It should come as a surprise to no one that today's government is anti-business. They made that clear before the election of 2008. They were going to "clamp down" on wall street, regulate the banks, spread the wealth and not allow the "greed" that caused the crisis do any more harm.
Problem is, in the middle of a downturn, enough voters were seeing nothing but doom and gloom and actually bought into this message ... Howard Dean proclaimed that "capitalism has failed" (despite 200 years of evidence the contrary). The liberals won bigger than ever before. Now, what are the consequences of that election?
I just read an interesting interview with the CEO of Intel, Paul Otellini. Intel is the world's largest semiconductor company and remains a testament to the power of innovation combined with business savvy. Without Intel and the myriad of businesses that were either spun off, inspired, funded or made more efficient by it, the US and world economies would be much different. Dear reader, your standard of living is in no small measure higher thanks to Intel.
One year ago Intel had $11B cash in the bank. Today they have $18B. Why? Why is the ratio of cash to revenue the highest in history for the S&P 500? Because today's administration has said and done enough that is anti-business that fear of future taxes and regulations has paralyzed American businesses. They are not investing, expanding or hiring. They are sitting on their cash because they have reason to believe that the liberals will stick it to them again and again. The small companies that I help manage are doing the same thing.
Getting inside the head of liberals who think they can run the economy better than the business people is a theme of this blog. Runaway capitalism, monopolies, unfair business practices, inhumane working conditions and overpaid executives are just some of the reasons liberals use to explain their policies. We must regulate tightly and keep a close watch on business or they will start doing more harm than good.
Read the article with the new health care law in mind. With the new Dodd-Frank financial reform law in mind. With the fact that almost none of President Obama's staff has ever worked in the private sector in mind. It starts to become clear why we have 10% unemployment and some economists are saying "Get used to it".
Is it possible that liberals actually want to handicap companies so that growth slows? This would reduce suburban sprawl, pollution, consumption of resources and globalization. Is this the hidden agenda? Turn the clock back to pre-industrial, agrarian times with a smaller world population?
Or do they just simply not appreciate the power and value of capitalism? Have they not witnessed the last 200 years of American exceptionalism? Have they not seen the data tightly correlating the level of economic freedom in a given country to its quality of life? Do they still think that Karl Marx was right?
I don't know. But I do know that they're very clear about their intentions and they continue to deliver on what they promise.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Friday, August 20, 2010
Obama v. Roberts
It is often overlooked that we have 3 branches of government. The Legislative branch makes the laws, the Executive branch enforces the laws and the Judicial branch interprets the laws. These days, the Supreme Court seems to live in another place, rarely viewed as an equal player in the game.
However, there have been many historical examples of the Supreme Court striking down laws as unconstitutional, nullifying the work of the other two branches. In 1803, Marbury v. Madison gave us the first case of the Court overturning an act of Congress. Over the couple of centuries since, there has been an ebb and flow to the prominence of the court in the lives of the citizens, but there has always been a sense that these 9 jurors are the final arbiters in great matters.
The genius of the Founders can be found sprinkled everywhere in the Constitution, but no more so than in Article 3: The Judiciary. If the Founders believed in Democracy and the power of the people to determine their fates, why allow a group of nine unelected, permanent justices to strike down the work of Congress? A law that was signed by the President? Did they create a king by committee?
They created a defense mechanism. The Founders believed that individuals possess certain inalienable rights and these were not open for modification based on a brief period of popular sentiment. If, for some reason, the people elected a Congress and a President that brought about a violation of basic human rights, the Supreme Court is there to restore liberty. The fact that they are not electable or directly influenced by the people gives them an opportunity for more reflection and a view of the longer term.
It is the job of the Judiciary to rule, without emotion, whether a law is in accordance with or contrary to the Constitution. Their job is not to rule on whether or not they like a law or think it would be nice to have. As Justice Scalia once said, "I have a pretty simple job and I have nothing to negotiate." He simply weighs an issue based on the Constitution and court precedent and makes a ruling. No constituents, no lobbyists, no special interests.
The Founders also gave us a mechanism for over-ruling the Supreme Court: we can amend the Constitution, as has been done 27 times. This rationally requires an enormous amount of effort and popular support, not done on a whim based on an election cycle or two.
Which brings us to today's topic: Obama v. Roberts. The recently passed health care law is rightly being challenged in lower courts based on its constitutionality. The argument goes like this:
The Constitution gave the federal government specific, enumerated powers. In that list of powers, the only one that could possibly permit this health care law is the Commerce Clause, which establishes that the federal government has a right to regulate commerce among the states. Now, a law requiring someone (who is presumably doing nothing and is therefore not engaging in commerce across state lines) to purchase health insurance is at a minimum stretching the Constitution and at most clearly in defiance. What exactly is the federal government regulating?
