The hypocrisy of the Tenthers and states’ rights defenders
Conservative Republicans make a great show about states’ rights these days. It’s all the rage. The Tenth Amendment, they say, limits Congress to those areas in which the Constitution explicitly empowers it to act. All other responsibility resides with the states. They’re also not real happy with the way the commerce clause — in their eyes — has been stretched to apply to areas well beyond what the Founders intended, particularly health care.
Georgia’s Republican congressmen have been among those leading that charge. U.S. Reps. Phil Gingrey and Tom Price — both of whom happen to be physicians — were co-sponsors last year of a resolution declaring that “the very future of freedom and limited government depends on a restoration of American federalism and a real decentralization of government power.”
In remarks on the House floor, Gingrey has protested bitterly against a “‘Washington-knows-best’ solution and a one-size-fits-all approach,” and both men supported a new House rule requiring bill sponsors to cite a specific power enumerated in the Constitution that would authorize the proposed action.
Of course, the true test of your allegiance to principle comes not when you try to use it to restrict what the other guy does, but when you apply it to yourself. It’s all well and good to preach about the sanctity of marriage vows, for example, but the real test comes in whether you honor those vows in your own life.
So I found it interesting that earlier this week, the House Judiciary Committee decided to brush aside supposed concerns about federalism and states’ rights. By a vote of 18-15 — all Republicans for, all Democrats against — it approved a law that would directly pre-empt and override state laws and longstanding state authority and intrude on states’ rights by imposing a federal, one-size-fits-all solution.
The issue was medical malpractice, a favorite conservative cause. According to Politico, the bill in question would put a “three-year statute of limitations on medical lawsuits, cap non-economic damages at $250,000, and limit punitive damages to $250,000 or twice the economic damages, whichever is greater.”
For the moment, let’s set aside debate on the merits of the law and focus on its necessity: Why should Congress interfere in such an area, given that most medical malpractice suits are argued in state courts, under state laws? Until now, every state has had the right to decide such issues on its own. Some states have tough laws, some have more lenient laws. That’s the essence of states’ rights, as I understand it. So what’s the justification for imposing what Gingrey might call “a Washington-knows-best’ solution”?
More importantly, where exactly in the Constitution does it say that Congress shall be empowered to dictate to state governments, state courts, state judges and state juries how they should handle state cases of alleged medical malpractice? What’s the source of that federal authority? I’ve looked in my handy pocket Constitution, and I can’t find such a provision anywhere. Under conservative legal theory, it certainly can’t be the commerce clause, given that the commerce involved is strictly intra-state, not interstate. Most people do not cross state lines to get medical care.
Curious, I went digging into the Congressional Record. Under new House rules, remember, sponsors are required to cite congressional authority for their proposed bill. And sure enough, on Jan. 24, the bill’s sponsor — a “Mr. Gingrey of Georgia” — cited the commerce clause as his authority.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
494 comments Add your comment
Jason
February 18th, 2011
4:28 pm
It makes perfect sense. The Republicans just want to disagree with anything the Democrats propose. If the Democrats were trying to push the medical malpractice issue, then the Republicans would have started crying about state’s right in that case. Some of the items in the health care bill were originally Republican ideas but because Obama pushed it through, they suddenly found it evil.
Adam
February 18th, 2011
4:29 pm
Dave R: You didn’t answer my question. What I asked had nothing to do with “right to a job,” nor did I claim that at any other point. So I ask again:
On what basis do you say that workers have no skin in the game?
Dave R.
February 18th, 2011
4:29 pm
“BTW, The First Amendment prohibits the making of any law that interferes with the right to assemble. What the Wisconsin Governor is proposing is actually unconstitutional.”
As usual, Adam, you’re not even REMOTELY right on this issue. The right to “assemble” is the right to meet as a group, whether in public or in private. It has NOTHING to do with forming an association for any purpose.
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 18th, 2011
4:31 pm
Mick:
I’m still here but I needed a unique handle so I could find my posts better when scrolling.
Dave R.
February 18th, 2011
4:32 pm
Actually, I did answer your question, Adam. But to spell it out even further, the employer takes the risk. The workers work. You don’t like it? Take the risk yourself.
godless heathen
February 18th, 2011
4:33 pm
Where’s the music?
