitutionally ban racial discrimination in “public accommodations” — restaurants, motels, etc. — as an impediment to interstate commercial activity.

Opponents of the mandate say: Unless the commerce clause is infinitely elastic — in which case, Congress can do anything — it does not authorize Congress to forbid the inactivity of not making a commercial transaction, of not purchasing a product (health insurance) from a private provider.

“Congress can regulate commercial activities in which people choose to engage, but cannot require that they engage in those commercial activities.” So says Sen. Orrin Hatch, who also notes that if Congress can mandate particular purchases to help the economy, there was no need forCash for Clunkers: Congress could have ordered people to buy cars (with subsidies, if necessary). Why not the Anti-Couch Potato Act to Make Calisthenics Mandatory and to Impose a $50 Excise Tax on Cheeseburgers Because Unhealthy Lifestyles Affect Interstate Commerce?

Will didn’t take it this far, but if you grant Congress that power, here is the logical progression:

IF it is legal for Congress to ban specific forms of inactivity because there would be an economic consequence, THEN it would be legal for the government to force you to work, even at a job not of your choosing. Oh, did you retire? Too bad! Get your ass to the office, pronto!

(Which is a good thing, because once people start dropping out of medical professions, they’ll need a way to conscript doctors, nurses and therapists.)