Obamacare ruling offers good possibilities, but no substitute for a win

Generals are often accused of “fighting the last war.” After Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling upholding Obamacare, conservatives are asked to pin our hopes on the notion Chief Justice John Roberts was fighting the next war.

This is a tempting proposition. There is the fact Roberts, in the main opinion of the court, and the four dissenting justices endorsed a limit to the power Congress wields under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. As this was the key judicial theory advanced by the law’s opponents, one that sought to halt a decades-long expansion of the meaning of “regulating” interstate commerce, that is no minor feat. It could even provide the starting point one day for further rollbacks of bad Commerce Clause precedent, starting with the awful 1942 Wickard decision that found a farmer affected interstate commerce by growing his own wheat.

There is also the fact the court’s majority decided the “penalty” for non-compliance with Obamacare’s individual mandate to purchase health insurance is really a “tax.” While this contradicts Congress’ actions and the president’s words during the 2009-10 health-care debate, it has the benefit of making it easier to repeal the law. As a budgetary matter, this “tax” — and Obamacare’s other taxes and spending — should be subject to the Senate’s reconciliation process, to which the filibuster does not apply. So, there’s no requirement for 60 votes in the Senate to remove the heart and guts of the law, just a simple majority.

And there is the fact that Roberts’ surprising vote on Obamacare averted the torrent of purely partisan criticism Democrats and liberals were set to unleash had a majority of the court struck down the law, accusing Roberts and his colleagues of — wait for it — partisanship. His court’s integrity intact, perhaps Roberts will be freer in lower-profile future cases to strike blows for the causes of federalism and limited government.

All these thoughts are pleasing to the conservative mind.

But if Roberts’ ruling can cite Benjamin Franklin’s aphorism about the certainty of death and taxes, allow me to caution against too rosy a view of his ruling with another saying: A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Maybe the Roberts court will reinforce federalist principles in future cases. Then again, maybe the facts and circumstances of these future cases won’t cooperate. Or maybe the cases won’t emerge before the Commerce Clause-limiting wing of the court changes for the worse: Antonin Scalia is 76, Anthony Kennedy turns 76 this month, and there are at least even odds Barack Obama will be making court appointments past their 80th birthdays.

Speaking of elections: Maybe Mitt Romney will win and have at least 50 GOP senators (plus his vice president) to pass a budgetary bill by reconciliation. Maybe not. The presidential election and key Senate races look close, and four months is an eternity in politics.

And maybe, just maybe, the same Democrats and liberals who thought partisanship was the only reason the court could strike down Obamacare will look back, when a future case is decided in favor of federalism and limited government, and say, “This stinks, but hey — Roberts was with us on health care back in 2012. So it’s cool.” Or maybe their reactions will be just as vicious and plainly partisan as their blowback to an anti-Obamacare decision promised to be.

Possible future good is a consolation for Thursday’s loss, but it’s no substitute for a win.

(Note from Kyle: This is my column for the Sunday AJC. As anyone who read my posts Thursday can tell, I have been going back and forth about the impact of the Obamacare ruling. Consider this column a refinement of my opinion: There are some good things that could come out of the ruling, but they are by no means guaranteed.)

– By Kyle Wingfield

Find me on Facebook or follow me on Twitter

677 comments Add your comment

Mary Elizabeth

July 1st, 2012
10:31 am

“The Real Winners” (of ObamaCare), Paul Krugman, The New York Times, June 28, 2012:

“So the Supreme Court — defying many expectations — upheld the Affordable Care Act, a k a Obamacare. There will, no doubt, be many headlines declaring this a big victory for President Obama, which it is. But the real winners are ordinary Americans — people like you.

How many people are we talking about? You might say 30 million, the number of additional people the Congressional Budget Office says will have health insurance thanks to Obamacare. But that vastly understates the true number of winners because millions of other Americans — including many who oppose the act — would have been at risk of being one of those 30 million.

So add in every American who currently works for a company that offers good health insurance but is at risk of losing that job (and who isn’t in this world of outsourcing and private equity buyouts?); every American who would have found health insurance unaffordable but will now receive crucial financial help; every American with a pre-existing condition who would have been flatly denied coverage in many states.