Bosch
February 18th, 2011
4:34 pm
“considered their profession more of a “calling” rather than the easy money they can make from it”
OMG! Stop it Pogo, you’re killing me!!
Adam
February 18th, 2011
4:34 pm
Pogo: Many of your arguments could be easily applied to any public job, in the forms of corruption and greed. Although Firefighters and EMTs are not traditionally seen as greedy or corrupt, there are some bad apples in the bunch just like in every job. Police is much easier of a target. Who hasn’t heard of police corruption stories? Who hasn’t heard of police greed in the form of drug and money laundering? But of the four, you think only teachers have some kind of greed and aren’t doing their jobs? Of the four, only teachers go on strike with their union for pay raises and for greed whereas police, fire, and EMTs do not ever do that? Of the four, teachers ONLY go on strike for stupid reasons whereas Fire, Police, and EMTs ALWAYS are on the right side of the bargain from start to finish?
Really, it seems you just have something against teachers and education in general. You’re not one of those ones that believes they make $100k per year apiece are you?
godless heathen
February 18th, 2011
4:34 pm
We have a right to some Friday travelin’ music! I say, “To the streets!!”
Mick
February 18th, 2011
4:37 pm
pogo
Where to begin? Notice that you have shifted 100% of the issue on the teacher. Is there less crime because we have the police? Are there less accidents because we have EMT’s?
When you talk about teachers be sure to include the product the parents are sending and most importantly, the student’s responsibility for their self, don’t be so easy to let the student off the hook. Bad teachers – yes, bad cops – yes and so on. What about the great teachers or very good teachers? Why do you focus on the bad, there’s your problem. This is america, there’s some damn good people out there day in and day out, this lack of respect for teachers is peculiar to this country. About those test scores, don’t forget about our population number and entertainment culture. The education is there, which students grab it – nine out of ten, the students with good parents…
AmVet
February 18th, 2011
4:37 pm
Scout.
Rotator cuff injuries? Pitchers? Curve balls?
jt, any time you wanna debate Nader step up to the plate.
And heathen is right.
Where is the tunage?
Dusty
February 18th, 2011
4:37 pm
That’s OK, MIck
Sometimes we all get a bit wound up. You’ll probably be sitting in sunshine this weekend…all relaxed. Have a good one… I will too.
Adam
February 18th, 2011
4:38 pm
Dave R: It has NOTHING to do with forming an association for any purpose
Actually, the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise on more than one occasion.
But to spell it out even further, the employer takes the risk. The workers work
Riiiiiight. Because the only “risk” that exists is one of safety, in a very narrow viewpoint of what safety means, right? Or to put it another way, workers never take any risk unless it’s a risk of dying? And workers never have a vested interest in how well the employer does or in that employer’s image? Risk and “skin in the game” isn’t just about potential for death, Dave.
Some People are stupid
February 18th, 2011
4:39 pm
Dave R-
Wait..I may be late but in reading the question”On what basis do you say that workers have no skin in the game?
Your reply was “employer takes the risk. The workers work”
Please tell me of any successful business without workers?
They both have skin in the game. Employers are motivated by profit, so they need good effecient workers to produce a high quality good/service to make a profit.
The worker receives payment. THey don’t receive payment unless the company maintains some level of profitability, so it is in their interest to do there job in a cost effective manner.
There is never anything that’s onesided…Have you ever heard of the term stakeholder??
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 18th, 2011
4:40 pm
AmVet:
Sorry, I get it now ……….. good comeback.
Actually, I tore it almost completely in two making an arrest ………. but he didn’t get away ………………..
Mick
February 18th, 2011
4:40 pm
scout
Glad you’re here, even though I’m still looking over my back, I agree with your perspective sometimes and feel you’ve got my back..
jm
February 18th, 2011
4:40 pm
Adam 4:26 – let me revise my statement. Obama is not cutting total discretionary spending.
AmVet
February 18th, 2011
4:42 pm
“but he didn’t get away ………………..”
Good!
I’m a big anti-crime guy.
Both the street and white collar varieties.
Which puts me at odds with most Republicans. (grin)
MUSIC! MUSIC! MUSIC! MUSIC!
Adam
February 18th, 2011
4:42 pm
Some People are stupid: Exactly. Although I can point to some successful sole proprietorships but that’s a small segment and is neither here nor there on the actual argument, since a sole proprietor is both the owner and the worker, and both still have skin in the game.
