Ineffective and Unfair: Conservatives Target Preventive Health Care for the Ax
It seems we’ve entered the season of shortsighted thinking. With 50.7 million uninsured Americans, Republicans are on a rampage to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Adding insult to injury, the most recent House Republican plan to cut the federal budget deficit this fiscal year took a scalpel to $10 billion in federal grants that provide health care to indigent women and children, slashing $2 billion in federal funding that is bound to have very expensive consequences.
Funding for community health centers will be cut in half by the Republican cuts. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who was a co-sponsor of the legislation responding to President George W. Bush’s call to expand funding for these centers in 2008, says that “since 2001, additional funding has allowed health centers in more than 750 communities nationwide to provide care to about four million new patients. These centers provide affordable and quality care to at-risk Americans who otherwise might have to do without.”
He’s right on the mark. No health care costs will be avoided by cutting this $1 billion out of the budget because the absence of care doesn’t stop you from getting sick. It simply means you get sicker and you turn up at the emergency room or a hospital when your illness has progressed to the point that your care needs are exorbitantly expensive.
On top of this cut to care, which more often than not is the safety-net care for women and children, the proposals would also cut the maternal and child health block grant by 30 percent. This block grant pays for child immunizations and prenatal care for tens of thousands of women and children. It’s obvious that without access to immunizations more will have to be spent to care for kids sick with easily preventable illnesses.
And reducing access to prenatal care is both life-threatening and costly. A preemie baby’s health care costs are 10 times higher than a full-term, healthy-weight child, according to the March of Dimes. The organization estimates that the full lifetime health care costs for these fragile children hit the $17 billion mark. It’s simply penny wise and pound foolish to cut $199 million out of a program that has a proven track record of delivering health to babies and driving down America’s health care costs.
Among the programs slashed is one of the most efficient programs to improve child nutrition: the Women, Infants and Children program run by the Department of Agriculture. This program gives expectant mothers with very small children important tips on how to feed their children healthy meals. And it provides them with coupons to incentivize them to purchase the best foods for their children. Research shows that without this intervention the nutritional intake of these children would be higher in fats, salts, and sugars, according to a recent U.S. Food and Nutrition Services study.
Instead of spending $1,400 a month in extra medical care for an obese child, for just $41 per month this program shifts these young mothers and children into healthy eating patterns, says the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Clearly, the WIC approach is a useful and relatively cheap way to stem the rising tide of childhood obesity.
An unsurprising but equally shortsighted cut is the complete elimination of family-planning services. If you just listened to their sound bites, you would think these funds could be used for abortions. But we all know that’s not permitted. These federal funds make it possible for uninsured women and men to get access to critical contraceptive services, pregnancy counseling, and tests for sexually transmitted infections, cervical cancer screening, and other critical health screens. Without access to these health care services, the health care needs of these adults will not disappear.
Instead, these adults will end up with unintended pregnancies and preventable health conditions that could have been avoided had they had ready access to commonplace family-planning services and screenings. Indeed, every dollar spent on family-planning services saves taxpayers $4 in Medicaid-funded prenatal, delivery, and postpartum services alone, according to a recent study by the Guttmacher Institute.
The absurdity of these cuts to the block grant, community health care centers, and family-planning services is that none of this funding would be necessary if we had a fully functioning national health care system where every American had access to high-quality care.
Benjamin Franklin famously said, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Millions more Americans will lose access to health care as a result of these cuts and as a result more will have to be spent to address the real health care consequences of these cuts. Franklin also invented bifocals so his aging colleagues could see the important documents they gathered to draft. Perhaps the Republican leadership needs to adjust their glasses so they more clearly see that $2 billion in cuts they propose to the health care services for poor women and children will cost the taxpayers billions more in unnecessary health care expenses.
By: Donna Cooper, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress, February 10, 2011
The Fight Over The Individual Mandate Is Not About Liberty
Whatever the legal argument about the individual mandate is about, it’s not, as some of its detractors would have it, a question of liberty. Charles Fried, Ronald Reagan’s former solicitor general, put this well at Wednesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.
“As I recall,” he said, “the great debate was between this device and the government option. And the government option was described as being akin to socialism, and there was a point to that. But what’s striking is that nobody in the world could’ve argued that the government option or single-payer could’ve been unconstitutional. It could’ve been deplorable. It could’ve been regrettable. It could’ve been Eastern rather than Western European. But it would’ve been constitutional.”
