Florida Judge Invalidates ObamaCare

The 26-state case against the ACA in Florida resulted in a ruling today that struck down the healthcare law. The judge concluded that the individual mandate violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, and that since the Necessary and Proper Clause cannot grant Congress unconstitutional powers, the mandate cannot stand. The judge then invalidated the entire law due to its lack of a severability clause and the federal government’s argument that the rest of the law could not work as intended without the mandate.

More explanation here.

That makes the ACA 2-2 in district court rulings, and we’ll likely see it before the Supreme Court. For now, however, will the feds comply, meaning a stop to implementation of the law?

UPDATE: There is an argument that the law’s implementation should only be stopped in Florida based on the court’s jurisdiction.

State of the Union: More of the Same

For a president who promised so much change, we’ve seen very little in his ideology, which was just thoroughly rebuked in November. Tuesday night’s State of the Union was remarkable only for the philosophy that President Obama clearly re-emphasized: The solution to our problems is more government. And that was somehow supposed to be interpreted as a move toward the center.

It’s politics as usual to think that changing your vocabulary and making a tax deal before you would have had less leverage could be sold as a pivot to the center, but a pivot is what we’re supposed to believe. President Obama correctly outlined some of our significant problems, but his prescription was the same as it has been. As Charles Krauthammer wrote, it was the “old Obama in new clothing.”

Sure, President Obama’s challenge to the country to rise above our current hurdles was uplifting, and his desire to see innovation that sparks the economy is certainly shared by many Americans, but the problem is that he expects the federal government to be the spark. He talked about the importance of businesses and local communities, but his core belief is that the federal government needs to invest in new ideas for the private sector. Unfortunately, we’re short on money for the federal government to invest. Plus, the private sector can innovate just fine.

Americans aren’t looking for the government to lead the next technological revolution by investing in high-speed rails and green energy pipe dreams. What Americans want right now is for the federal government to restrain itself. Yet, even while paying lip service to fiscal responsibility, President Obama avoided the big budget issues.

While he offered a token invitation to consider key reforms, he was clearly daring Republicans to take on entitlements. Some leadership. And what about Congressional Democrats? Don’t expect them to tackle the big entitlement problems, as Senate majority leader Harry Reid won’t even concede on earmarks. If there was any indication of who might have the guts to lead us through a difficult attempt to reform entitlements, it was from Congressman Paul Ryan and from Congresswoman Michele Bachman. But there are probably still not enough leaders in Congress or the White House for the necessary reforms to occur.

Thanks to the State of the Union address Tuesday night, we have another clear line for 2012. President Obama reminded us of who he thinks is entitled to our money when he listed tax breaks as a form of spending that had to be cut:

The bipartisan Fiscal Commission I created last year made this crystal clear. I don’t agree with all their proposals, but they made important progress. And their conclusion is that the only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it – in domestic spending, defense spending, health care spending, and spending through tax breaks and loopholes.

President Obama believes that the government is what makes this country great, and that it must spend even more money to jumpstart the economy. Contrast that with Richard Nixon, who said, “We must always remember that America is a great nation today not because of what government did for people, but because of what people did for themselves and for one another.”  President Obama believes that the government determines how much of our money we should keep, and that that money is a form of government spending. Contrast that with Thomas Jefferson, who wrote, “Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual.”

President Obama didn’t change who he is. He still believes that government is the solution to our problems. He may have said that in more marketable ways in his address, but he still made his message clear.

A Chance for President Obama to Lead

While the president has been talking about high-speed rails and other investments the federal government could make, revolutions have been breaking out in the Middle East. Max Boot frames the situations as opportunities for President Obama to shape the Middle East. During his State of the Union address, the President said that the United States “supports the democratic aspirations of all people.” He missed earlier chances in Iran and Honduras, but he can follow through here.

There have been shake-ups in Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon, and now Yemen. While we have significant economic problems at home, the president should step up and defend freedom, human rights, and America’s interests in the world.