Some People are stupid
February 18th, 2011
4:43 pm
Speaking of cutting spending. I do find it that both the republicans plan and the president’s budget cut the same amount of money…yet for some reason the Republicans are against it….
Only in America can cutting 100 billion out of a 1.5 Trillion dollar deficit be seen as great…oh wow..now its only 1.4 trillion..
Some People are stupid
February 18th, 2011
4:43 pm
ADam-
Even in sole Pro. The employer takes on the role of the worker..
Adam
February 18th, 2011
4:44 pm
jm: Yet. I’m reasonably sure this is just an opening bid for the budget compromise to come.
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 18th, 2011
4:44 pm
Hummmmmm ……………. this is not encouraging:
“Here are the 11 most dangerous cities in terms of crime risk:”
City/ Crime Risk Index
1. St. Louis: 530
2. Atlanta: 484
3. Birmingham Alabama (tie): 380
3. Orlando (tie): 380
5. Detroit: 369
6. Memphis: 361
7. Miami: 346
8. Baltimore: 339
9. Kansas City, Missouri: 337
10. Minneapolis (tie): 331
10. Cleveland (tie): 331
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/The-11-Most-Dangerous-usnews-1262959588.html?x=0
Ragnar Danneskjöld
February 18th, 2011
4:44 pm
Dear Jay, sorry I am late to the party. I fear your lack of Constitutional knowledges perhaps leads to a misconstruction that allows you to incorrectly charge our noble Congressmen with “hypocrisy.” The tort limitation proposed under the commerce clause is at least potentially consistent with the entire purpose of the clause.
You will recall that at the time of the Constitutional Convention, it was a practice of many states to levy duties on goods crossing state lines. Thus was conceived the commerce clause – giving Congress the power to regulate transactions among the states and with foreign countries – and the closely related “full faith and credit clause,” requiring the states to honor the judgments of the courts of other states.
Against this backdrop, over 200 years a wide variance of standards of judgments evolved on medical malpractice among the many states. To the extent that the consequences of those judgments affect only those within the states rendering the judgments, I agree with your argument and affirm that Congress ought not interfere.
However, to the extent that medical malpractice judgments arise from good transacted across state lines – e.g., medical equipment, prosthetics, pharmaceuticals – those bearing the costs of those judgments may well (indeed, likely do) reside in other states.
Thus, if you have one jurisdiction with a whacked out, pro-plaintiff judiciary (let’s call it “California”) rendering massive, and especially “class action,” malpractice judgments, citizens of more rational states are subsidizing the plaintiff enrichment. It is perfectly appropriate for the Congress to thereby regulate these intra-state transactions that have inter-state adverse consequences.
You surely agree that the proposed constriction I describe above is well within the ambit of rational Commerce Clause jurisprudence. One need not go so far as the loopy Gonzales v Raich to support a Federal constriction on State court judgments, and mere advocacy for original-language jurisprudence of the Commerce Clause need not endorse Gonzales v Reich. I respectfully sugges that Messrs. Gingrey and Price likely do not affirm that there is no Commerce Clause, and do not affirm that there is no use for the Commerce Clause. Your allegation of “hypocrisy” is poorly-founded, within the limitations of the argument I offer above.
Adam
February 18th, 2011
4:45 pm
0311/Scout: I actually am surprised that New Orleans is not on the top 10.
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 18th, 2011
4:46 pm
Mick:
Roger that !
I just try to be honest on here but it sures draws a lot of hatred.
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 18th, 2011
4:47 pm
Adam;
Or ChIcago and Washington, D.C. !
jm
February 18th, 2011
4:48 pm
Adam 4:26 – see deficit reduction commission plan
jewcowboy
February 18th, 2011
4:48 pm
Adam,
“0311/Scout: I actually am surprised that New Orleans is not on the top 10.”
That’s what happens when you export your criminal element to Atlanta.
Mick
February 18th, 2011
4:50 pm
0311/0317 – 1811/1801
When I was young, I was told honesty is the best policy. Now that I’m older, it still works for me… I’m telling you that crawling eye movie was made specifically to scare the hell out of a four year old…I’ll never forget it…
saywhat?