I’d disagree slightly with Fried’s characterization of the policy debate — the individual mandate and the public option do very different things, and a bill with a public option would still have had an individual mandate — but on the law, even the panel’s anti-mandate witnesses agreed with his characterization of the single payer’s legality. So, too, does Daniel Foster, a conservative at the National Review, who wrote, “All conservatives, I’d imagine, think single-payer is unwise, but I’m sure plenty of them think it’s also constitutional (I’m probably one of them, as well).”
There is little doubt that the individual mandate, which preserves a private insurance market and the right to opt out of purchasing coverage, accords more closely with most conservative definitions of liberty than a single-payer system, which wipes out private insurers and coerces every American to pay for the government’s coverage. That doesn’t make it more constitutional, of course. But it does suggest that the dividing point isn’t liberty.
When it comes to the legislation itself, the key question actually comes down to semantics. It’s broadly agreed that tax breaks are constitutional. The individual mandate could’ve been called the “personal responsibility tax.” If you can show the IRS proof of insurance coverage, you then get a “personal responsibility tax credit” for exactly the same amount. This implies that what makes the mandate unconstitutional in the eyes of some conservatives is its wording: It’s called a “penalty” rather than a “tax.” As Judge Henry Hudson put it in his ruling, “In the final version of the [Affordable Care Act] enacted by the Senate on December 24th, 2009, the term ‘penalty’ was substituted for the term ‘tax’ in Section 1501(b)(1). A logical inference can be drawn that the substitution of this critical language was a conscious and deliberate act on the part of Congress.” And it was: Taxes are more politically toxic than penalties, or so the authors of the bill thought. But they’re not more damaging to liberty than taxes.
Despite the overheated rhetoric that’s been tossed around in this debate, I don’t believe our forefathers risked their lives to make sure the word “penalty” was eschewed in favor of the word “tax.” This is not a country built upon semantics. And I don’t think semantics underly the principle conservatives are fighting for here, either. After all, before Barack Obama adopted the individual mandate — and I mean mere months before — Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said there was “bipartisan consensus” around the need for an individual mandate. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) voted for the individual mandate in the Senate Finance Committee. Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) had his name on a bill that included an individual mandate. Sen. Bob Dole (Kan.), back when he led the Senate’s Republicans, co-sponsored a bill that included an individual mandate. None of these legislators takes the Constitution lightly. They didn’t see the individual mandate as a threat to liberty, and they weren’t constantly emphasizing that it was a tax rather than a penalty.
The principle conservatives are fighting for is that they don’t like the Affordable Care Act. And having failed to win that fight in Congress, they’ve moved it to the courts in the hopes that their allies on the bench will accomplish what their members in the Senate couldn’t. That’s fair enough, of course. But they didn’t see the individual mandate as a question of liberty or constitutionality until Democrats passed it into law in a bill Republicans opposed, and they have no interest in changing its name to the “personal responsibility tax,” nor would they be mollified if it was called the “personal responsibility tax.” The hope here is that they’ll get the bill overturned on a technicality. And perhaps they will. But no one should be confused by what’s going on.
By: Ezra Klein, The Washington Post, Posted February 2, 2011
How Conservative Attacks on Health Care Reform Will Affect You
Attempts to Repeal Affordable Care Act Have Serious Consequences
The Affordable Care Act provides Americans economic and health security with protections against exorbitant premium hikes, better health benefits, and slower growth in health care costs. Conservatives in the Congress are intent on taking these benefits away.
Conservatives are starting to implement their onslaught to repeal the Affordable Care Act this week as Republicans take control of the House of Representatives. They have scheduled a vote on January 12. If conservatives have their way and repeal the Affordable Care Act, we will go back to a health care system that failed millions of Americans: one with skyrocketing costs bankrupting families and our budget, fewer people with access to quality care, and more people at the mercy of the health insurance industry.
