2012 June

Court Finds Health Care Law Constitutional, or Roberts Takes One for the Team

Jun 282012

I was right about the result, but wrong about the margin and justification.

Upholding the ACA is a pro-business result that will be justified by adopting a precedent-supported broad reading of the Commerce Clause. Expect a 7-2 or 6-3 split.

It turned out to be a 5-4 decision with Chief Justice Roberts “switching sides” to find the ACA constitutional. The legal ~~excuse~~ reasoning the Court used to come to this decision was that the mandate operated as a tax rather than a government-forced commerce.

The Chief Justice is a very clever man. It’s likely that his decision to uphold the law goes beyond the merits of this specific case.

Roberts has notably expressed concern about having too many opinions go along the 5-4 conservative/liberal split and tarnish the image of the court (read: his legacy). This would technically be a mixed majority. He scores on that goal.

Next, he rested the decision on the taxing power rather than the regulation of commerce. That was an easier pill for him to swallow given his own ideology. He gets the result he wants without possibly opening the door to an expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause (but does he end up over-expanding the taxing power?) The tax angle itself has a political benefit, because he sets up his political allies to rant about how “Obamacare is the largest tax increase in history.”

Finally, don’t underestimate the electoral angle. The decision, especially after the media consensus predicted ACA would be ruled unconstitutional, will ignite the right wing base and line them up solidly behind Romney. “Repeal Obamacare” takes its place as a central issue of the campaign. The Chief Justice certainly would prefer Romney choosing his, Roberts’, future colleagues on the bench. By “losing” one case his ideology could be bolstered in many, many future cases by an even larger conservative majority. This angle is a more indirect version of Bush v. Gore, where the Court engaged in legal contortionism to select the next person who chooses the next justices to join the Court. In siding with the liberal wing of the Court today, Roberts will take some heat/hate from the right for awhile, but he hopes to be redeemed in November.

Many on the right should be pleased that the Court upheld the ACA, because it will seriously impede any movement toward a single payer system for several years.

So Democrats should not get too excited over this ruling; and Republicans shouldn’t read it as a total loss. Even so I expect they will rant & rave to fire up the base. The staff at the Daily Show will be very busy today collecting all of the clips of right-wing opinion leaders going completely ape-poopy. I’ll leave you with a link to this sample of first-hour Tweets.

The BCS is Dead!

Sports No Responses »

Jun 272012

Now there’s some well-needed good news for dark times. The corrupt cabal ~~ruining~~ running college football has decided to give in a little to fans and let us give them a lot more money than they had been ~~earning~~ taking with their outdated bowl system and so-called “Bowl Championship Series.” Starting in 2014 there will be a four-team playoff.

Of course, as with any steps in the right direction lately, I’m sure someone will ask the Supreme Court to swoop in and strike it down. The four-team playoff is a breakthrough, since any playoff has been off the table for years. I think we’ll find taking the next steps to get college football up to modern standards will be easier.

Four teams will not be enough. Less than a dozen schools will occupy the slots for years to come. Either you need to increase some parity or expand the playoffs. You are not going to get any Cinderella stories with a four-team field. George Mason and VCU’s runs to the basketball Final Four were great. Imagine the day when Navy knocks off Alabama to reach the Football Four. (I can hear the BCS execs now: “They’re talking about playoff expansion already! Grumble, grumble, grumble.”) The calendar itself is begging for more football, as you can see from my playoff proposal:

Now, setting up the tournament would be easier than you think. The first rule is don’t conflict with the Superbowl; the NFL should own that weekend. I would have the college title game on the 3rd Sunday of February. It’s after the Superbowl and dovetails nicely into March Madness. It would ignite February, a month that has traditionally been very boring for sports fans. College playoffs could start with a first round (16 teams) the Saturday and Sunday of the Superbowl bye week, then a round of 8 the Thursday or Friday before the Superbowl. The college football final four would then be the weekend following the Superbowl, then the championship game the next weekend.

We’ll probably have to wait a couple of years beyond 2014 for expansion, but today we can note how the idea has moved from a place beyond our wildest dreams to the more local neighborhood of our reasonable expectations.