UPDATE: The situation in Egypt has been getting the most attention, and it is quite complicated and concerning. Mubarak, who has announced he will step down later this year, is far from the ideal leader, but there is no guarantee of a better option right now.

The concern is that extremists could take over. The U.S. is in a difficult position where it doesn’t want to completely support Mubarak, but also doesn’t want to risk the wrong type of regime change. The Obama administration is supposedly open to Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood having a role in government. The president should at least be clear about what kinds of groups we do not support, keeping in mind what the Muslim Brotherhood is.

Significance of ObamaCare Repeal Votes

The new House voted this week to repeal ObamaCare, and to commit to alternative solutions to replace it. Now it is the Senate’s turn. We know that the Democrat majority in the Senate probably means the chances of repeal passing the chamber are low, and the chances of President Obama himself signing a repeal would be likely be even lower. So, what is the point, as Senator Murkowski asks?

As Senator Murkowski and probably every Senator likely knows, the symbolism of an ObamaCare vote in the Senate could be quite powerful. If the Republican-led House votes to repeal the law and presents better alternatives, while the Democrat-led Senate votes to defend ObamaCare, a clear line is drawn for 2012 on healthcare. The more that Democrats have to defend the ACA, the better Republicans will be.

That Senator Murkowski doesn’t want the vote when the “messaging” is very important to the upcoming election suggests something about her attitude towards repeal (though she claims to support repeal). The same could be said about any Republican who claims to not see the value in contrasting House and Senate votes on healthcare during this session of split chambers.

Republicans should press for a repeal vote in the Senate. Whether they get one and lose or don’t get one at all, they’ll be able to point to the Democrats’ defense of ObamaCare in 2012, which should be a winning issue for Republicans.

Can We Refuse to Raise the Debt Ceiling Without Defaulting?

A key question to the debt ceiling debate is whether or not there is a way to avoid raising the ceiling without defaulting. There are many voices on both the right and left who are saying that the debt ceiling must be raised to avoid a default, but there is an idea out there that some say could allow the ceiling to stay where it is without the government defaulting.

Senator Pat Toomey wrote this week in The Wall Street Journal:

In fact, if Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling, the federal government will still have far more than enough money to fully service our debt. Next year, for instance, about 6.5% of all projected federal government expenditures will go to interest on our debt, and tax revenue is projected to cover about 67% of all government expenditures. With roughly 10 times more income than needed to honor our debt obligations, why would we ever default?

To make absolutely sure, I intend to introduce legislation that would require the Treasury to make interest payments on our debt its first priority in the event that the debt ceiling is not raised. This would not only ensure the continued confidence of investors at home and abroad, but would enable us to have an honest debate about the consequences of our eventual decision about the debt ceiling.

Such prioritization is known as sequencing, and Senator Toomey isn’t the only prominent figure suggesting the tactic.

For more background on the budget process and the debt ceiling, read Keith Hennessey.

What Priority Should GOP Place on Entitlement Reform?

Hat tip to Ramesh Ponnuru for sparking important discussion about the political approach to entitlements. Ramesh argues that the current Congressional Republicans do not have a mandate to reform Medicare and Social Security, and that presidential support for such reform (which they don’t currently have from President Obama) is necessary. Therefore, Ramesh thinks the GOP should not push hard for those reforms right now and should instead look for a presidential nominee in 2012 who will make a strong case for entitlement reform. Not a bad argument.

Is it likely, however, that a presidential candidate in 2012 would emphasize entitlement reform and get elected with voter support for it? I don’t think so, which is why I disagree some with Ramesh. If either President Obama is reelected or the GOP nominee shies away from contentious entitlement reform, then we still wouldn’t have the presidential support that Ramesh asserts is necessary for reform to occur. There is a good chance that one of those scenarios will play out.