February 18th, 2011
4:50 pm
Why is it o.k. for conservatives to have “wealth envy” of teachers who work hard and make personal sacrifices to make on average less than 70k per year, yet wrong for liberals to point out that hedge fund managers, who produce nothing, should pay taxes on their income at the same rate as the aforementinoned teachers?
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 18th, 2011
4:50 pm
Del:
Headline: “Chaos as troops fire on crowds in Bahrain”
Yep ……….. I’ve had troops fire at me and I was in “chaos” ………………….
It kind of goes with the territory !
saywhat?
February 18th, 2011
4:50 pm
aforementioned
Bosch
February 18th, 2011
4:52 pm
So, did Bookman get mugged?
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 18th, 2011
4:52 pm
jewcowboy:
Yep ……….. after the hurricane that’s exactly what happened and a lot of them stayed.
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 18th, 2011
4:53 pm
Mick:
Those movies also came in very handy on a date at a drive-in movie …………………
Dusty
February 18th, 2011
4:53 pm
Bosch,
Whatcha been paintin’? Walls,poster board, canvas, fabric, model airplanes? R U a Picasso or a Rembrandt? I use to like Modiglioni but nawww…How ’bout my favorite Van Gogh???
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 18th, 2011
4:53 pm
Bosch:
Not yet but he knows “hand to hand” combat so I’m betting on him.
jewcowboy
February 18th, 2011
4:54 pm
The New Colossus – Post Katrina Atlanta version
“Give me your thugs, your poor,
Your pistol toting masses yearning to steal from me,
The wretched refuse of your flooded housing projects.
Send these, the homeless, murdering bands of gangs to me,
I lift my 42″ flat screen beside the golden peach!”
Adam
February 18th, 2011
4:54 pm
jewcowboy: That’s what happens when you export your criminal element to Atlanta.
ZING!
Bosch
February 18th, 2011
4:55 pm
Dusty,
Van Gogh is my favorite too! He’s was an interesting feller.
Adam
February 18th, 2011
4:55 pm
jm: deficit reduction commission plan… is that not the bipartisan commission that made recommendations? I was asking for the Republican plan….
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 18th, 2011
4:57 pm
HEADLINES:
Egypt OKs Iran warships through Suez Canal…
Bahrain forces fire on protesters; 50+ injured …
Saudi prince warns of uprising threat…
20 reported dead in Libyan protests…
Egypt’s Top Tycoon Fears Descent Into Anarchy…
Brotherhood’s ’spiritual leader’ preaches in Tahrir Square…
Arab capitals braced for violence as unrest spreads…
Death toll in Yemen mounts as police, protestors clash…
NOT GOOD ……………….
Common Sense isn't very Common
February 18th, 2011
4:57 pm
JCB I thought that we tossed a coin with Houston and lost to get the NO thugs LOL
TaxPayer
February 18th, 2011
4:57 pm
As long as those guys are only operating on Republicans, where’s the harm.
Dave R.
February 18th, 2011
4:58 pm
“Actually, the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise on more than one occasion.”
Actually, they have not.
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 18th, 2011
4:58 pm
jewcowboy:
Now that was funnny ………………… except it’s true.
Dave R.
February 18th, 2011
4:59 pm
” Risk and “skin in the game” isn’t just about potential for death,”
Never said it, never implied it. I am talking financial risk.
jewcowboy
February 18th, 2011
4:59 pm
Bosch,
Speaking of painters, I’m sure you heard this:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ktla-mona-lisa-man,0,3925192.story
Common Sense isn't very Common
February 18th, 2011
5:00 pm
The thugs are self supporting anyway so they must vote for regressives
Bosch
February 18th, 2011
5:01 pm
jewcowboy,
No, I have not! Interesting. The Mona Lisa is a fabulous painting, I remember when I first saw it, I saw surprised at how small it was.
AmVet
February 18th, 2011
5:02 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSYbZTsY-00
jewcowboy
February 18th, 2011
5:02 pm
37,
“except it’s true.”
And that makes me sad
Dusty
February 18th, 2011
5:02 pm
Bosch,
Does that mean you paint….. sunflowers?
Dave R.
February 18th, 2011
5:03 pm
“There is never anything that’s onesided…Have you ever heard of the term stakeholder??”
