When Scott Brown ran to fill the Massachusetts Senate seat vacated by Ted Kennedy, he had one overarching theme: he would cast what was then thought to be the deciding vote against ObamaCare. For all the liberal spin about his opponent running a clumsy campaign, the Senate election was the clearest referendum on ObamaCare yet. And in a liberal state, the Republican won the seat by winning the argument (or deploying the winning argument) against ObamaCare.
When the Senate Democrats used a procedural maneuver to get around the vote, Brown’s victory seemed to have been in vain. But now its value comes roaring back to Republicans–as a potential model for the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that the individual mandate may stand as a massive tax increase, Romney will deploy what was always going to be the strategy in this case: the claim that he is the last thing standing between ObamaCare and the people.
If Romney loses the election in November, it is doubtful the GOP would still gain enough seats in the Senate to overturn the health care reform law. And in either case, it is unlikely the GOP could take enough seats in the Senate to overturn an Obama veto. Only an election that produces a President Romney would carry with it the means to overturn the law. ObamaCare was unpopular enough for a Republican to win Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts, and it remains deeply unpopular. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled the law’s funding mechanism to be a massive nationwide tax increase, it’s possible the law may become even less popular.
That makes Romney’s argument, in theory, stronger than Brown’s was, at least in two ways: the country is far more conservative than Massachusetts, and the law’s tax increase is so politically radioactive that it never would have passed in the first place had it been described honestly as such from the beginning. Romney may not be able to authentically recreate the style of Brown’s campaign by driving around in a pickup truck, but he may otherwise have found his blueprint.
Obama will correctly reply: Even Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agree the ACA is absolutely not a tax. Republicans will be utterly flumoxed by that true statement. Game, Set and Match to Obama.
Sorry — because I quite often find your ideas thoughtful and well worth pondering — but here, I think perception is reality (which I feel is the unfortunate strength Dems have in the MSM) … like polls that show most Americans support the President granting amnesty to children brought here illegally — and that's even though he's being a Chavez-like dictator for blatantly obvious political advantage with Hispanics by declaring something that cannot possibly work to actually distinguish a child brought here illegally from anyone who enters the country in order to get in on Obama's edict. In other words, the public has completely ignored this unprecedented usurption of power and to consider whether or not they like the result. Here's the rersult of the Court's ruling: The court says it's a tax and that's what people are going to get out of it. I hope that that's as bad news for Pelosi, Reid, and company as this article suggests!
I hope you are right, Keith, on the politics. In other words, perhaps Romney can convincingly argue the tax angle–More power to him if he can. I am only pointing out that conservative legal scholars–and the best Supreme Court justices–clearly prove it is not a tax. I'm 100% in favor of talking out of both sides our your mouth to defeat a deceiver and liar like Obama. But we should realize we are doing it. n nThe real news is that John Roberts (he does not deserve the title "Justice") has now created a new (bogus) intellectual foundation for the Leviathan, just when the old foundation (the Commerce Clause/Wickard v. Filburn) had finally been proved a fraud. What a travesty, and worse, we now have to fight this battle for another 50 years.
The Romney campaign raised #375,000 since the law was found constitutional about 2 hours ago. I wonder how that compares to a normal fundraising day?
This gives Romney the ability to run against Obamacare as a tax. Helps him immeasurably.
“Romney may not be able to authentically recreate the style of Brown’s campaign by driving around in a pickup truck…” n nHa! That’ll be the day. And maybe he could put Seamus Jr. in the truck bed. n
It is a slanted, BS summary. Who are you, anyway? You are awfully full of yourself.
No problem. Let's see your unslanted, no BS summary.
Ah, yes, the old "rationing" scare word. So called "rationing" already exists and always has existed in every type of medical insurance policy. n nMedicare currently lists what it will pay for and what it won't pay for. Is that "rationing"? Those lists are created by (oh, horrors) bureaucrats. Private insurance policies also list things they will not pay for — including pre-existing conditions. Is that "rationing"? n nBecause Congress and the President pretend the U.S. government is not Monetarily Sovereign — i.e. able to create unlimited dollars — they don't do what they should do: Provide free Medicare to every many, woman and child in America. n nAnyway, Medicare "rations." Would you suggest doing away with it?
What idiocy. Yes, I read your theory. It is moronic.
I've got an idea for you Roger Malcolm Mitchell: Since the U.S. is a MONETARY SOVEREIGN, it should give every man, woman and child in America $1billion!!!!! Then we don't even need to give them Medicare! After all, it is a MONETARY SOVEREIGN! It can practically do anything!!!!
Roger, n nAfter 15+ years of studying and writing about economics, I wish I had $1 for every boob whose made a similar, "clever" suggestion. n nHow about we tax everyone $1 billion each, so the government will have lots of money?
Its your theory, my friend! You say that gov't can just print money. Why bother with funding crappy Medicare. Just give people money straight up?
Exactly the same things were said about Medicare. Would you prefer there were no Medicare?
Obama care already has "ruined health care for the middle class"?? That was quick. Your comments and your links actually apply equally to Medicare. Apparently, you don't like Medicare, either.