On that topic, I really don't understand how anyone can, in good faith, conclude that the health care law is constitutional. If the federal government can compel someone to stop doing nothing and to purchase health insurance, then the federal government can do anything and our traditional system of government is null and void. You may love the new health care law and you may really want it to be implemented, but you have to at least acknowledge that it flies in the face of our Constitution and the intent of the Founders.
Also on that note, President Obama is probably the most intelligent person to occupy the White House in decades. He was a professor of Constitutional Law. He knows very well the points I've made and, for some reason, he doesn't care. He knows that the right way to implement his vision of health care is through a Constitutional amendment and not in a rash moment of voter frustration with the previous administration. He, however, knows that the pubic greatly disapproves of universal health care and probably concludes that the ends justify the means. This is among the reasons that I am disgusted with our current President.
So sometime soon, in some fashion, the new law will make its way in front of Chief Justice John Roberts' court and will need to stand up to 221 years of Constitutional Law. This will be the biggest decision by the Court in memory. It will either fundamentally change the nature of our Republic or it will confirm the wisdom of the Founders.
I, for one, will be paying close attention.
However, there have been many historical examples of the Supreme Court striking down laws as unconstitutional, nullifying the work of the other two branches. In 1803, Marbury v. Madison gave us the first case of the Court overturning an act of Congress. Over the couple of centuries since, there has been an ebb and flow to the prominence of the court in the lives of the citizens, but there has always been a sense that these 9 jurors are the final arbiters in great matters.
The genius of the Founders can be found sprinkled everywhere in the Constitution, but no more so than in Article 3: The Judiciary. If the Founders believed in Democracy and the power of the people to determine their fates, why allow a group of nine unelected, permanent justices to strike down the work of Congress? A law that was signed by the President? Did they create a king by committee?
They created a defense mechanism. The Founders believed that individuals possess certain inalienable rights and these were not open for modification based on a brief period of popular sentiment. If, for some reason, the people elected a Congress and a President that brought about a violation of basic human rights, the Supreme Court is there to restore liberty. The fact that they are not electable or directly influenced by the people gives them an opportunity for more reflection and a view of the longer term.
It is the job of the Judiciary to rule, without emotion, whether a law is in accordance with or contrary to the Constitution. Their job is not to rule on whether or not they like a law or think it would be nice to have. As Justice Scalia once said, "I have a pretty simple job and I have nothing to negotiate." He simply weighs an issue based on the Constitution and court precedent and makes a ruling. No constituents, no lobbyists, no special interests.
The Founders also gave us a mechanism for over-ruling the Supreme Court: we can amend the Constitution, as has been done 27 times. This rationally requires an enormous amount of effort and popular support, not done on a whim based on an election cycle or two.
Which brings us to today's topic: Obama v. Roberts. The recently passed health care law is rightly being challenged in lower courts based on its constitutionality. The argument goes like this:
The Constitution gave the federal government specific, enumerated powers. In that list of powers, the only one that could possibly permit this health care law is the Commerce Clause, which establishes that the federal government has a right to regulate commerce among the states. Now, a law requiring someone (who is presumably doing nothing and is therefore not engaging in commerce across state lines) to purchase health insurance is at a minimum stretching the Constitution and at most clearly in defiance. What exactly is the federal government regulating?
On that topic, I really don't understand how anyone can, in good faith, conclude that the health care law is constitutional. If the federal government can compel someone to stop doing nothing and to purchase health insurance, then the federal government can do anything and our traditional system of government is null and void. You may love the new health care law and you may really want it to be implemented, but you have to at least acknowledge that it flies in the face of our Constitution and the intent of the Founders.
Also on that note, President Obama is probably the most intelligent person to occupy the White House in decades. He was a professor of Constitutional Law. He knows very well the points I've made and, for some reason, he doesn't care. He knows that the right way to implement his vision of health care is through a Constitutional amendment and not in a rash moment of voter frustration with the previous administration. He, however, knows that the pubic greatly disapproves of universal health care and probably concludes that the ends justify the means. This is among the reasons that I am disgusted with our current President.
So sometime soon, in some fashion, the new law will make its way in front of Chief Justice John Roberts' court and will need to stand up to 221 years of Constitutional Law. This will be the biggest decision by the Court in memory. It will either fundamentally change the nature of our Republic or it will confirm the wisdom of the Founders.
I, for one, will be paying close attention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)