From Producer Susan: The Fox 4 morning crew joined Mark on Thursday morning for a preview of the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare. We thought we’d share a few screenshots that show how nicely their crew highlighted our new studio:
Archive for June, 2012
So I’m going through various analysis pieces on the Obamacare ruling, some that I have found, and some sent to me by Producer Susan. I read one brief piece that very adeptly combined the angst we feel as conservatives over an unsatisfying ruling with the redemptive silver linings that make the ruling somewhat less than a complete disaster. But I saw no author.
I called her and asked, “Where did this one come from?”
“Me,” she said.
It’s not as if this is surprising, but I wanted to share it with you as part of the tapestry of comments as we figure out what to think about these developments:
We love Charles Krauthammer around here. As we figure out what the heck was in Chief Justice John Roberts’ head, here is his theory:
We’ve got a full lineup of guests ready to join us Friday morning to analyze and react to Thursday’s US Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act.
Let’s establish at the outset that I wanted Obamacare ruled thoroughly unconstitutional because it is thoroughly unconstitutional.
But barring that, there is some redeeming value in a ruling muddled enough to prevent a clear precedent empowering future budding socialists from using the commerce clause to do similar things.
Throw in the general headline that Obamacare has been “upheld,” but only if offered as a tax, and you can stick your head out the window and HEAR public passion coming to a boil to kill this beast once and for all.
What the Supreme Court would not do, the people will. With public support on their side for once, Republicans should armor up for battle, vowing to repeal and replace Obamacare with market solutions that actually work without bankrupting the nation.
Interested in keeping pre-existing condition coverage and allowing “kids” to stay on Mommy and Daddy’s plan until well into adulthood? Fine, we can have those debates in Congress.
But the compulsion to buy insurance in the first place, whether by contrived Constitutional edict or wrapped in the even less attractive cloak of a tax, must be banished from our laws.
The Supreme Court could have done that, but Chief Justice John Roberts could not channel his better nature. Oh, well. If he had, we would have had a narrow ruling the other way that probably would have been met with exactly the same shouting matches we will have now.
And Obama may have been helped. Freed from having to campaign on a turkey of his own making, and even garnering a kind of credit from those who would say “at least he tried,” a Supreme Court eradication of Obamacare may have actually made him harder to beat.
I still wish it had happened. Mitt Romney has a lot of things to address as he seeks to return Obama to private life. As it is, he has one more. The Obamacare arrow has been placed back in his quiver, and he should use it to shoot straight into the heart of those who will now be forced to offer the “Affordable Care Act” as the budget-buster it is.
Long-term constitutional clarity was not served by this ruling. But conservative political aims may have been, and that can only result in a brighter election in November, better governing and ultimately, better Supreme Court justices.
As heard on today’s show …
The economy is a challenging thing to grasp, with all of its numbers clamoring for our attention. To ease the burden, I offer one category of statistics that deserves to be wholly ignored, freeing up brain space for things that really matter: income inequality.
In this age of equality fetishes, where every kid must be equally praised, all grade curves smoothed out and even meager incomes prodded toward homeownership, it would fit that the gap between rich and poor would be a target-rich environment for redistributionists.
But if we are truly interested in doing what is best for the most people, it is time to calm the conniption fits that arise simply because some people have a lot of money and some have very little. It has always been this way. It will always be this way.
We should all care about providing opportunity for those at the lower end of the income ladder to climb upward. But for those obsessing about income inequality, narrowing the gap between the top and bottom levels is the prime directive, whether it means bringing the lower levels up or the upper levels down.
In fact, the preoccupation with income inequality rests on the assumption that punishing the upper-income levels benefits those at the bottom. That craziness is a corollary of the belief that is at the root of the whole phenomenon — that there is a sinister aspect to wealth, that it must be at its root ill-earned through exploitation of lower earners.
This is one of the most poisonous lies in economic thought today, this notion that the mere existence of wealth is evidence of oppression of the masses who are trying to mobilize upward.
It is forwarded by people who do not actually want upward mobility for those at the lowest ends. They favor a constituency of lifelong dependents, kept in food and clothing and shelter with the largess of a government whose power structure they occupy.
The best way to fight poverty — the creation of more opportunity through a thriving free market — involves saddling the wealthy with only a proportional tax bite instead of the confiscatory chomp favored by those who view upper incomes as a deep well to be drained for government programs.
This is not just unwise. It is morally bankrupt, leading to the punishment of success and continued exploitation of the poor. It is based on the absurd notion that the economy is a pie of a fixed size, where if one slice gets larger, it must come at the expense of another slice.
The accurate metaphor is a pie that grows as the economy grows, spurred by economic liberty and risk-takers energized to invest in the best odds for success the free markets can offer.
When those markets are strangled by people consumed with reducing the range between top and bottom earners, it hurts everyone, especially the lower-level folks they say they are trying to help.
When we hear of an area with a narrow income gap, we should hope for additional wealth to boost its upper levels. If we hear of an area with a wide income gap, we should find ways to provide opportunity so the lower echelons may climb most effectively toward the top.
Here’s an even better idea: Since income disparity is completely meaningless, let’s stay focused on ways to encourage all people to achieve wealth, while fighting those who would attack the successful on the phony basis of helping the poor.