Showing posts with label U.S. Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S. Supreme Court. Show all posts
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Supreme Court Ruling is a Major Blow to Entrepreneurship, Small Business Owners
In reaction to the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court today on the "Affordable Care Act," the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) said the decision that keeps intact most of the law - including the individual mandate being deemed constitutional as a "tax" - will continue to impose a heavy burden on small business owners and entrepreneurs, thus harming the economy, U.S. competitiveness, job creation and the future of entrepreneurship.
"Most self-employed Americans and small business owners would purchase health insurance for themselves and their employees if they could afford it. The costly, tax-laden health care law with its individual mandate and intrusive regulations missed this entire point. Rather than providing Americans with affordable choices through better competition, the health care law coerces Americans to buy packages designed by government bureaucrats in markets micromanaged by government bureaucrats," said SBE Council President & CEO Karen Kerrigan.
"The individual mandate serves as a gateway to more coercion, where small business owners and individuals will be forced to purchase any number of goods or services that political elites deem in their 'best interest.' Today's ruling by the Supreme Court undercuts freedom, which is essential to economic growth and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is on the decline in the U.S., and we need policies that will encourage risk-taking and start-up activity. Intrusive government policies and punishing taxes, like the Affordable Care Act with its individual mandate, work against a vibrant entrepreneurial ecosystem, " observed Kerrigan.
SBE Council Chief Economist Raymond Keating added:
"The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold ObamaCare is an egregious, irresponsible decision that ignores the clear intent of the U.S. Constitution to limit the powers and reach of government. By allowing the government to force individuals into a commercial transaction just because they are citizens, it's hard to think of any limits that can be placed on federal power - as long as such action is called a tax. As bad as the regulatory environment has been in this nation, the federal government's power to regulate has now de facto expanded. It is critical that Congress step in, and unlike the Supreme Court, abide by the Constitution and repeal the monstrosity that is ObamaCare. If not, the ObamaCare mess of costly taxes and regulations and a vast expansion in federal spending will proceed, along with the threat of an unbridled federal government going on other activist sprees."
According to SBE Council, the U.S. needs a competitive health insurance market, which means it needs a national marketplace with ample choices for small business owners and entrepreneurs. A competitive, national marketplace will produce affordable and innovative choices for small business owners, not one controlled by government.
SBE Council will continue to urge Congress and President Obama to pare back many elements of the health care law that hurt small businesses including the employer mandate, the individual mandate, the health insurance tax, the litany of individual tax increases in the legislation, and "one-size-fits-all" regulations where the federal government is dictating the types of packages that must be offered in the marketplace. In addition, the group is pushing for improvements to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), which have given small business owners more choice in health coverage but experienced a set back in the new health care law because it imposed various restrictions on usage.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
POTUS vs SCOTUS on Affordable Care Act?
Apparently, President Barack Obama did not like how the arguments over his massive health care measure went before the U.S. Supreme Court. On April 2, he not only came out swinging against the Court, but questioned the Supreme Court's role in our system of checks and balances. It was an unprecedented attack from a president of the United States.
For good measure, Mr. Obama, who taught classes in constitutional law, either misled people or proved that he fails to understand what judicial activism is.
On challenging the Court's role, Obama argued that the Court should "not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
Was the President serious here or is this just a case of playing politics? Either way, it's quite troubling.
Of course, there is nothing "unprecedented" or "extraordinary" about the Supreme Court having to take the step of "overturning a law" when that law flies in the face of the Constitution. After all, the Supreme Court's job is to make sure that laws do not cross the line and violate the Constitution. This was made clear by the Founding Fathers, and in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision.
Given that serious responsibility, even if a law were passed by significant majorities, that would not influence or affect the Court's responsibility. But large majorities most certainly were not the case with ObamaCare. The President declared that his health care measure "was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." This is another troubling declaration.
Again, is the President misleading for political purposes, or has he talked himself into something that does not align with reality? ObamaCare just got enough votes to avoid a filibuster in the Senate (60 votes), and squeaked by in the House of Representatives by a margin of 219-212, without any Republican support.
So, Mr. Obama got the history of his own health care law wrong, and served up a disturbing assessment of what the proper role of the Supreme Court is.
But there was more distortion when it comes to the Court's role and judicial philosophy. President Obama said, "And I'd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law."
