It’s good to see that the President moved quickly to set the record straight after the recent controversy created by Democratic consultant Hilary Rosen when she claimed Ann Romney couldn’t understand the economy because she “hasn’t worked a day in her life.” The President responded (via CS Monitor – click here for the whole article):
“It was the wrong thing to say,” Obama declared in an interview with WCMH-TV in Columbus, Ohio, standing up for Republican rival Mitt Romney’s wife with Democrats suddenly on the defensive over women’s issues for the first time this election year. Of the “ill-advised statement” by consultant Hilary Rosen, he added, “It’s not something that I subscribe to.”
In an interview with Cedar Rapids, Iowa, TV station KCRG, the president said “there’s no tougher job than being a mom” and cited the efforts of his wife, Michelle, and his own mother, a single woman with two children.
“That’s work,” he said. “So, anybody who would argue otherwise probably needs to rethink their statement.”
With comments like Rosen’s, our recent health care debates, Romney’s dismal ratings among women, and discussions about reproduction, so-called “women’s issues” are a hot topic in the media right now. It remains to be seen whether these issues remain very important in the general election or if this is just a news topic trotted out by media outlets to fill air time during the lull period after Romney has essentially sown up the nomination but before the general election campaigns get into full swing.
Andrew Cochran draws the parallel between Obamacare and Federal Tort Reform clearly at Injury Board. Essentially, both rely on a massively expanded understanding of the government’s power under the Commerce Clause, and the existing medical system adores both. From the article (click here to read the whole thing):
After all, Obamacare and federal tort reform are equally and fundamentally based on the expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause initiated after the Supreme Court’s 1942 decision in Wickard v. Filburn. The Obama Administration cited Wickard to support ObamaCare (page 18); the American Tort Reform Association cited it to support H.R. 5 (page 2), the bill to limit awards in medical malpractice and health care-related lawsuits.
Thankfully, at least some conservatives see the absurdity of talking out of both sides of their mouths:
Constitutional conservatives and states’ rights advocates consistently oppose both Obamacare and federal tort reform. That’s why VA AG Ken Cuccinelli sued to block Obamacare and promised to sue to block any federal law to limit medmal awards. It’s why Prof. Randy Barnett is a leading anti-Obamacare co-counsel and why he criticized federal tort reform bills twice last year, including H.R. 5. Ditto Carrie Severino, who wrote the Senate Republicans’ amicus brief against Obamacare and warned them against including a medmal limit section in their jobs bill. Tea Party Nation founderJudson Phillips and Sens. Tom Coburn and Mike Lee consistently opposed both, with Senator Lee criticizing federal tort reform again this week. Constitutional scholars Rob Natelson and Ilya Somin contributed separate amicus briefs in the Obamacare cases and have criticized H.R. 5 multiple times between them. Reps. Ted Poe and Ron Paul are among the numerous House Republicans who criticize both Obamacare and federal tort reform on constitutional grounds.
Conservatives need to step back and consider whether their pet policy positions and talking points agree with the big ideas of conservatism and our American Founding. Many tort reform proposals (federal and state) in recent years sound awfully similar to the over-broad big government interventions of democrats. Does a hatred of legal “waste” justify compromising your principles?
Bruce Bartlett at the New York Times proposes an alternative tax reform scheme to the Ryan Plan. Essentially, he argues that Ryan assumes that he can make up for lost taxes by closing loopholes and cutting deductions without actually naming a loophole or deduction. Bartlett prefers a plan originally proposed Columbia Law School Professor Michael Graetz. From the article (click here to read the whole thing):
He would abolish the income tax for the vast bulk of Americans and replace the revenue with a 12.5 percent value-added tax. People would pay their taxes when they buy things and wouldn’t need to worry about keeping records or filing tax returns at all.
The brilliance of the Graetz plan is that no tax expenditures need to be repealed. He would simply give every family a tax exemption of $100,000, which would eliminate the income tax for 90 percent of those now filing returns. For lower-income people who currently have no net income tax burden or who earn an income tax credit, Professor Graetz proposes a rebate (too complex in its details to spell out here).