Increasing premiums for millions of Americans. Prior to passage of the Affordable Care Act, individuals and families were faced with skyrocketing premiums. Premiums for individuals increased 120 percent and family premiums increased 130 percent from 1999 to 2009. The Affordable Care Act controls these costs. In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office or CBO looked at the law’s effect on premiums in 2016 and estimated that the health reform law would cut premiums for millions of Americans. These premiums cuts would be more substantial for those in the individual market, most of whom will receive subsidies to help cover the cost. According to the CBO, those receiving help in the individual market would see their premiums reduced by 56 percent to 59 percent less than they would pay without the law, while also enjoy better coverage than what they currently receive. Repealing the law means going back to a status quo of skyrocketing premiums that made health insurance out of reach and unaffordable for American families.
Costing 400,000 jobs annually. The Affordable Care Act helps create as many as 400,000 jobs annually over the next decade by lowering costs and helping promote a healthier workforce. It includes cost-containment measures to slow the rate of growth of health care spending. Small businesses in particular are helped through exchanges that allow them to pool resources to lower costs as well as tax credits to make it more affordable to offer their employees health coverage. These cost-reduction provisions free up money that otherwise would be spent on health care and allow companies to spend it hiring more workers. In addition, a healthier workforce is a more productive workforce. Those benefits disappear, as well as the jobs created along with it, if the law is repealed.
Increasing costs for seniors by as much as $1,500 in 2011. The Affordable Care Act eliminates the “donut hole” in the Medicare prescription drug program by 2020. Seniors with high prescription drug expenses before health reform had to pay full price for their prescription drugs—without any help from their drug plan—once their prescription drug spending reached a pre-defined limit. People who hit this limit in 2011 will get a 50 percent discount on their name-brand prescription drugs, saving some Medicare enrollees as much as $1,500 in out-of-pocket drug costs. Those savings will not be realized if the Affordable Care Act is repealed.
Hurting communities of color. Communities of color are more likely to be uninsured, and they suffer from higher rates of chronic illness than the rest of the population. The Affordable Care Act addresses these inequities by expanding health insurance coverage and improving access to primary care, including preventive services. These provisions will be eliminated if conservatives have their way and repeal the health reform law.
Increasing costs and deficits. The Affordable Care Act creates tools to control the growth in health costs while improving quality of care. Effective implementation can reduce administrative costs for small businesses and individuals, promote greater use of preventive care, and prevent unnecessary hospitalizations, saving as much as $2 trillion in total health spending over the next decade. In addition, the CBO estimated the law will reduce the federal budget deficit by $143 billion over the first 10 years and more than $1.2 trillion over the next two decades. Repealing the new law stymies these much-needed efforts and reverts to the unsustainable status quo of skyrocketing costs that were bankrupting our country. Make no mistake: The Affordable Care Act provides Americans economic and health security with protections against exorbitant premium hikes, better health benefits, and slower growth in health care costs. Conservatives in Congress are intent on taking these benefits away and going back to a health system that was failing America. And, to top it off, they’d keep their benefits, while taking away ours.
Americans deserve better. We need the Affordable Care Act.
By: Tony Carrk, Center For American Progress. Note: Originally Published January 5, 2011 prior to US House Vote on Repeal.
Social Security and The Deficit: Associated Press Passes Off Dishonest Editorial About Social Security Finances
The insidious ways that conservative narratives bleed into our mainstream economic discourse as objective truths is a dominant theme in my book, and this story by the Associated Press’s Stephen Ohlemacher — ostensibly a piece of reporting rather than opinion — is one of the most egregious examples I’ve encountered. Check out the lede:
“Sick and getting sicker, Social Security will run at a deficit this year and keep on running in the red until its trust funds are drained by about 2037, congressional budget experts said Wednesday in bleaker-than-previous estimates.”
Is it “sick”? Social Security has $2.5 trillion in T-Bills sitting in a trust fund, is financed through 2037 and if nothing were to change it would still be able to pay out higher benefits than it does today, indefinitely.
Is it getting sicker? Well, the 2000 Social Security Trustees’s report (PDF) projected that the trust fund would run out in … 2037. But the 1997 report (PDF) expected the trust fund to be depleted by 2029 — 8 years earlier than currently projected. So in that sense, it’s “healthier” today than it was 13 years ago. More from the AP’s thinly veiled editorial:
“The massive retirement program has been suffering from the effects of the struggling economy for several years. It first went into deficit last year but had been projected to post surpluses for a few more years before permanently slipping into the red in 2016.”
“This year alone, Social Security will pay out $45 billion more in retirement, disability and survivors’ benefits than it collects in payroll taxes, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said.”