In short, unless you belong to that tiny class of wealthy Americans who are insulated and isolated from the realities of most people’s lives, the winners from that Supreme Court decision are your friends, your relatives, the people you work with — and, very likely, you. For almost all of us stand to benefit from making America a kinder and more decent society.

But what about the cost? Put it this way: the budget office’s estimate of the cost over the next decade of Obamacare’s ‘coverage provisions’ — basically, the subsidies needed to make insurance affordable for all — is about only a third of the cost of the tax cuts, overwhelmingly favoring the wealthy, that Mitt Romney is proposing over the same period. True, Mr. Romney says that he would offset that cost, but he has failed to provide any plausible explanation of how he’d do that. The Affordable Care Act, by contrast, is fully paid for, with an explicit combination of tax increases and spending cuts elsewhere.

So the law that the Supreme Court upheld is an act of human decency that is also fiscally responsible. It’s not perfect, by a long shot — it is, after all, originally a Republican plan, devised long ago as a way to forestall the obvious alternative of extending Medicare to cover everyone. As a result, it’s an awkward hybrid of public and private insurance that isn’t the way anyone would have designed a system from scratch. And there will be a long struggle to make it better, just as there was for Social Security. (Bring back the public option!) But it’s still a big step toward a better — and by that I mean morally better — society.

Which brings us to the nature of the people who tried to kill health reform — and who will, of course, continue their efforts despite this unexpected defeat.

At one level, the most striking thing about the campaign against reform was its dishonesty. Remember ‘death panels’? Remember how reform’s opponents would, in the same breath, accuse Mr. Obama of promoting big government and denounce him for cutting Medicare? Politics ain’t beanbag, but, even in these partisan times, the unscrupulous nature of the campaign against reform was exceptional. And, rest assured, all the old lies and probably a bunch of new ones will be rolled out again in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision. Let’s hope the Democrats are ready.

But what was and is really striking about the anti-reformers is their cruelty. It would be one thing if, at any point, they had offered any hint of an alternative proposal to help Americans with pre-existing conditions, Americans who simply can’t afford expensive individual insurance, Americans who lose coverage along with their jobs. But it has long been obvious that the opposition’s goal is simply to kill reform, never mind the human consequences. We should all be thankful that, for the moment at least, that effort has failed.

Let me add a final word on the Supreme Court.

Before the arguments began, the overwhelming consensus among legal experts who aren’t hard-core conservatives — and even among some who are — was that Obamacare was clearly constitutional. And, in the end, thanks to Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., the court upheld that view. But four justices dissented, and did so in extreme terms, proclaiming not just the much-disputed individual mandate but the whole act unconstitutional. Given prevailing legal opinion, it’s hard to see that position as anything but naked partisanship.

The point is that this isn’t over — not on health care, not on the broader shape of American society. The cruelty and ruthlessness that made this court decision such a nail-biter aren’t going away.

But, for now, let’s celebrate. This was a big day, a victory for due process, decency and the American people.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/opinion/the-real-winners.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

——————————————————————————–

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

July 1st, 2012
10:38 am

Mary Elizabeth

July 1st, 2012
10:39 am

Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy

July 1st, 2012
10:40 am

LBB

A great list of the taxes in Oblamercare, however, the one I found most onerous is the 3% tax on the sale of your house. I did not see that one listed. Before I’m assaulted by the lefty loons, not sure about the %, but there is a tax on homes sold after 2012.

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

July 1st, 2012
10:41 am

AmVet, Kamchak & Bosh?

Lions and tigers and bears — oh my!

Schnort

Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy

July 1st, 2012
10:50 am

This is an American Suicide Bill in more ways than one.

I saw a female urologist from Atlanta on the TEEVEE last night saying we are going to get 1950 style medicine at 2012 prices. She gave an example of the Gov already pounding home that the PSA test is not necessary in preparation for medicare, medicaid, Oblamercare no longer paying for it. She said prostate cancer in Blacks is a killer, and much more serious than in Whites, and every patient should be treated individually, not one side fits all as government controlled HC is.