Simplification has great appeal, but we must recognize, as Bartlett points out, that, one way or another, we will all have to part ways with our own pet deductions. But the current system is an incredible waste of time and money. If our current waste doesn’t motivate change, what will?
Liz Weston at MSN Money shares interesting thoughts on what the poor have to teach the rich. In particular, one important note is how much more the poor give. From the article (click here to read the whole thing):
Independent Sector, a nonprofit that tracks charitable spending, found in 2001 that households earning less than $25,000 a year gave away an average of 4.2% of their incomes. Those with incomes of more than $75,000 gave away 2.7%, on average.
She charts further numbers within the article. The most depressing thing is the trend – with one small exception, the more money the average person makes, the smaller percentage he or she gives away. Further, in a largely Christian nation, not one income category gives even 5%. That’s a long way from the traditional 10% tithe.
Small wonder then that we look to government to care for our poor! The ridiculous thing, as Weston points out, is that the richer categories have, presumably, a far smaller portion of their incomes devoted to “basic expenses” – basic provisions like food, shelter and clothing. So people in these income categories should have much more discretionary income, and yet they give away a smaller percentage of their income than the poorest people!
Imagine the transformation that could occur if all Americans donated 10% of their income or more to churches, private charities, and other groups. Among other benefits, the burden on government services for the poor would lessen considerably. Limited government advocates need to rail against these low giving percentages – higher giving is key to reducing the perceived need for government in our basic social spheres.
In a moment of political sanity, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, Democrat Congressman from Missouri, told CNN that Republicans are absolutely not waging a war on women. He condemned this kind of liberal attack speech and said it “damag[es] the body politic.” Watch the short clip (via LifeNews):
It’s encouraging to see Representative Cleaver condemn this kind of uncharitable language. It’s simply ridiculous to claim that an entire political party and its millions of supporters hate or are targeting half of the nation’s population. If they wanted to be charitable, Democrats might claim that Republicans are targeting government funding of specific kinds of birth control – that’s at least closer to the truth (though it’s still a broad generalization). Anything even less accurate is just partisan demonization.
I recently stumbled across an article from Salon writer Glenn Greenwald from several months ago. He made a point about the race for President that I think still applies. Though a liberal, Greenwald explained that he has some respect for Ron Paul, because Ron Paul provides a critical opinion on political ideas that both parties agree on. Since both sides agree, these issues are not usually raised much in the media – but Paul brings them out. From the article (click here to read the whole thing):
Ron Paul’s candidacy is a mirror held up in front of the face of America’s Democratic Party and its progressive wing, and the image that is reflected is an ugly one; more to the point, it’s one they do not want to see because it so violently conflicts with their desired self-perception….
The parallel reality — the undeniable fact — is that all of these listed heinous views and actions from Barack Obama have been vehemently opposed and condemned by Ron Paul: and among the major GOP candidates, only by Ron Paul. For that reason, Paul’s candidacy forces progressives to face the hideous positions and actions of their candidate, of the person they want to empower for another four years. If Paul were not in the race or were not receiving attention, none of these issues would receive any attention because all the other major GOP candidates either agree with Obama on these matters or hold even worse views.
Ron Paul is a problem for both liberals and conservatives. For liberals, as Greenwald explains, Paul serves as a reminder of things their candidate is doing that they’d rather not remember. For conservatives, he serves as an icon of conservative absolutism, which may be a contradiction in terms, but he sure can inspire people.
Whether you’ve donated hundreds of dollars to his campaign or written him off as a complete loon, you should appreciate the element that Paul adds to the process. He forces the media and his fellow candidates to talk about topics they would rather avoid and to make explicit their stances on questions they’d rather remain vague about. I, for one, am glad Mr. Paul has run his race.
John Cochrane (of Cato and the University of Chicago) writes for the Wall Street Journal about alternatives to Obamacare. He envisions a world in which ...
The New York Times reports an interesting development in the medical field. A large group of specialty boards is recommending to doctors that they reduce ...
Ross Douthat at The New York Times tackles an under-addressed question about the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate to purchase health insurance: How exactly did ...