OK, this is just incredibly dishonest. Let me explain why:
When he says the program is “in the red” what he’s talking about is that current tax revenues being paid into the system have fallen below current benefit payments. Which should be unsurprising with wages stagnating and an unemployment rate of 9.4 percent.
But what’s unsaid is that the Social Security’s revenues aren’t limited to current tax receipts, thanks to the interest earned on those T-Bills in the trust fund. They earned 5.1 percent in 2008, and 4.8 percent in 2009. When you include that earned interest, as any honest reporter must do, the program has not “gone into the red,” and — if we define “going into the red” as total annual outlays exceeding total income, including interest income — it won’t until at least 2018, according to the Trustees’ latest report (PDF).
Yes, the Trust Fund grew last year, is growing this year, and will continue to grow for several more years, until it reaches a projected $4.2 trillion dollars. Back to the AP misinforming the public:
“That figure nearly triples – to $130 billion – when the new one-year cut in payroll taxes is included.”
“Congress has promised to replenish any lost revenue from the tax cut, but that’s hardly good news, either, adding to the federal budget deficit. In another sobering estimate, the congressional office said government red ink this year will increase to $1.5 trillion, the most in U.S. history.”
Could any ordinary citizen reading that possibly know that, by law, Social Security’s financing is separate from the rest of the federal budget, and that the program has not added a single penny to the deficit?
These are two wholly separate issues — there’s Social Security’s financing, which has been in surplus since 1983, and then there’s the federal budget, which is in deficit because of the downturn, tax breaks showered on the wealthy and trillions in war spending. (Note: unlike the Social Security program, we don’t have a War Trust Fund with its own dedicated revenue stream.)
The AP then turns the program’s greatest strength into a weakness. Behold the sleight-of-hand:
“Social Security has built up a $2.5 trillion surplus since the retirement program was last overhauled in the 1980s. Benefits will be safe until that money runs out. That is projected to happen in 2037 – unless Congress acts in the meantime.”
No, Congress could raise taxes to cover the shortfall anytime — nothing need be done in “the meantime.”
But more to the point, this narrative ignores the fact that the Trust Fund had a specific purpose: to ease the glut of baby-boomers entering the system. As I wrote in September, it “was a far-sighted act of governance.”
At the time, the oldest boomers were 37 years old, and the youngest were just 19. In 2037, when the fund is projected to be tapped out, the oldest baby boomers still kicking will be 91 and the youngest will be 73 years old. Not to be morbid, but given that the life expectancy of Americans is 78.1 years today, that means that the “glut” of baby-boomers receiving benefits will be receding in the nation’s rearview mirror. In other words, the trust fund will have done exactly what it was intended to do.
This point never seems to wind up in the conversation.
But it gets even worse, as Ohlemacher advances perhaps the most dishonest spin in the entire debate — that the trust fund is not a huge pile of T-Bills, but just “IOUs” — that the funds have been “borrowed” by the government.
“The $2.5 trillion surplus, however, has been borrowed over the years by the federal government and spent on other programs. In return, the Treasury Department has issued bonds to Social Security, guaranteeing repayment, with interest.”
Again, this conflates two wholly separate issues. Let’s run it down:
The national debt is (approximately) $14 trillion. None of that debt is a result of Social Security, which is fully funded and has run surpluses for years.
The federal government issued $14 trillion in T-bills to cover its budget shortfalls — that’s the national debt. It exchanged those $14 trillion in T-bills for cash (which it spent on programs other than Social Security). It must pay back that cash, with interest, as those T-bills are redeemed.
So, yes, it borrowed money — it borrows money by issuing Treasury Bills, which are held by individuals, institutions and governments. One of those institutions happens to be the Social Security Administration — $2.5 trillion of those T-Bills were exchanged for cash paid into Social Security by workers (and the interest is earned). Which is good, as it’s a safe investment for the surpluses that have been generated. They couldn’t just stick those trillions under a mattress.
But those T-Bills could just as easily have been exchanged for cash from China, or from private pension funds — there would be no difference at all. That would have happened if there had never been a Social Security program in the United States. The $14 trillion in debt would be exactly the same — it doesn’t matter who holds the T-Bills.
All of the above is why the deficit has nothing to do with SS — they are two completely separate issues being conflated by the “entitlement crisis” crowd. And no “neutral” reporter should ever write a story that simply carries their water for them.