She said based on the way Medicare and Medicaid is paid for by the Gov, Dr’s will be forced into cookbook medicine. Problem, check the payment book to see which solution the gov will pay for. She said private insurance is much more easy to work with, if she wants to do something different, she can speak with a medical professional at the insurance company, but with gov insurance she has to talk to bureaucrats with written guidelines. If implemented, we will never get rid of it.

10 years from now the only ones, a small minority, who will be opposed are those seriously ill and their families. All the healthy people will be happy that they have coverage, not realizing until they get sick, it is rationed and limited in scope.

Bruno

July 1st, 2012
10:59 am

And speaking of the Free Lunch crowd, here’s ME right on cue with a cut-n-paste job from Paul Krugman:

In short, unless you belong to that tiny class of wealthy Americans who are insulated and isolated from the realities of most people’s lives, the winners from that Supreme Court decision are your friends, your relatives, the people you work with — and, very likely, you. For almost all of us stand to benefit from making America a kinder and more decent society.

ME–There’s no doubt that we have some serious problems in our health care delivery system. However, those problems could–and should–have been solved using a different vehicle than private across-the-board health care insurance. Even Krugman admits as much:

As a result, it’s an awkward hybrid of public and private insurance that isn’t the way anyone would have designed a system from scratch. And there will be a long struggle to make it better, just as there was for Social Security.

But, rather than exploring more sensible ways to extend health care to folks, he falls back on the old “Libs are more compassionate” argument to justify it all:

But it’s still a big step toward a better — and by that I mean morally better — society.

The bottom line is that conservatives are just as compassionate in their goals as liberals, just smarter in enacting solutions that actually work.

Bruno

July 1st, 2012
11:02 am

Uh Oh–If you can ever come up with anything other than your childish nyah-nyah-nyah stuff, let me know. I’ll be happy to debate you or any brain-dead Lib on the issues anyday. The reason I left the Bookman Blog was because he refused to protect my GF from harassment.

Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy

July 1st, 2012
11:11 am

Oblamer’s Tax Breaks for the rich, part II

WSJ CHIEF ECONOMIST: 75% OF OBAMACARE COSTS WILL FALL ON BACKS OF THOSE MAKING LESS THAN $120K A YEAR

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

July 1st, 2012
11:18 am

The reason I left the Bookman Blog was because he refused to protect my GF from harassment.

Um, no.

They BOTH suck

July 1st, 2012
11:24 am

Sooth: this is what you posted. Why did you do that? Let me guess, you just forgot to copy the last part and didn’t notice. Really? Wow. What a douche

They BOTH suck

June 29th, 2012
12:08 am

Kammie

He cares so little that he literally begs for Jay’s attention on a constant basis.

When Jay does throw him a bone out of pity, he salivates so much he has to step away from his computer

:-)

He will deny, but just read his posts on the next article

td

July 1st, 2012
11:28 am

Soothsayer

July 1st, 2012
11:08 am

Are you 12? Jeez man what is your problem? You have not added anything to the conversation in two days. Either give us all your real name or STFU with the harassing BS and add something of substance to the conversation.

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

July 1st, 2012
11:54 am

Are you 12? Jeez man what is your problem? You have not added anything to the conversation in two days. Either give us all your real name or STFU with the harassing BS and add something of substance to the conversation.

By “something of substance”, do you mean something like, Oh noes! Gasoline will continue to rise and be at $5-6 a gallon by election day! Obama is doomed!

Is that kinda like what you mean?

‘Cause I know someone that spammed JB’s with that exact sentiment for a week or so up to and following the last SOTU address.

Streetracer

July 1st, 2012
12:16 pm

Off topic here, but everytime I go to Bookman’s blog, my computer shuts down. Is it trying to tell me something?

td

July 1st, 2012
12:23 pm

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

July 1st, 2012
11:54 am

I am pretty sure you took my sentiment a little out of context. I think I said IF gas prices went to $4:00 to $5:00 per gallon that Obama would not be re elected. Which by the way is a true statement.

Now, it is going to be interesting to see the response Obama has to the largest tax increase on the middle class and the working poor in American history.