Well, the President is correct that judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, has been the biggest problem on the bench. But judicial activism is not about the Court overturning a law when that law is unconstitutional. Rather, judicial activism is when the Court decides to take on the role of constitutional author and/or legislator. That is, rather than following and properly applying the Constitution, judicial activists decide to ignore what the Constitution actually says and replace it with their own preferences. They decide to rewrite the Constitution as they see fit. This is where the unelected seek to take on the job of elected lawmakers, which is completely inappropriate.
For example, judicial activism was on full, unsavory display in the Court's 5-4 decision in the Kelo v. City of New London eminent domain case, when the Court redefined "public use," as written in the Constitution, to mean public purpose, and then allowing politicians to define public purpose however they like.
In the end, President Obama did not like the signals that were being sent by justices during the arguments over ObamaCare, in particular, that the individual mandate represents an unprecedented, sweeping and constitutionally groundless expansion of federal government powers. His responses amounted to a political fit, in which he said things that undermined his own reputation. The President seems to be laying the groundwork for accusing the U.S. Supreme Court for playing politics with ObamaCare during his reelection campaign. But if the Court overturns ObamaCare on true constitutional grounds, that is not politics. Instead, it is our government's checks and balances working as they should.
It was bad enough that President Obama pushed a costly, damaging health care measure through Congress that makes no economic sense, but now he is levying unwarranted attacks on the Supreme Court as it considers serious questions about the law as it pertains to the U.S. Constitution. Shame on the President.
_______
Raymond J. Keating is chief economist for the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. His new book is "Chuck" vs. the Business World: Business Tips on TV.
For good measure, Mr. Obama, who taught classes in constitutional law, either misled people or proved that he fails to understand what judicial activism is.
On challenging the Court's role, Obama argued that the Court should "not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
Was the President serious here or is this just a case of playing politics? Either way, it's quite troubling.
Of course, there is nothing "unprecedented" or "extraordinary" about the Supreme Court having to take the step of "overturning a law" when that law flies in the face of the Constitution. After all, the Supreme Court's job is to make sure that laws do not cross the line and violate the Constitution. This was made clear by the Founding Fathers, and in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision.
Given that serious responsibility, even if a law were passed by significant majorities, that would not influence or affect the Court's responsibility. But large majorities most certainly were not the case with ObamaCare. The President declared that his health care measure "was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." This is another troubling declaration.
Again, is the President misleading for political purposes, or has he talked himself into something that does not align with reality? ObamaCare just got enough votes to avoid a filibuster in the Senate (60 votes), and squeaked by in the House of Representatives by a margin of 219-212, without any Republican support.
So, Mr. Obama got the history of his own health care law wrong, and served up a disturbing assessment of what the proper role of the Supreme Court is.
But there was more distortion when it comes to the Court's role and judicial philosophy. President Obama said, "And I'd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law."
Well, the President is correct that judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, has been the biggest problem on the bench. But judicial activism is not about the Court overturning a law when that law is unconstitutional. Rather, judicial activism is when the Court decides to take on the role of constitutional author and/or legislator. That is, rather than following and properly applying the Constitution, judicial activists decide to ignore what the Constitution actually says and replace it with their own preferences. They decide to rewrite the Constitution as they see fit. This is where the unelected seek to take on the job of elected lawmakers, which is completely inappropriate.
For example, judicial activism was on full, unsavory display in the Court's 5-4 decision in the Kelo v. City of New London eminent domain case, when the Court redefined "public use," as written in the Constitution, to mean public purpose, and then allowing politicians to define public purpose however they like.
In the end, President Obama did not like the signals that were being sent by justices during the arguments over ObamaCare, in particular, that the individual mandate represents an unprecedented, sweeping and constitutionally groundless expansion of federal government powers. His responses amounted to a political fit, in which he said things that undermined his own reputation. The President seems to be laying the groundwork for accusing the U.S. Supreme Court for playing politics with ObamaCare during his reelection campaign. But if the Court overturns ObamaCare on true constitutional grounds, that is not politics. Instead, it is our government's checks and balances working as they should.
It was bad enough that President Obama pushed a costly, damaging health care measure through Congress that makes no economic sense, but now he is levying unwarranted attacks on the Supreme Court as it considers serious questions about the law as it pertains to the U.S. Constitution. Shame on the President.
_______
Raymond J. Keating is chief economist for the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. His new book is "Chuck" vs. the Business World: Business Tips on TV.
Tuesday, April 03, 2012
The Constitution and ObamaCare
If you paid any attention to the news about the arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court over ObamaCare, it's hard to miss a very obvious, fundamental difference that exists between liberals and conservatives when it comes to the U.S. Constitution. What is that difference?