By: Joshua Holland | Sourced from AlterNet, January 27, 2011
Republicans Say Everything the Dems Pass Is Unconstitutional — Even Policies They’ve Championed for Decades
That Republicans are relentlessly attacking the constitutionality of what had long been one of their signature ideas for reforming the health-care system — the individual mandate requiring people to buy insurance or pay a penalty – is a testament to just how far down the rabbit-hole our discourse has gone.
Late last year, when a federal judge ruled against the mandate (two other courts disagreed, and the Supreme Court will end up deciding the question), Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, rejoiced. “Today is a great day for liberty,” he said. “Congress must obey the Constitution rather than make it up as we go along.” It was an odd testament to freedom, given that Hatch himself co-sponsored a health-care reform bill built around an individual mandate in the late 1990s.
Journalist Steve Benen noted that while “the record here may be inconvenient for the right … it’s also unambiguous: the mandate Republicans currently hate was their idea.”
It was championed by the Heritage Foundation… Nixon embraced it in the 1970s, and George H.W. Bush kept it going in the 1980s. For years, it was touted by the likes of John McCain, Mitt Romney, Scott Brown, Chuck Grassley, Bob Bennett, Tommy Thompson, Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Judd Gregg, and many other … notable GOP officials.
According to NPR, the mandate was the Right’s response to progressive proposals to establish a single-payer system. Mark Pauly, the conservative economist widely credited with the idea, explained that “a group of economists and health policy people, market-oriented, sat down and said, ‘Let’s see if we can come up with a health reform proposal that would preserve a role for markets but would also achieve universal coverage.'”
That was then, this is now. Since it was a Democratic Congress that enacted the mandate, this conservative idea for creating a business-friendly model of universal health care has become something profoundly un-American, according to many of those very same Republicans who championed it. (Asked about the GOP’s retreat from the individual mandate it had long promoted, Pauly said, “That’s not something that makes me particularly happy.”)
And as is generally the case in these heady days of Tea Party conservatism, it’s not just that the individual mandate is bad – it’s also “un-Constitutional” (just like child labor laws, federal disaster assistance, food safety standards, etc.). As Gary Epps, a legal scholar at the University of Baltimore, put it, “Conservative lawmakers increasingly claim that the ‘original intent’ of the Constitution’s framers and the views of the right wing of the Republican Party are one and the same.”
A brief filed in support of Virginia’s challenge to the Affordable Care Act by the Landmark Legal Foundation – headed by noted wing-nut radio host Mark Levin, who believes that the Tea Partiers have been “tormented and abused far more than the colonists were by the King of England” – laid out the argument, calling the erstwhile Republican approach to universal health care “evidence of congressional power run amok.”
Congress can tax interstate commerce, it can regulate interstate commerce, it can even prohibit certain types of interstate commerce, but it cannot compel an individual to enter into a legally binding private contract against the individual’s will and interests. There is nothing in the history of this nation, let alone the history of the Constitution … that endorses such a radical departure from precedent, law, and logic.
Like most of the Right’s views of the Constitution – and the Founders’ intent – this is entirely wrong; it’s historical revisionism driven by ideology.
In 1792, none other than George Washington signed the Uniform Militia Act, a law requiring every white male citizen to purchase a whole basket of items – “a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein” – from private companies. Bradley Latino at Seton Hall law school’s Health Reform Watch added that “this was no small thing.”
Although anywhere from 40 to 79% of American households owned a firearm of some kind, the Militia Act specifically required a military-grade musket. That particular kind of gun was useful for traditional, line-up-and-shoot 18th-century warfare, but clumsy and inaccurate compared to the single-barrel shotguns and rifles Americans were using to hunt game. A new musket, alone, could cost anywhere from $250 to $500 in today’s money. Some congressmen estimated it would cost £20 to completely outfit a man for militia service — about $2,000 today.
Some on the Right have argued that this history is irrelevant as the law was passed under the auspices of the Constitution’s militia clauses, not the Commerce Clause. That’s true, but doesn’t change the fact that it disproves the claim that Congress has never compelled citizens to purchase goods or services from private firms – that’s patently false, regardless of how the measures differed in their details.