Yes, I have, and there are degrees of skin in the game. Frankly, the employer needs workers, but they don’t need a specific worker, as in YOU. They can always get another worker. On the other hand, the worker needs the employer, and can’t always find another based upon whether the employer is willing to risk money to start up a company.
I’m sorry, but the workers just aren’t all that. . .
TaxPayer
February 18th, 2011
5:07 pm
As long as those two Republican congressmen only operate on like-thinking people such as other Republicans and constitutionalists and Libertarians, etc., then where’s the harm.
Adam
February 18th, 2011
5:07 pm
Dave R: One notable case in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of freedom of association was in NAACP v. Alabama, where they held that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.
Never said it, never implied it. I am talking financial risk.
So which is it? People can’t form unions unless they risk death, or unless they risk financial harm by not doing so? Seems like you’re making arguments up now. Your consistent argument up to this point has been that police and fire can have unions, and only them, because of how naturally dangerous the job is. When did you EVER talk about financial risk in that?
Dusty
February 18th, 2011
5:07 pm
Jewcowboy, ol’ poet or whatever one might call you,
Are there any statistics to back up your NO claims? I know the rumors but for real? The police probably do not ask “From whence cometh you?”
AmVet
February 18th, 2011
5:10 pm
I’ll tell ya what boys and girls. There are changes at hand.
It’s darn near 70 degrees and the geese are on the move.
I heard them a while ago before I could even see them…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q40h8dPmgwQ
jewcowboy
February 18th, 2011
5:11 pm
Dusty,
“I know the rumors but for real? ”
http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/gang-member-given-three-618607.html
http://clatl.com/atlanta/atlantas-drug-war/Content?oid=1270981
jewcowboy
February 18th, 2011
5:14 pm
Dusty,
And another:
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/14271910/detail.html
Adam
February 18th, 2011
5:14 pm
Dave R: but they don’t need a specific worker, as in YOU
I’m sorry, but the workers just aren’t all that
These are two different arguments, neither of which have anything to do with the right of workers to assemble a union. Your first argument is fine, but I’m not arguing that the reason people should be able to form unions is the right to a job. I am instead arguing that any worker in any profession has a right to be part of a union, and that unions can be formed and can bargain for reasons other than safety and pay.
Either the employer owes the workers and the workers owe the employer, OR the workers do NOT owe the employer and the employer does NOT owe the workers. It isn’t one owes and the other does not. Unions exist to help protect the worker’s rights. Employers have the option of being reasonable with their workers or not, and employees have the right to decide if they’re being screwed or not.
Bosch
February 18th, 2011
5:21 pm
Dusty,
I’ll paint damn near anything my dear!
Have a good weekend.
Dusty
February 18th, 2011
5:26 pm
Jewcowboy,
That is downright scary!! Between the NO gangs and the Mexican drug cartels, no wonder we rank high in crime in Atlanta. And these criminals even have assault rifles, etc.!! The police must really have their hands full these days. I don’t envy their job but I surely do appreciate it.
jewcowboy
February 18th, 2011
5:27 pm
Bosch,
Anything huh?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC-EaHdjtzs
jewcowboy
February 18th, 2011
5:27 pm
Dusty,
“I don’t envy their job but I surely do appreciate it.”
I hear you on that one!
Dusty
February 18th, 2011
5:28 pm
You, too, Bosch, and paint the town red!!
Left wing management
February 18th, 2011
5:45 pm
Dave R. : “The act of teaching is NOT a life-threatening measure. The act of fire-fighting is. Therefore, I do not think that a union is warranted for teaching.”
Since when is hazard alone the condition of having a profession be unionized or not?
Adam
February 18th, 2011
6:10 pm
LWM: It’s not. But according to Dave R, it is. Well, unless it isn’t: “Never said it, never implied it. I am talking financial risk.”
Southern Comfort (E.O.I.)
February 18th, 2011
6:11 pm
LWM
Dave said that is what he thought should be the reason for having a public employee union. He’s entitled to his opinion, and I don’t think anyone here is going to change it.
Dave R.
February 18th, 2011
7:04 pm
“Since when is hazard alone the condition of having a profession be unionized or not?”
“LWM: It’s not. But according to Dave R, it is. Well, unless it isn’t: “Never said it, never implied it. I am talking financial risk.”