Well, first, let's be clear as to what the court case over ObamaCare is not about. It is not about the economics of ObamaCare, or whether it is smart or dumb law.
For the economist, the bankruptcy of ObamaCare should be obvious. After all, the selling point was that this massive measure would somehow rein in costs, expand coverage, and improve care. Hmmm. Now when was the last time that a vast expansion of government into any arena resulted in lower costs, and more and better service? Quite simply, the answer is: Never.
For example, ObamaCare is about increased government subsidies of health care coverage, which inevitably will result in expanded utilization. That jump in demand, of course, will increase prices, especially when the supply of services are not increased in similar proportion. For good measure, when government spending is increased, waste expands as incentives to spend other people's money with prudence, care and wisdom do not exist in the public sector.
Then add on assorted mandates, regulations and taxes, and costs inevitably get driven even higher. Eventually, as costs careen far beyond anything that government originally estimated - as has been the case in Massachusetts with RomneyCare, with Medicaid, with Medicare, and in every nation with government-run health care - the eventual result is rationing of care via government (i.e., political appointees).
So, the entire ObamaCare law works against its stated objectives of lower costs and improved service. Instead, it's about increased costs for taxpayers, both individuals and businesses; higher costs for businesses due to mandates and regulations; and government deciding what's appropriate health insurance coverage and eventually appropriate care. It's bad economics and a dumb law.
But the Supreme Court does not exist to consider whether such a law makes economic sense, or even if is smart or not. Instead, the Supreme Court is considering whether ObamaCare is constitutional or not. This case before the Court is not about health care per se; instead, it's about the power of the federal government under the Constitution.
We've read and heard about the arguments presented, and the questions and comments offered by the justices on the issues of the individual mandate requiring that each person buy health insurance, and expanded Medicaid costs for the states.
In particular, those challenging the law point out that forcing citizens to engage in an act of commerce they would not otherwise engage in simply because they are citizens is an unprecedented expansion of federal power. If allowed to go forward, then politicians could justify anything under federal powers.
As Justice Anthony Kennedy asked during the arguments, "Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?" He also observed, "The government is saying that the federal government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases, and that changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way."
As for Medicaid, the requirement that the states accept and foot part of the bill for a huge expansion of Medicaid, or lose all federal Medicaid funding amounts to extortion by the federal government, and undermines state sovereignty implicit in our constitutional structure. The states, of course, are not forced to be part of Medicaid. But now that all are in so deep, the argument is that this clearly is federal coercion.
Chief Justice John Roberts referred to this relationship as the federal government putting a "gun to the head" of the states. He observed, "You have to give up your wallet. You don't have a choice."
What was perhaps most fascinating was the reaction to these arguments from both sides of the legal/judicial/political aisle. Conservatives noted that these are pertinent and important questions that get to what the Constitution says, allows and limits, which is critical to our system of checks and balances.
In contrast, liberals were simply aghast that these questions were given any kind of hearing. There was minimal recognition of the Constitution serving as a protection of individual liberty against government action, no matter what the intentions of those in power might be.
This case provides another powerful reminder that the Left has little regard for the Constitution itself. They fail to take serious the idea that the Constitution defines and limits the powers of government. Indeed, such a notion serves as anathema to their philosophy. What the Constitution actually says, and what the original intent was of the authors, matter not at all. Instead, in this view, the Constitution should merely conform to whatever it is that the political class would like to accomplish. In effect, there are no limits on federal power, as long as the justices happen to agree with the goals in mind when federal power is executed. That is, quite simply, the ends justify the means.
Finally, it was interesting to note a Wall Street Journal report on March 29 that included the reactions of the business community if the Court overturned the law. The only two businesses included in the article were firms that hitched their wagons to ObamaCare, and their specific business plans would have to be altered if the law was tossed out. Why not include representatives of the millions of business owners who would see increased uncertainties and costs from the law if it is allowed to stand? The bias of the story was painful.
In the end, based on the Constitution, the individual mandate should be struck down. And since that provision is so central to the law, much of the measure would not have passed without it. Therefore, the entire law should be struck down, rather than having justices acting like legislators to deem what should stay and what should go. The entire issue should be returned to elected representatives. That would be the most appropriate action from the perspective of judicial restraint and constitutionality. In this case, it also happens to be best outcome from the perspective of sound economics and getting rid of a dumb law.