Can we afford to wait until 2016 or longer to start making marginal reforms to programs like Medicare and Social Security? It’s highly debatable, but many would agree that the longer we wait, the more difficult it will be to reform those programs, especially as more people go into those programs in the next several years. Everyone knows the debt problems we have, and while we can cut around the margins, the real meat is in entitlement programs.

While, as Ed Morrissey points out, there may be some voter support for addressing Medicare and Social Security, the specific reforms that would phase out those programs are sure to be difficult to sell to voters who fear having benefits taken away. Unless voter sentiment in the next few years shifts significantly in favor of those reforms, politicians may have to take significant political risk to reform entitlement programs. Is now the time to take that risk?

Ramesh argues no, but the reasons why are unlikely to change by 2012 or in the next few years. This is why we probably have to accept that the entitlement reform argument has to be made before there is a clear mandate for reform. The Democrat-controlled Senate and the current President are not going to sign on to meaningful entitlement reform, but the House can make the choice clear for 2012.

If voters have an obvious choice between a party that promises to make sensible reforms to entitlements and a party that tells us the programs are fine, we’ll either end up with a mandate for reform or we’ll still be losing the debate with voters. If we lose, then we’re going to be in an even deeper hole, but we’d be just as deep if we didn’t do anything.

As Expected, California and Illinois Trying to Raise Taxes

Both California and Illinois are looking to raise taxes to climb out of their deep budget holes. That’s not surprising, considering which party runs those states and considering the governors just elected in each. In California, Governor Jerry Brown is asking voters to accept tax increases they’ve already rejected. In Illinois, the current plan under consideration would reportedly raise the rate from 3% to 5%.

Of course spending cuts are promised, but will those make it in the final bills? And if tax revenues were to increase with income rate increases, would they be used to balance the budgets? I wouldn’t count on it. In the meantime, tax increases would probably just hurt employment in those states and would drive business and investment away.

UPDATE: Illinois Democrats passed the tax increases through the House and Senate just before the new General Assembly arrived. Income tax rates will increase from 3% to 5%, and corporate rates will increase from 4.8% to 7%.

Paul Ryan on the New House and Fiscal Challenges

Paul Ryan has been on a lot of shows lately, and his interview on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show is worth reading if you missed it. Hugh Hewitt understands the reality in Congress, so he presses Ryan on how Republicans can actually follow through on promises. Ryan makes some interesting points about House rules and with his opinion about the lack of fiscal policy understanding among members of Congress.

Read the interview to understand the challenges and what leaders like Congressman Ryan plan on doing.

Illinois Elects Democrats, So It Might Get a Massive Tax Increase

Voters sent a national message last November, but states like Illinois and California are exceptions. Because voters in those states still want more Democrats, tax increases are likely to be considered to fix huge budget holes. In fact, the Illinois legislature is proposing a 75% income tax increase.

The income tax rate in Illinois is 3%, meaning the rate would increase to 5.25%. I’ll do the math for you: If you make $100,000 a year, your state income tax would go from $3,000 a year to $5,250. That’s a $2,250 increase. If you make $50,000 a year, your state income tax would go from $1,500 a year to $2,625 a year, an increase of $1,125.

Illinois, like California, is running a large deficit. Naturally, Democrats propose more taxes. We already know how this works, since California has helped model the scenario. Yet, even as California heads towards a fiscal cliff, Illinois seems to want to follow. Unfortunately, a lot of residents of Illinois might not want to go along with the state, so people and jobs will probably leave.

Yet the state keeps electing Democrats.

Russia Vindicating START Treaty Critics?

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air notes that the Russian parliament plans to use the new START to link strategic arms with missile defense systems in a way that START treaty critics and skeptics warned about, and contrary to what President Obama and proponents argued. I linked cases made against START by John Bolton and Mitt Romney. Meanwhile, reputable former Secretaries of State and George H.W. Bush (among others) endorsed the treaty.

If Bolton and Romney are correct about how the Russians interpret the treaty and about it limiting our missile defense, how much credibility does that give both of them as potential presidential candidates considering who they were arguing against?