Adam, I have given up on you ever being able to comprehend the English language. YOU brought up the hazardous risk issue as regards a union. I ONLY use stress and safety as a measure for possibly allowing a government union under certain circumstances.
And I have NEVER said, nor implied that there is anything illegal or un-Constitutional in wanting to form a union. On the other hand, there is nothing in the Constitution to keep an employer from firing anyone and everyone who tries to form one in their business.
And you still don’t get it on freedom to assemble, as it means NOTHING about unionizing. Never has.
jconservative
February 18th, 2011
7:13 pm
A Constitution of convenience, as they say.
sleestak63
February 18th, 2011
7:23 pm
Bookman doesn’t support the 10th himself!
zeke
February 18th, 2011
7:36 pm
Well Jay, I can finally agree with you on this one item! THE COMMERCE CLAUSE ONLY ALLOWS THE FEDS TO MEDIATE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE VARIOUS STATES INCLUDING COMMERCE! NOT MEDICAID, NOT WELFARE, NOT UNEMPLOYMENT TAX, ETC., ETC.!!!! OF COURSE YOU WILL AGREE?
Adam
February 18th, 2011
7:58 pm
Dave R: YOU brought up the hazardous risk issue as regards a union
Uh, no I didn’t. You did that.
Dave R@ 1:51: It is my contention that only police and fire (and those only in exteme situations such as neglect for their safety) should have the ability to form a union.
Dave R@ 2:05: “What makes police and fire different?”
We covered this yesterday. Daily and sometimes prolonged stress in dangerous conditions.
Dave R@ 2:45: Teaching, regardless of the stress you and others might get from doing so, does not meet the threshold of a truly hazardous profession as fire-fighting and police do. The act of teaching is NOT a life-threatening measure. The act of fire-fighting is. Therefore, I do not think that a union is warranted for teaching.
Dave R@ 3:01: I don’t discount the stress factor in your job, but there are degrees involved that just don’t get you to the level and Constitutionality of public safety personnel, which is why I don’t discount a union possibility for them if their elected leaders don’t staff and equip them properly.
Do you understand now? You weren’t even responding to me in most of those. At least you’ve been fairly consistent up to the point you started making it about something else entirely in response to me (financial risk).
And you still don’t get it on freedom to assemble, as it means NOTHING about unionizing. Never has.
YES, it DOES. REAL Constitutional scholars disagree with you. They have studied the issue and Supreme Court cases extensively and it is clear that employees DO have a right to organize a union, and that right is protected under freedom of assembly. This does not, however, mean the employer HAS to recognize the union or bargain with it. But the employees DO have that right under freedom of assembly. I dare you to PROVE me wrong, instead of just asserting your apparently know-it-all attitude.
It’s fine to have this all knowing and superior persona, but it is a mask, a fake. And that’s obvious to anyone who reads this exchange with a rational mind. I don’t believe you actually think you know it all, and I don’t believe you, faced with these facts, truly believe you are correct. You just are a hard line CONservative, and you won’t back down from your position and admit you were wrong because you see that as a weakness.
Worry not though. You can save face just by being a typical CON. And a good CON never admits to anything.
Fly-on-the-wall
February 18th, 2011
8:00 pm
I guess the reason why I don’t post here to often is that I’ve yet to see anyone have that ‘ah ha’ moment and actually change their belief in something. Guess this goes back to the tribal thing Jay discussed a few days back. I read the posts and the same people spout the same stuff for every situation Jay or others bring up. No wonder we can’t get anything done in this country.
Adam
February 18th, 2011
8:09 pm
Fly-on-the-wall: You must have missed part of the exchange between jm and myself
Fly-on-the-wall
February 18th, 2011
8:27 pm
Adam, I’m sorry I did miss. That truly would have gone a long way in believing there is hope for this country.
Southern Comfort (E.O.I.)
February 18th, 2011
8:40 pm
I guess the reason why I don’t post here to often is that I’ve yet to see anyone have that ‘ah ha’ moment and actually change their belief in something.
I thought I was about to have one this evening myself. Ali Velshi was interviewing a Rep from Wisconsin and asked the same two questions I’ve been asking about their balanced budget bill.
1) How does stopping someone from having union dues deducted from their paycheck affect the state’s budget balance?