And despite the fact that there were a number of legislators serving in that Congress who had signed the Constitution five years earlier, “not one of militia reform’s many opponents thought to argue the mandate was a government taking of property for public use. Nor did anyone argue it to be contrary to States’ rights under the Tenth Amendment.” Those who opposed the bill simply argued that it would put too great a burden on the poor.
Of course, mandating that citizens buy a gun is different than requiring them to purchase health insurance. But as Rick Ungar, an attorney and writer, pointed out, Congress did in fact pass a mandate requiring health insurance…back in 1798.
The Act for Sick and Disabled Seamen created a government-operated hospital system – socialized medicine! – and mandated that all privately employed sailors purchase health insurance in order to sail.
It’s not an exact parallel. Nobody was forced to become a merchant seaman. But as Ungar noted, “this is no different than what we are looking at today. Each of us has the option to turn down employment that would require us to purchase private health insurance under the health care reform law.”
The Act also required sea captains to withhold 1 percent of sailors’ earnings to finance the program rather then mandate that they purchase a policy themselves – it was the first payroll tax. But as Ezra Klein noted in the Washington Post, “if conservatives really do prefer a system of payroll taxes that purchase you public insurance to the private system envisioned in the Affordable Care Act, I’m sure there are a lot of liberals who would vote for a bill that repealed the Affordable Care Act and replaced it with Medicare-for-all.”
It’s an important point – the liberal approach to universal health care is not only simpler and far more cost-effective, but unlike the Right’s individual mandate, it also falls unambiguously within the federal government’s enumerated powers.
Health care is also, in the words of the Congressional Research Service, “a unique market” in that one cannot opt out of it even if one wishes to do so. That’s because, by law, we don’t allow people to simply die in the streets, untreated. The uninsured without the means to pay nonetheless get (very costly) care in emergency rooms, and the rest of us pick up the tab.
And here, again, it’s worth noting that “the 5th Congress did not really need to struggle over the intentions of the drafters of the Constitutions in creating this Act as many of its members were the drafters of the Constitution.” The bill was signed into law by none other than John Adams, considered to be among the most influential of the “Founding Fathers.” Thomas Jefferson was the president of the Senate at the time, and Jonathan Dayton, the youngest man to sign the Constitution, served as Speaker of the House.
As the current legislation stands, even the American Enterprise Institute concedes that “the majority of constitutional experts are betting that the courts will uphold the mandate” – although they’re not happy about it. And that’s because the other Constitutional arguments against the reforms are just as dubious. Conservatives have come to use the Constitution as a crutch, avoiding debates on the merits of various proposals by asserting, with a broad wave of the hand, that whatever the policy in question may be, it’s all illegitimate.
The constitutionality of the health-care mandate will ultimately be decided by an activist majority on the Supreme Court. Nobody can predict how it will rule, but the Constitution gives the Congress power to “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises … and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States,” a power the Congressional Research Service characterizes as ”one of the broadest powers in the Constitution,” and one that forms “the basis of government health programs in the Social Security Act, including Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.”
The Supreme Court has interpreted the Commerce Clause as giving the government the authority to regulate not only interstate commercial transactions in a limited sense, but also “those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce.” (Our health-care system is the costliest in the world, and eats up about 18 percent of our economic output, so it’s hard to see how one can argue that it doesn’t have a “substantial relation” to our national economy.)
Then there’s the common conservative argument that the Commerce Clause only covers economic activity, but not inactivity – a claim that is also factually incorrect, but was nonetheless accepted by Henry Hudson, the federal judge who ruled against the government in the Virginia suit. But even if it were true, it’s hard to see the relevance of the argument given the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper clause, which authorizes the government to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.”
So, to recap: Congress is expressly authorized to raise taxes and spend public funds to further the “general welfare” of the nation; it can regulate any area that has a “substantial relation” to interstate commerce, and it can pass any law that is “necessary and proper” to further those enumerated powers.
On its face, there’s nothing in the Constitution constraining the government from enacting its health-care scheme. But the heart of conservative rhetoric these days is that any legislation passed by Democrats is illegitimate and defies the will of the Founders, as channeled by the mystics who lead the Tea Party movement.
That’s apparently the case even when those policies are among those they’ve championed for years based on their own ideological preferences.
By: Joshua Holland, Editor and Senior Writer, AlterNet-January 28, 2011
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