_______
Raymond J. Keating is chief economist for the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. His new book is "Chuck" vs. the Business World: Business Tips on TV.
Well, first, let's be clear as to what the court case over ObamaCare is not about. It is not about the economics of ObamaCare, or whether it is smart or dumb law.
For the economist, the bankruptcy of ObamaCare should be obvious. After all, the selling point was that this massive measure would somehow rein in costs, expand coverage, and improve care. Hmmm. Now when was the last time that a vast expansion of government into any arena resulted in lower costs, and more and better service? Quite simply, the answer is: Never.
For example, ObamaCare is about increased government subsidies of health care coverage, which inevitably will result in expanded utilization. That jump in demand, of course, will increase prices, especially when the supply of services are not increased in similar proportion. For good measure, when government spending is increased, waste expands as incentives to spend other people's money with prudence, care and wisdom do not exist in the public sector.
Then add on assorted mandates, regulations and taxes, and costs inevitably get driven even higher. Eventually, as costs careen far beyond anything that government originally estimated - as has been the case in Massachusetts with RomneyCare, with Medicaid, with Medicare, and in every nation with government-run health care - the eventual result is rationing of care via government (i.e., political appointees).
So, the entire ObamaCare law works against its stated objectives of lower costs and improved service. Instead, it's about increased costs for taxpayers, both individuals and businesses; higher costs for businesses due to mandates and regulations; and government deciding what's appropriate health insurance coverage and eventually appropriate care. It's bad economics and a dumb law.
But the Supreme Court does not exist to consider whether such a law makes economic sense, or even if is smart or not. Instead, the Supreme Court is considering whether ObamaCare is constitutional or not. This case before the Court is not about health care per se; instead, it's about the power of the federal government under the Constitution.
We've read and heard about the arguments presented, and the questions and comments offered by the justices on the issues of the individual mandate requiring that each person buy health insurance, and expanded Medicaid costs for the states.
In particular, those challenging the law point out that forcing citizens to engage in an act of commerce they would not otherwise engage in simply because they are citizens is an unprecedented expansion of federal power. If allowed to go forward, then politicians could justify anything under federal powers.
As Justice Anthony Kennedy asked during the arguments, "Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?" He also observed, "The government is saying that the federal government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases, and that changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way."
As for Medicaid, the requirement that the states accept and foot part of the bill for a huge expansion of Medicaid, or lose all federal Medicaid funding amounts to extortion by the federal government, and undermines state sovereignty implicit in our constitutional structure. The states, of course, are not forced to be part of Medicaid. But now that all are in so deep, the argument is that this clearly is federal coercion.
Chief Justice John Roberts referred to this relationship as the federal government putting a "gun to the head" of the states. He observed, "You have to give up your wallet. You don't have a choice."
What was perhaps most fascinating was the reaction to these arguments from both sides of the legal/judicial/political aisle. Conservatives noted that these are pertinent and important questions that get to what the Constitution says, allows and limits, which is critical to our system of checks and balances.
In contrast, liberals were simply aghast that these questions were given any kind of hearing. There was minimal recognition of the Constitution serving as a protection of individual liberty against government action, no matter what the intentions of those in power might be.
This case provides another powerful reminder that the Left has little regard for the Constitution itself. They fail to take serious the idea that the Constitution defines and limits the powers of government. Indeed, such a notion serves as anathema to their philosophy. What the Constitution actually says, and what the original intent was of the authors, matter not at all. Instead, in this view, the Constitution should merely conform to whatever it is that the political class would like to accomplish. In effect, there are no limits on federal power, as long as the justices happen to agree with the goals in mind when federal power is executed. That is, quite simply, the ends justify the means.
Finally, it was interesting to note a Wall Street Journal report on March 29 that included the reactions of the business community if the Court overturned the law. The only two businesses included in the article were firms that hitched their wagons to ObamaCare, and their specific business plans would have to be altered if the law was tossed out. Why not include representatives of the millions of business owners who would see increased uncertainties and costs from the law if it is allowed to stand? The bias of the story was painful.
In the end, based on the Constitution, the individual mandate should be struck down. And since that provision is so central to the law, much of the measure would not have passed without it. Therefore, the entire law should be struck down, rather than having justices acting like legislators to deem what should stay and what should go. The entire issue should be returned to elected representatives. That would be the most appropriate action from the perspective of judicial restraint and constitutionality. In this case, it also happens to be best outcome from the perspective of sound economics and getting rid of a dumb law.