BTW: I believe there is a huge difference between harassment and “spamming”.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward--Again)

July 1st, 2012
12:24 pm

Rafe: A great list of the taxes in Oblamercare, however, the one I found most onerous is the 3% tax on the sale of your house.
————————

It’s actually 3.8% and it’s part of the tax increases on “investment income” in the list.

Thanks, Democrats.

@@

July 1st, 2012
12:42 pm

President Obama sounded weary and maybe a tad worried late Friday during a rambling conference call with campaign donors whom he repeatedly begged to send money—and send it now.

“The majority on this call maxed out to my campaign last time. I really need you to do the same this time,” the president said in a highly unusual (and presumably legal) fundraising pitch from Air Force One on his way back to Washington from Colorado Springs, where he’d been assessing the terrible damage caused by uncontained wildfires. A special phone on the government aircraft is dedicated to political calls that are paid for by the campaign.

“I’m asking you to meet or exceed what you did in 2008,” the presidential pitchman continued, speaking to donors who were invited to dial in based on their contributions during the last election. “Because we’re going to have to deal with these super PACs in a serious way. And if we don’t, frankly I think the political [scene] is going to be changed permanently

http://www.thedailybeast.com/election.html

Has he ever stopped to consider they MIGHT be among HIS unemployed?

Lions and tigers and bears — oh my!

Noooooooo

just gnats.

AmVet

July 1st, 2012
12:53 pm

…largest tax increase on the middle class and the working poor in American history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

Incorrect.

Reagan still has the record. He also caused us to go from being the world’s largest international creditor to the world’s largest debtor nation. And described those new debts as the “greatest disappointment” of his presidency.

PlatinumBlack

July 1st, 2012
1:15 pm

Dedicated to all ye 70s and 80s kids on the blog today. Hope you’re having a good Sunday:

http://youtu.be/ZJ_5fV8fjbs

getalife

July 1st, 2012
1:16 pm

One more question if you do not want to talk about the first.

I noticed you took the sc decision personally and was wondering how it will effect your job?

I know doomy was happy because he sells crappy insurance and it is welfare for him.

getalife

July 1st, 2012
1:17 pm

@@,

I emailed Soros to ask him to donate a billion to our President .

md

July 1st, 2012
1:29 pm

From ME’s link:

“The Affordable Care Act, by contrast, is fully paid for, with an explicit combination of tax increases and spending cuts elsewhere. ”

And he’s right, except he fails to mention all those tax cuts and spending cuts will come from our pockets……..the only tax increase that might not affect the masses is the one on investment income……ALL the others will be imposed on us.

The dems just passed a super duper version of a lifetime SPLOST and the lemmings in favor either don’t care or have no clue as to how it affects them………..

And for the record, a tax on insurance providers must come from premiums paid by the individual just so some may have a clue………..

Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward--Again)

July 1st, 2012
1:50 pm

AmVet: Reagan still has the record. He also caused us to go from being the world’s largest international creditor to the world’s largest debtor nation.
——————-

Obozo has run up three times as much debt as Our President Reagan did in eight years.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward--Again)

July 1st, 2012
1:51 pm

If you want to talk about Jay’s blog, how about doing it on Jay’s blog?

AmVet

July 1st, 2012
2:02 pm

Lil, BB/WoW, no wonder that you never show your work. And I do mean never. And ODS is not a good enough reason.

i.e., why don’t you ever provide any data, evidence, facts, links, etc that can be corroborated?

Because the reality differs so drastically from what you write? And at least focus long enough to stay on topic. You start off with the subject of greatest tax increases and then when challenged, you move off to the national debt.

In high school, you would get an F for that…

Bruno

July 1st, 2012
2:06 pm

I noticed you took the sc decision personally and was wondering how it will effect your job?

Hard to say, getalife. Because I’m slightly outside of the medical mainstream, it’s up in the air right now. Most likely, I will benefit due to insurance equality laws, but there are no guarantees. On the flip side, I don’t carry health insurance, and will now have to pay the fine.

The biggest issue to me, however, is the loss of freedom this ruling represents. The slippery slope just turned into an avalanche. Finally, as I’ve discussed in detail, if “universal coverage” was the goal, then using private insurance companies as the vehicle is the most expensive, most problematic way to go.