Robin Hood Tax: An Interesting Idea, but Horribile Branding

Politics No Responses »

Jun 222012

The Robin Hood Tax campaign launched to some fanfare this week. The idea is to impose a tiny tax (no higher than .1%) on certain financial transactions. This is an attempt to access some of that unearned wealth created on Wall Street that continues to sit on the sidelines of the economy nestled in the wallets of the “1%.”

Such a tiny tax doesn’t seem harsh at all. The campaign estimates the tax could raise hundreds of billions of dollars each year.

It sounds like a good idea, but they have a serious branding problem. Putting the “Robin Hood” label on this idea will kill it. I can hear the right-wingers now: “See, I told you, taxing is theft. They admit it. Robin Hood is famous for stealing from the rich to give to the poor. Taxing is theft!”

Instead it should be called the “Wall Street Sales Tax.” Most of us pay sales tax when we buy something. There should be a sales tax when these financial products are purchased. The campaign’s leader even adopts this line of reasoning here: ” It is only fair that financial transactions incur a sales tax – just as the rest of us pay – and put some Wall Street resources back into Main Street.”

The only useful aspect of the “Robin Hood” label is that it is a colorful and easily understood story with easily identifiably images. This is great for being a shiny object that gets media attention so they can take videos of protesters dressing up their dogs in little green outfits with pointy hats.

Having no idea about the extent of DeMoro’s tax policy expertise, I will say having the nurses’ union lead the campaign is another bad idea given the unfortunate unpopularity of unions lately. It makes it harder to build a large, diverse coalition that this idea deserves.

Flag Day: Respect the Symbol, but Put the Country First

Humor, Politics No Responses »

Jun 142012

Today is June 14th, Flag Day, here in the great United States. It is a day to commemorate the official adoption of our flag back in 1777. It’s also a day for flag worshipers to pop up, those who care more about the symbol than the nation and people it represents.

If you can believe it, some people still get their panties in a bunch over “flag etiquette.” This guy goes beyond reminding us to not let the flag touch the ground:

The Flag Code clearly states that “The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing.”

A living thing!

Are you kidding me? You won’t convince me the flag is a living thing until I see a bunch of hunters out in the woods trying to kill it.

Now, I’m against people abusing the flag in order to intentionally inflict emotional distress on other people. For instance, I don’t think it is a good idea to go streaking naked through a VFW meeting, stopping in the middle to wipe yourself with Old Glory. Using a blank T-Shirt would be bad; the flag makes it worse.

The difference is I’m concerned about the damage to the person-victim than the symbol-object “victim.” Defiling the fabric doesn’t harm the nation, but many in the audience would find such behavior so outrageous and offensive that it risks causing heart attacks.

If you want to see some real desecration, look for those trying to redefine the flag’s symbolic value to fit their own political ideology. Check out this gem from the Washington Times: “In other words, the flag was understood to be a symbol of the unity of people and not simply a representation of the government of the United States because at the time, there was no official government.”

So you want the anti-government crowd to co-opt the flag. Just paint a giant teabag on there and call it a day. I’m going to say, “Hell, no, Bozo!” Patriotism belongs to anyone who loves their country, but especially those who want to make it the best it can be.

Today, we’ll probable hear another call for a flag burning amendment. I’ve always found this idea amusing for its astounding level of cognitive dissonance. They want to protect a symbol of our freedoms by placing an arbitrary limit on one of our most important freedoms (First Amendment expression).

I think such an amendment would do more damage to the flag than burning millions of them. (Similarly, any legislation that bans display of the flag should be tossed for similar reasons) A call for a flag desecration amendment would probably appeal to some of the same folks also put more emphasis on a few isolated phrases in a perpetually re-translated bible over the core principles of their own savior.

Flag worshipers want to prove their patriotism by treating the flag like a holy relic. Ask them if they know whether that flag was made in China.

On Flag Day, take a more reasonable level of reverence. Respect the flag as a symbol, but don’t worship it. Doing so will distract you from continuing attempts to ruin the nation that it stands for.