_______
Raymond J. Keating is chief economist for the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. His new book is "Chuck" vs. the Business World: Business Tips on TV.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Trouble Continues in Who-Ville
The following poem was inspired, in a good way, by Dr. Seuss, and in a bad way, by all kinds of politicians and judges who don’t understand what the U.S. Constitution says and means. It originally ran as an SBE Council Cybercolumn on December 21, 2006. It is posted here, once again, as a reminder that small business owners and homeowners still live under the threat of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Kelo v. City of New London.
Trouble in Who-Ville (with apologies to Dr. Seuss)
The Whos down in Who-ville once had big trouble.
But what they face now is way more than double.
That fellow who missed the point and tried to steal Christmas - his name was the Grinch.
But dealing with him now seems like a cinch.
Politicians want to take Who-ville!
Against many Whos' will.
They want the stores, the land, the small businesses and houses.
The Whos who voted for these folks now see them as louses.
"Economic development" has taken center stage.
And taking Whos' property has become quite the rage.
The greedy officials seek even more taxes.
So, they'll have at the buildings with bulldozers and axes.
And when all has been laid waste,
the politicians will give the property to their buddies in great haste.
These pols think they know best.
But few could pass an economics test.
They think handing property to special interests makes sense.
Apparently when it comes to history, they can be quite dense.
Rather than cutting taxes and regulation,
they choose bigger government and much bureaucratization.
And rather than protecting property, as is their job,
they choose to steal it and hand it over to some big greedy slob.
How could this happen in the land of the free and the home of the brave?
The answer is found in Kelo, they rave.
The Supreme Court by the narrowest vote,
decided that politicians could take one's castle and moat.
Many bureaucrats, politicians and planners took great delight.
But many won't give up without a hard fight.
Whos with homes and businesses pledge to battle night and day.
Even some state legislators and governors have joined the fray.
But in Congress, the results have been quite sad.
Senators did nothing, and Whos are quite mad.
So, who will control Who-ville in the end?
Will it be politicians who use any means to an end?
Or will justice, freedom and sound economics reign,
by stopping the abuses of eminent domain?
It's really up to the Whos.
Their votes will secure either cheers or boo-hoos.
The Grinch did try to steal Christmas one night.
But his heart grew three sizes, so he finally saw the light.
Will the same go for these government thieves tucked in their beds one night?
Will they realize just how precious is a private property right?
- The End -
Trouble in Who-Ville (with apologies to Dr. Seuss)
The Whos down in Who-ville once had big trouble.
But what they face now is way more than double.
That fellow who missed the point and tried to steal Christmas - his name was the Grinch.
But dealing with him now seems like a cinch.
Politicians want to take Who-ville!
Against many Whos' will.
They want the stores, the land, the small businesses and houses.
The Whos who voted for these folks now see them as louses.
"Economic development" has taken center stage.
And taking Whos' property has become quite the rage.
The greedy officials seek even more taxes.
So, they'll have at the buildings with bulldozers and axes.
And when all has been laid waste,
the politicians will give the property to their buddies in great haste.
These pols think they know best.
But few could pass an economics test.
They think handing property to special interests makes sense.
Apparently when it comes to history, they can be quite dense.
Rather than cutting taxes and regulation,
they choose bigger government and much bureaucratization.
And rather than protecting property, as is their job,
they choose to steal it and hand it over to some big greedy slob.
How could this happen in the land of the free and the home of the brave?
The answer is found in Kelo, they rave.
The Supreme Court by the narrowest vote,
decided that politicians could take one's castle and moat.
Many bureaucrats, politicians and planners took great delight.
But many won't give up without a hard fight.
Whos with homes and businesses pledge to battle night and day.
Even some state legislators and governors have joined the fray.
But in Congress, the results have been quite sad.
Senators did nothing, and Whos are quite mad.
So, who will control Who-ville in the end?
Will it be politicians who use any means to an end?
Or will justice, freedom and sound economics reign,
by stopping the abuses of eminent domain?
It's really up to the Whos.
Their votes will secure either cheers or boo-hoos.
The Grinch did try to steal Christmas one night.
But his heart grew three sizes, so he finally saw the light.
Will the same go for these government thieves tucked in their beds one night?
Will they realize just how precious is a private property right?
- The End -
__________
Raymond J. Keating is chief economist for the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council and author of "Chuck" vs. the Business World: Business Tips on TV.
Raymond J. Keating is chief economist for the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council and author of "Chuck" vs. the Business World: Business Tips on TV.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)