Hope I answered your question.

Hillbilly D

July 1st, 2012
2:07 pm

Finally, as I’ve discussed in detail, if “universal coverage” was the goal, then using private insurance companies as the vehicle is the most expensive, most problematic way to go.

Agreed. The true beneficiaries of this are the insurance industry.

@@

July 1st, 2012
2:34 pm

Finally, as I’ve discussed in detail, if “universal coverage” was the goal, then using private insurance companies as the vehicle is the most expensive, most problematic way to go.

Keep in mind that the dems did ^^^ THAT without any input from the GOP.

I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...

July 1st, 2012
2:35 pm

I’d love to ridicule the Egyptian people for electing some muslim brotherhood lunatic to rule over them but the guy we got ruling over us ain’t no better.

@@

July 1st, 2012
2:55 pm

The Turkish jet shot out of the sky by Syrian fire was almost certainly hit by a rocket provided by the Russians—who might have pressed the button as well, reports Owen Matthews.

Can ANYONE really trust Putin?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/01/russian-rocket-downed-turkish-plane-say-sources.html

The Armed Forces on Saturday 30/6/2012 officially handed over power to president Mohamed Morsi , the first elected president after Jan. 25th Revolution.

Sure they did.

I watched an interview with Condoleeza Rice the other night. The Egyptian elections were discussed. She congratulated the Egyptian people, then talked about how Morsi, like many community organizers, will find his rhetorical flourishes don’t get him very far.

Talking about leading and actually leading are two totally different things.

Hillbilly D

July 1st, 2012
2:59 pm

Can ANYONE really trust Putin?

Only if their interests coincide with his.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

July 1st, 2012
3:08 pm

AmVet: Lil, BB/WoW, no wonder that you never show your work…why don’t you ever provide any data, evidence, facts, links, etc that can be corroborated?
———

Just today on this very thread I posted some data and a link documenting the Obozocare tax increases.

I understand why you wouldn’t want to see that posted, but it was.

Wake up, Mr. Magoo.

@@

July 1st, 2012
3:11 pm

Hillbilly:

Putin’s skills are in the waiting game. He’s been in a holding pattern for years…flying under the radar…doing what Putin does best.

Putin is among the reasons I favor ramping up our natural gas exploration.

Frak Putin!

(ISH)

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

July 1st, 2012
3:11 pm

Note that shares of health insurers dropped when SCOTUS announced their decision.

Obozocare is anti-free-market. Mainly because free markets are reality-based.

marko

July 1st, 2012
3:21 pm

In 1862, during the height of the civil war, congress passed the homestead act. It provided 160 acres of free land to anyone that would live on it, and develop it for five years. What a bunch of socialist. They wouldn’t have gotten away with that kind of nonsense had the southern planters not seceded from the union. Wealthy Southerners hated the idea of free land. They tended to favor the tried and true method of buying it on the cheap side, and letting your slaves work it for you. You know the classic capitalism vs. socialism sort of thing.

How did we go from giving away free land to having temper tantrums over healthcare? Maybe things were better in the good old days. At least people had enough sense to act in their own best interest. Mitts has had the generous tax cuts W bequeathed him for well over a decade now. Inquiring minds want to know where the jobs we were promised went. Weren’t they supposed to stimulate growth or something? Maybe if you point and scream at Obama long enough people won’t notice that Mitts not wearing his magic underwear. Fact is, Mitts not wearing any underwear at all.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

July 1st, 2012
3:26 pm

The government had the land to give away.

When they “give” health care to the moochers, they first have to take other citizens’ property in order to pay for it. Taxpayers are thereby enslaved in the service of politicians, in other words.

Thanks, Democrats.

Dave

July 1st, 2012
3:27 pm

Kyle, the “Roberts Court” like the late, lamented “Kennedy Court” is leaving the heavy rowing to us. Don’t like the way eminent domain is playing out? Change it. Don’t think it’s a good idea to have guns hither and yon, don’t like corporations mascarading as people? Change them. Don’t like Obamacare. You know the answer by now. I think it is the GOP’s turn to say something other than no. Give us a reasoned alternative. Not the Romney approach of saying he’s in favor of all the stuff that people want but not saying just how it’s going to be paid for without a mandate. Those without the means should just die in the gutter (quietly please)? No? We should have universal health care? Good, now pay for it a different way, or shut up.

