On...The Constitutionality of Mandated Health Insurance

George Will brings to our attention the much neglected debate about the constitutionality of Federal Mandated Health Insurance. Will Obamacare (if passed, which looks more likely every day) succumb to the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional? Interesting. Are we in uncharted water? Certainly the Founding Father's never envisioned the expansion of the state into personal lives such as this. But unfortunately that hasn't stopped us before.

Could a possible scenario be that Obamacare passes and is activated, then the outrage against it makes 2010 look like 1994 all over again and in the midst of that flip in power the Supreme Court nullifies the law? Will an amendment be needed? Or could it merely pass and the nation assimilates over time to the new taxes and mediocre healthcaregrab? Man I love the possibilities of history.

GEORGE WILL HERE

On...The Only Question That Needs to be Answered (Especially by Obama Voters)

Robert Samuelson at Newsweek has been writing some of the most profound short-length essays about the economy the last nine months or so. I have posted many of them. I think what makes them strong is his total lack of agenda beyond a sound economy. He has acted like one of the few level two thinkers out there. He poses questions without getting partisan or angry. He's not a Paul Krugman who clearly has an agenda and blathers it out to everyone who will hear. And he's not a Republican hammering away at the President and Congress for purely politically reasons. Instead he gathers the data, looks towards the future, and asks the hard questions Americans of all stripes wish to avoid.

His latest essay poses the one question every American must answer and I hope everyone who voted for Obama will seriously ask themselves and then answer the tough follow up questions.

That question is How big a government do we want?

On the surface this is clearly a level one question, but it really is a reflective one when you take the time to break it down. This was really the question people should have been asking themselves going into the voter's booth last November. And then the second question is how do we pay for an expanded government flush with even more entitlements. USA Today had a series of polls regarding Health Care and low and behold it found the majority of Americans want better health care but don't want to pay for it.

Right there is a big problem that has been plaguing the Republic for some time. Too many people believe they are entitled to stuff on someone elses dime. As Samuelson states, "We face an unprecedented collision between Americans' desire for more government services and their almost-equal unwillingness to be taxed." Something has to give. Our president, the Democrats, and too many Republicans in Congress seem to want it all. This isn't practical or realistic. Though it is how many get elected. Unfortunately someone always has to pay and the Democrats' old song and dance about the rich paying only works for so long. The middle-class will have to pay as well down the road. And then free people will find ways around tyranny. They will even move with their feet if they have to.

So I ask merely for all the Obama voters out there to read Samuelson's article and reflect on the only question and then for them to formulate a real answer--not merely a level one response but also on the consequences of an expanding Federal Government today and in the future. Unfortunately I don't think anyone will step up to the plate.

Big decisions need to be made. I only hope they are the right ones.

On...The Animal Spirits of Capitalism

Golden Geese and Animal Spirits

Michael Barone has an interesting piece in US News & World Report called Crushing those Animal Spirits. He raises some good questions regarding how much the investment class will allow itself to be taxed before they head for the hills and squirrel their money away instead of investing it. I've used the Golden Goose metaphor in many conversations, he uses Animal Spirits but it does come from the same dilemma.

I'll sum it up for you.

Democrats love the golden goose [capitalism] but are impatient and want more golden eggs so they squeeze the goose's neck and prod his belly and generally threaten to kick its ass. The majority knows they can't push too hard for they risk killing the goose, which they rely on to make the world a better place and provide numerous dimensions of equality. So they tinker with now much they can shackle the goose and still have him be cooperative. And by all means they can't let that goose fly around willy-nilly and unregulated. I thought Obama was pretty smart during the campaign because he appeared to know how to shackle the goose and get a few more eggs out of it without killing it. But then came his waterboarding Stimulus Plan, crowbar Bailouts, and then the grand-daddy Iron Maiden Budget. (Poor Goose!) Now I don't think he has a much of clue on how to get the goose to work with the Democrats. He seems prepared to use this "crisis" as a "great opportunity" to shake the hell out of this already sick goose. Some Dems like Evan Bayh and crazy CNBC econ-man Jim Cramer are starting to notice how hard he is prepared to throttle the goose and it should scare them and anyone who is fond of the golden goose.

Stuff the Beast
Another theory, more devious, yet effective regarding Obama's overarching scheme of EuroSocialism is called "Stuff the Beast." first mentioned in Ross Douthat's piece called "The Pursuit of Social Democracy." If this is really what he is doing even my post-election bi-partisan spirit will be on life support.

On...The Next Administration-Democrat Style

President Obama?

Hugh Hewitt's piece on what an Obama presidency would look like got me thinking a bit. Most of it is a little too emotional (and right-wing wishful-thinking) for my taste but there was a core idea that I wanted to explore a little more.