2) How does having a union vote on a yearly basis have an effect on balancing the budget?
The Rep. went off on a tangent about how it was wrong for someone to have money deducted from their paycheck. However, he never even mentioned what the effect would be on the state budget. I was hoping to hear something concrete, even if it was flawed logic. Once again, I heard nothing but deflection. I’m looking for something to change my mind on that bill, but no GOPer is offering it.
s
February 18th, 2011
11:05 pm
Bush/Cheney created a War where none should have been. They lied or had their camp followers lie to further their reasoning for a War in Iraq. It will all come out, it is coming out now, it is only a matter of time. Thousands of Americans have lost their lives and most likely, over a hundred thousand of Iraq’s have lost theirs. The destruction of Iraq and possibly even this country, is on the Bush administrations head. The republicans can deny this all they want but Bush/Cheney have written their own destiny. The History books will say Bush/Cheney created a War where none should have been, and left a stain on this country we should never forget.
The hypocrisy of the Tenthers and states’ rights defenders | Jay Bookman | Slinking Toward Retirement
February 19th, 2011
7:31 am
[...] The hypocrisy of the Tenthers and states’ rights defenders | Jay Bookman. This entry was posted in Constitution, Opinion, Politics, Polititians, US Government, United States and tagged american federalism, bill, bill sponsors, conservative cause, constitution, founders, future of freedom, house judiciary committee, Jay Bookman, marriage vows, phil gingrey, rage, republican congressmen, sanctity of marriage, show, solution, State, test, Washington-knows-best, way. Bookmark the permalink. ← Thomas Alva Edison patents the phonograph — This Day in History — 2/19/1878 [...]
Mr. Right
February 19th, 2011
10:14 am
Scott Walker for president!!
Lil' Barry Bailout
February 19th, 2011
10:14 am
Did you ask Gingrey or Price for the Constitutional rationale on this? Of course not–they would likely give you a perfectly valid argument. And that would ruin your opportunity to play immature gotcha games.
Adam
February 19th, 2011
11:14 am
Just because you have the Constitutional authority to screw people, doesn’t mean you should.
Left wing management
February 19th, 2011
11:30 am
Lil’ Barry Bailout 10:14:
The way you’re talking is actually starting to resemble something approaching coherence. That re-education academy starting to pay off? Well, we can hope, but you got a ways to go still. See, this Tom Price has some trouble with facts. Take this remark from his statement this week on Obama’s proposed budget:
Now, as a doctor and as a parent, I find it astounding that the president has submitted a budget that ignores the recommendations of his own fiscal commission and it punts on all of the tough choices -– including entitlement reform.
Instead, he’s expanded entitlements through ObamaCare –- a government takeover that will destroy 800,000 jobs, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, and will accelerate our path to fiscal ruin.
Why do neo-cracker politicians persist in telling lies about some big bad government takeover of health care? Price is obviously not an ignorant man. He’s just a propagandist, pure and simple. He knows perfectly well that the plan – a privatization fundie’s dream if ever there was one for frick’s sake – is a perfect parody of the real ‘government’ type (single payer) plan that was quickly taken off the table by our right-center president. He just half justifies the lie in his head on the shoddy basis that this will lead to a slippery slope to socialism, which of course is either the delirious fear of the psychotic, or the perfectly sane fear of the Robber Baron health exec who wants to keep his gravy train chugging along.
Then there’s the 800,000 jobs lost lie.
What the CBO actually said:
CBO: People Will Work Less Because Health Care Reform Provisions Increase Their “Financial Resources.” CBO further stated that the “reduction in the supply of labor is largely attributable to the substantial expansion of Medicaid and the provision of subsidies that will reduce the cost of insurance obtained through the newly created exchanges.” CBO explained that these measures “will effectively increase beneficiaries’ financial resources. Those additional resources will encourage some people to work fewer hours or to withdraw from the labor market.” [Congressional Budget Office, 8/10]
See Lil’ Barry. This is what phony Georgia corporatist-mouthpiece politicians give us.
Adam
February 19th, 2011
12:37 pm
Just once I would like to hear someone argue against Obama’s budget without saying that he punted, without referencing the health care law as “ObamaCare,” and without using the term “entitlements” to describe welfare and food stamps and the like. I might start to take the argument seriously if that happened.