Hillbilly D

July 1st, 2012
3:27 pm

After the War Between the States, they gave 20 mile wide right of ways to the railroads. The railroads built railroads and sold the rest of the land at great profit. That’s how many of the great railroad fortunes were made.

They could’ve given some of that land to the Freedman but they didn’t. The Radical Republicans needed them to stay in the South, so the party could maintain control. When the Freedman figured out the Radical Republicans were no more their friend than anybody else, Reconstruction came to an end.

And I’m not a Mormon but I was under the impression that “magic underwear” was considered a slur.

@@

July 1st, 2012
3:29 pm

Mitt’s going commando?

Bruno

July 1st, 2012
3:48 pm

Keep in mind that the dems did ^^^ THAT without any input from the GOP.

@@–I’m sure you’re aware that the Dems keep getting political mileage by claiming that the mandate is strictly a Republican idea. Funny thing is that I never saw any Republican co-sponsors to the ACA. In fact, it has been Republicans leading the charge to repeal the bill. I can only hope that the voters understand who is for and against ObamaCare and vote accordingly.

Bruno

July 1st, 2012
3:54 pm

In 1862, during the height of the civil war, congress passed the homestead act. It provided 160 acres of free land to anyone that would live on it, and develop it for five years.

Brilliant reasoning, marko. I can’t think of any differences between 1862 and now…..

They BOTH suck

July 1st, 2012
3:56 pm

Orange

If you do not mind me asking, are you under a company plan or an individual plan that your purchase for yourself and family?

They BOTH suck

July 1st, 2012
3:58 pm

Wrong blog, ladies and gents. Sorry about my 3:56

Good day to you

RW-(the original)

July 1st, 2012
4:02 pm

Mitt’s going commando?

Are you guys just teeing things up getalife’s Willard comments?

RW-(the original)

July 1st, 2012
4:03 pm

…for…

Insert appropriately

@@

July 1st, 2012
4:12 pm

Getalife’s Willard comments?

He’s into Romney’s underwear, is he?

Semper’s always said the dems are eager to get their hands in your shorts.

@@

July 1st, 2012
4:21 pm

The heat has kilt my squash plants AND my cucumber plants.

Kilt ‘em dead.

Year after year, I’ve asked my husband to construct something that’ll support a shade cloth. He has yet to come thru on that request.

NO VEGETABLES FOR HIM!

Hillbilly D

July 1st, 2012
4:32 pm

Year after year, I’ve asked my husband to construct something that’ll support a shade cloth. He has yet to come thru on that request.

Take two sticks or poles, stick ‘em in the ground, then you can tie something at the top or lean something against the top that will shade them. Put a rock or two on whatever you’re using at the bottom to keep the wind from blowing it away. Simple, low cost and effective. Depending on what you’re trying to shade, you may have to do it plant by plant or you may be able to use it for several.

I shade my tomato plants by sticking scrap pieces of vinyl siding through the cages. Works pretty good, although tomatoes aren’t going to do much when it gets above 90 degrees, anyway. They usually bounce back when the temp drops, though.

If you’re where you can, it also helps to plant where stuff will be in the shade in the PM. It’s the morning sun that makes stuff grow.

This year is going to teach people a lot of lessons about farming and gardening. Lesson one: you’re always at the mercy of the weather, which you have no control over.

Hillbilly D

July 1st, 2012
4:34 pm

Oh and if Dusty drops by, I nearly got run over by a deer yesterday. I’m glad it evaded me. I don’t want to tangle with a deer, even if it is antlerless.

@@

July 1st, 2012
4:50 pm

Hillbilly:

If you’re where you can, it also helps to plant where stuff will be in the shade in the PM. It’s the morning sun that makes stuff grow.

That was my next plan of attack.

Look babe, it’s gonna be one or the other. Choose your weapon. Will it be posthole diggers or tractor?

I’m more than happy to help. He only let me drive the tractor once. Worried me to death watching my every move.