Tired Phrases: The Scandal-gates

Humor, Politics 1 Response »

Jun 112012

This week many are marking the 40th anniversary of the Watergate break-in that led to the end of the Nixon administration. This event served as the origin of the stupid tradition of trying to tack on a -gate suffix to every scandal to hit the news.

A shockingly long list can be found on the Wiki It also has an interesting origin theory about the overuse tradition. Apparently, many -gate scandals have been popularly dubbed by William Safire, a former Nixon speechwriter. The theory goes that by proliferating -gate scandals Safire could successfully minimizing the legacy of outrage over the original -gate, Watergate. I think this stupid trend is too much to blame on just one man. The idiocy is far-reaching.

Others are starting to lose patience with the tradition. Monica Hesse’s ”We Can’t Have a Scandal Without the -Gate” was published this week in the paper that started it all, The Washington Post. I just love the snarky note she hits here:

“Until the ever-loving end of time, we, the people, will be destined to pluck random nouns from the news, stick “-gate” on the end, wait for it to catch on and then smugly glance around like first-graders who have just told a doody joke. Doodygate! (No.)”

It’s too bad Hesse doesn’t go all out with a raging -gate denunciation, probably out of fear of offending some of her colleagues & bosses who may be -gate friendly idiots. So let me help you.

Every time I hear of another -gate being anointed, I am reminded about how I perceived Journalism majors in college: they liked to write, but were too dumb to have a relevant content-heavy major (like History or Political Science), and they were too lazy to be English majors. That was probably a little harsh, but today I mostly have some pity for them. They likely started into the profession with some idealism, but now real journalism is dead in media is big business, and the bottom line demands ratings, not pursuit of any loftier goals like enhancing public accountability.

Maybe overusing -gate is a symptom of this. They like to adopt the suffix to tap into some of the aura of real journalism. Instead of doing the hard investigative legwork, they slap on a silly label and pretend to elevate their work to the class of Woodward and Berstein’s original.

Look, the -gate is not catchy or cute. It’s just lazy. Stop it!

How Did They Turn the Working Class Against Unions?

Politics No Responses »

Jun 082012

This week’s Wisconsin recall election inspired me to examine the phenomenon of working class folks supporting the destruction of unions.

The argument I hear the most is that it is somehow unfair that people in union jobs get job security and “cushy” benefits, while other nonunion workers don’t.

This argument is bizarre. Because you don’t have those benefits, they say, it is obvious and only fair that those union folks shouldn’t have them either. NO, NO, NO, you idiots! Instead of demanding they be taken away from others, why don’t you demand them for yourself. You deserve the benefits, too. This is like saying that because someone stole your car, your neighbor shouldn’t get to keep his car either.

Many people are susceptible to being persuaded by this nonsense because of their emotional loyalty to their partisan team. This makes them generally adverse to facts and very likely to believe and regurgitate whatever the team’s opinion leaders say.

The only mildly reasonable argument against unions I’ve read concerning the Walker recall is that public employee unions operate in a tainted collective bargaining process because they negotiate with elected officials. Thus the public unions have undue influence over the management side of the equation because they can pour money into campaigns. The argument goes further (salt in the wound) that the politician/manager no longer puts the interests of the shareholder first, who in this case is all of the taxpayers. So they argue unions get public employees unfair access to tax dollars.

This, perhaps the best argument union-crushers have, is a flawed position. If you ban public employee unions it doesn’t solve the problem you are concerned about. In fact, it might make that problem worse. First, without a union, public employees would feel more insecure about their position and more individuals would become politically active without having a union to do it for them.

Second, banning unions won’t stop the employees from having the ability to dump money into a campaign. We have this thing called the First Amendment. Employees are free to associate and work together in the political process. They could set up a PAC, perhaps more easily than a union. Now, under Citizens United, they could set up a Super PAC and spend unlimited dollars in favor of a particular candidate.

So long as elected officials are in the position of employer, the employees will use the political process to pursue wokers’ interests.

How did the working class get turned against unions? It looks like the anti-union crowd tapped into partisan loyalty, jealousy, and ignorance to set up the divide-and-conquer approach to weaken the power of labor. I wonder how long it will take them to marshal support to repeal the 13th Amendment.

1 2