Joe
February 19th, 2011
1:16 pm
This shows that power indeed does tend to corrupt, and that constitutions are just pieces of paper that do not enforce themselves. If we truly want to have a constitutionally limited government, the states have the right and duty to nullify unconstitutional federal laws. – http://www.tomwoods.com/learn-about-state-nullification/
WOODSTOCK MIKE
February 19th, 2011
4:15 pm
How about these idiots in Wisconsin.
They cant contribute 12% to their health insurance and 6% to their own pensions?? They are marching the streets because they aren’t willing to contribute anything to their own insurance and pensions!! This is going to make the Dems look like a bunch of whining babies. In this day and age, striking because your own state govt is having to cut back and as a result you may have to actually contribute to things that most Americans pay anyway. I only wish I didn’t have to actually pay into my own retirement and insurance. What an embarassment. This is a dead end road for the Dems.
Left wing management
February 19th, 2011
4:33 pm
Woodstock Mike: In this day and age, striking because your own state govt is having to cut back and as a result you may have to actually contribute to things that most Americans pay anyway
Turn off the FOX and read up on the facts, Mike.
The state is does not “have” to cut back. As I posted over at Wingfield, the shortfall is largely brought about by Rebublican-initiated and tax-related (revenue-undercutting) issues:
“… ($117.2 million) is due to the impact of Special Session Senate Bill 2 (health savings accounts), Assembly Bill 3 (tax deductions/credits for relocated businesses), and Assembly Bill 7 (tax exclusion for new employees).”
Do you want the people who educate your children, protect your streets, put out the fire when your house is burning down rather than pursuing more lucrative private professions to have no rights to a decent pension, or to even be able to organize so they can bargain for more?
Adam
February 19th, 2011
6:11 pm
They cant contribute 12% to their health insurance and 6% to their own pensions??
This is not all there is to it. There is a lot more going on here than you’re apparently privy to.
Shifting Beliefs
February 19th, 2011
9:03 pm
Fly-on-the-wall
February 18th, 2011
8:00 pm
I guess the reason why I don’t post here to often is that I’ve yet to see anyone have that ‘ah ha’ moment and actually change their belief in something.
Then you’re not paying attention. There’s a whole big bunch of us that are all over the lot depending on the issue. We always post under a different handle. Ignore the handful of idiots who post under the same nom de plume every time and have painted themselves into little idealogical corners.
Bill Orvis White
February 19th, 2011
9:23 pm
The Obamacare individual mandate is unconstitutional, that is a fact that you nor any other Socialist-Democrat cannot argue with, Jay. With that fact stated, the individual mandate cannot be separated from the rest of Obamacare, which is a massive, complicated 2,700-page boondoggle of a document.
OK? Now with that fact laid down right here on this board, NONE OF YOU LIBERALS CAN ARGUE THAT OBAMACARE WILL BE COMPLETELY REPEALED once the Senate and the White House are in Republican hands in January 2013!!!!!!!
Right now, thank the Lord Almighty for folk like Attorney General Samuel Olens who will keep Obamacare from coming to Georgia’s soil.
If I were to be an incoming freshman representative or senator come January 2013, I would bring a proposal for an amendment to the Constitution that would explicity spell out that there will never be another debate on implementing socialized medicine on American soil — EVER!
Now onto the 10th Amendment. We here in these great Southern states need to band together to form the Southern Coalition of the United States of America whereby we create our own tax system, print our own monies, trade with ourselves and create a culture of life. We would reject everything that Washington would try to ram down our throats.
Amen,
Bill
Left wing management
February 20th, 2011
1:32 am
Shifting Beliefs: There’s a whole big bunch of us that are all over the lot depending on the issue. We always post under a different handle. Ignore the handful of idiots who post under the same nom de plume every time and have painted themselves into little idealogical corners.
Do you think Jay Bookman posts on here under various noms de plum?
Adam
February 20th, 2011
2:52 pm
There’s a whole big bunch of us that are all over the lot depending on the issue. We always post under a different handle. Ignore the handful of idiots who post under the same nom de plume every time and have painted themselves into little idealogical corners.
So in order to be taken seriously on an issue that might be seen as contrary to a stereotype you’ve been painted into by OTHERS, you have to post under a different handle? You know what I say to that?
F-. THAT. SH*T