Hewitt wrote:

The Left is planning for a huge sweep, and a big party, and...

Then what? Obama-Pelosi-Reid will not be able to resist the massive tax hikes that have lurked behind their every scheme for the past 28 years since Reagan wrested the government from the last group of statists. The unions have wanted protectionism since Bill Clinton signed on to NAFTA. The environmentalists want the sort of global warming regime that will not merely curb but positively punish economic growth, and the anti-nuclear reflex within the Democratic Party is so deep that while Obama can make a few noises about the need for new nuke plants, none would begin under his tenure. Obama said last night that we need new oil exploration off-shore. Does anyone really believe that will happen? Energy shortages would go from a predicament to a policy overnight.

High taxes, falling trade, declining energy use: These are the macro issues.

Now I find this very interesting on some levels, of course all this assumes a big win for Obama and solid growth in Congress for the Democrats. Chuck Schumer needs 9 big wins out of 12 for the Senate to be filibuster proof. If all that happens they have something. And the nation potentially has big problems. If Obama-Pelosi-Reid can work together. Luckily I don't think they can. [Excuse my emotionalism but Reid is a tool. I have no idea how he became Majority Leader]

The big question will be what type of president will Obama be. Is he the uniter? Bush ran on a very similar idea. Is he the centrist with the new ideas? If so please comment with some links as evidence, anyone. Or is he what the right-pundits like Hewitt fear, a statist with a good tailor and a smooth voice?

Let's go down Hewitt's list and then I want to add one of my own.

1) Taxes. I actually trust that we will see some sort of tax cut for the middle class. Obama has said this so much he has to at least try and the Dems in Congress will go for something. But at the same time they will make major changes elsewhere in the tax structure, i.e. raising them on the rich in numerous ways. I'm far from rich but the graduated income tax is and has been a gross inequality for almost a hundred years. That aside, can they raise taxes on investors and corporations (which simply passes them on to consumers via higher prices) without bursting our already unsound economic bubble? But without higher taxes Obama won't even begin to have the resources to fund any of the many plans he hopes to enlarge the powers and reach of the state i.e. universal health care.That will be a cherry on top. Can you imagine? Whew!


2) Protectionism. Now Obama has said quite a few things from each side of the issue. Who knows what he really thinks or how he will really act? My gut is he is not really a protectionist and only says these things to blindfold the Unions. Unions lust for tariffs. So he must lie to them and give them lip service, just like a politician (no change there). Tariffs are ridiculous and would be deadly to the economy. I hope Obama knows this. If Obama raises taxes and raises tariffs across the board I don't know how he gets re-elected.

3) Global Warming. I basically could repeat the last paragraph and replace Unions with environmentalists and tariffs with the numerous Green bills that could come and cripple our commercial and industrial capacity. If there is man-made global warming then it needs to be solved by private citizens and private corporations, not knee-jerk coercive reactions by big government that have dubious consequences in other areas (i.e. ethanol). I don't follow this issue enough so I really don't know what Obama-Pelosi-Reid would do. Probably a lot of pandering. Anyone?

4) Nuclear Power. The bottom line is this is the future. This has been the future for thirty years +, but we have sat on our collective hands on this one. Democrats and Republicans need to both get all over this and move now. Many in the GOP are getting on board. The Dems are too loosy-goosey on this one. Obama could make a difference if he believes in it. Drilling too. We'll see.

5) Foreign Policy. I'm adding this one because it is huge and since the war in Iraq has been doing well and the stock market not so much, most Americans have tuned it out even more so. There is too much to risk politically and militarily to pull out of Iraq. That's not going to happen. The moonbats will scream bloody murder, but Democrats have a way of being half-way responsible once in power. Destabilizing Iraq now at the brink of victory after so much struggle would simply be a crime. Also Obama would lose all credibility in the eyes of the military, especially the Petraeus and Odierno wing. Iraq probably will not be the glowing representation of democracy the idealistic Bush wanted but it can be a viable ally in the Middle East--along with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan a firm buffer against the desires and expansion of Iran.

As I'm writing this there is so much more: the Afgan-Paki War, North Korea, China, the old big Bear Russia. The next president will have his hands very full. Regardless what Obama's ads say, the next president (whoever it is) is serving Bush's third term, if they like it or not.

I certainly don't fear President Obama, history has taught me too much to be paranoid, but President McCain would make me sleep a little easier. We as a political people have elected two untried and untested presidents in a row. Both have turned out to be mediocre at best and divisive hacks at worse. We don't need to go for a third.

Postnote: Tying Obama to Ayers and all that is a dead-end. McCain is wasting his time with this type of attack.