Even perhaps a little Orson Scott Card (from _Speaker For the Dead_): "We question everything … except the things we really believe — and those we never question at all."
BDZ, n nI don't just say the federal government has the unlimited ability to create dollars; it's an undeniable fact of economics. It's called Monetary Sovereignty. n nThose who don't understand the difference between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, don't understand economics. n nGiven the absolute economic fact that the federal government has this unlimited power (which it acquired on 8/15/71), we can debate about what the government should do with this power. Here is what I have suggested: n n1.Eliminate FICA n2.Medicare — parts A, B & D — for everyone n3.Send every American citizen an annual check for $5,000 or give every state $5,000 per capita n4.Long-term nursing care for everyone n5.Free education (including post-grad) for everyone n6.Salary for attending school n7.Eliminate corporate taxes n8.Increase the standard income tax deduction annually n9.Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America n nWhat's your suggestion?
If your theory about the consequences of Monetary Sovereignty is right (note: I'm not arguing that we have that sovereignty, only the consequences of having it), then why bother giving everyone a measley $5,000, nursing care, salary for school, and Medicare. That can't be worth more than $100,000 per year. Why not go the full monte and make every one rich, rich rich! Let everyone have $1 billion per year. After all, our federal gov't has the unlimited ability to create dollars! n nI think you an answer to this simple question: if your theory is right, why can't everyone in the whole damn country be filthy rich?
Functionally, the federal government has the unlimited ability to create dollars (i.e. deficit spend), but practically, this is limited only by inflation. There is some point at which deficit spending dollars will cause inflation. n nThat said, we never have reached that point, despite massive deficit spending. Inflation has had zero relationship with federal deficit spending. n nSo what is today's most pressing problem? Answer: Recession, unemployment and the gap between the 1% and the 99%. n nThe nine steps I suggest on my blog, would help address the real problems facing America. Inflation is not one of those real problems. We are closer to deflation than inflation. n nSo what would we do if, by the time we arrived at step 5, we began to have inflation? We would tell the Fed to raise interest rates, because high rates make dollars more valuable, i.e anti-inflationary. n nNow let's take the extreme position, that though the Fed always successfully has fought inflation with interest rates, this time they were unable to do the job. At that "last resort" point, we would have to cut spending. n nMeanwhile, Americans would prosper. n nI can't do justice to everything in this little response. My blog, titled "Monetary Sovereignty," contains 750+ posts, and if you are interested I could direct you to those that best answer any questions you may have. n nRodger Malcolm Mitchell
Even if you could avoid inflation, which I highly doubt, your nine steps lead inexorably toward making every American an addict on government. The entire country becomes one vast welfare state, the tipping point will have been reached, and there will be more takers than makers. The underlying productivity will have been ruined. No amount of money making will cure that. Keep in mind European states were not doing well even before the Euro (when they had monetary sovereignty).
Lot's of slogans: "Addict on government." "More takers than makers." "Vast welfare state." Try to be open new ideas rather than relying on slogans. n nNot sure what "an addict on government" means in a practical sense. n nThe notion of "more takers than makers" indicates you believe there should be more people working than not working. Why? n nI foresee the time when people work much fewer hours than the American standard of 40 per week, and computerized machines do the vast majority of work. Perhaps in 100 years, very few people will do any work they don't enjoy. n nUnless you enjoy seeing your wife beat carpets in the back yard, the next generation of Roobas should be welcome. And washing machines are nice. n nThink tomorrow, not yesterday. n nHuman work is good only if humans like doing it. Otherwise, machine work is better. Productivity increases every year because of machines, not because humans labor harder. n nAs for the pejorative "welfare state," that merely means having the government do what you can't or don't want to do yourself. Nothing wrong with that. It's the fundamental purpose of government. n nYour objections seem more appropriate to early 20th century life. n nRodger Malcolm Mitchell
No, Roger, I need to rely on slogans because you appear to have a lot more time than I do to read and respond to web posts. Most people are aware of what I mean by more takers and makers, and understand that it has nothing to do with going back to early 20th century life. I'm very open to new ideas, but the notion that we should fund ever bigger government, creating ever more constinuencies (witness the absurd situation with the public employee unions), by printing more money until we hit the magical sweet spot just shy of inflation is economically absurd and morally abtuse. I don't have time to explain it any mroe and I honestly don't think will understand even if I spent all day on it. You clearly have a quixotic/Liberal/Big Government philosophy that I have no time to disabuse you of.
Thanks for the facts, evidence and proofs. Very helpful.
It is you who is not open to new ideas my friend, dogmatically addicted to your pet theory, so there is little point in trying to provide facts, evidence and proofs–all of which are abundantly available on the many excellent posts over the years on this very site if you care to read it!
Good excuse.
I've read your site. Try reading this one. You might learn something.
"Romney will deploy what was always going to be the strategy in this case: the claim that he is the last thing standing between ObamaCare and the people." n nHmmm . . . the guy who invented Obama care suddenly has become "the last thing standing between Obamacare and the people." Remarkable. n nBy the way, what is Romney's plan for providing health care insurance to all those uninsured people, or does he not care about them?