Folks, I hate to be a perpetual gloomster here, but anyone putting his faith in a Supreme Court reversal of any of this health non-care monstrosity has another think coming. First, the USSC seldom rules in favor of constitutionally limited government. Even in the Affirmative Action slapdown of the University of Michigan several years ago, the Court said in essence, “what you’re doing is wrong the way you’re doing it, but try other methods to reach racial balance.” In the notorious Kelo case, the Court affirmed the right of a local government to take land from one person and give it to another solely on the basis of efficient use of the land.
So prepare yourselves: the challenges to the health non-care bill will be on the grounds of inequality—that is, Nebraska got a special deal—or various “takings” that say that the Federal Government is taking money without constitutional authority. While valid in and of themselves, even if successful, they will result in a nit-picking approach that legitimates the entire premise that a) health care is a “right” and b) everyone else is forced to pay for your right.
Moreover, on the Fox Business Channel, a roundtable of analysts debated the impact on business, and this raises yet another danger of ever repealing this, namely it was argued that small businesses will simply pay the $750 fine rather than pick up the $9,000 health care tab for employees, foisting it on the federal government. I’d do the same if I was a small business owner, but this avoids the central point that the government will instantly adjust those fines to be $10,000. Once something is deemed illegal, the fine is the easiest thing to manipulate—just look at speeding fines.
The Republicans, both in the House and Senate, combined for a 256/257 votes against the bill (Cao, LA voting for the House version, but announcing he would vote against the conference bill). I don’t want to ever, ever again hear how the two parties are the same. You will never see such a stark difference in ideology, where even the limp-wristed RINOs voted against this horrid legislation. Elections do have consequences.
That said, the next election can swing dramatically the Republicans’ way, and make little difference. First, it’s darn near impossible to withdraw or repeal legislation once the bureaucracy starts to take root. Rush Limbaugh has explained this quite well. Second, the ideological commitment to take something away that has already been given requires an increased factor of two or more—look at how long it took to get rid of just some of the farm welfare programs, which lasted from the New Deal to 1994. No conservative president or congress has ever dismantled the Department of Education or Department of Energy.
But here’s the real genius of the Democrats’ plan, and it has even escaped some of our conservative commentators: Why did the Democrats put in place the taxes immediately, but the benefits only after 2014? Isn’t that the exact opposite of the FDR strategy of carrots first, sticks later?
In fact, the Democrats are well aware of the Tea Parties, which are now going to work against liberty. Here’s how: by passing the stimulus first and ballooning the deficits—which the Tea Parties and Liberty Groups became obsessed with (rightly so)—the Democrats will now run specifically on the tax increases as a means to battle the deficits and claim that any attempt to repeal any of this health non-care bill will be fiscally irresponsible and will result in higher deficits. I don’t know if it will work, but it’s the only play they have right now, and Republicans, running on dismantling the health non-care system will be fighting both the image of taking health care away from granny AND “spending more money.”
What’s the solution? There are only two avenues that I can see. One is to not only elect Republicans (and ONLY Republicans, because third parties are going to destroy any chance of repealing this by electing more Democrats), but to elect so many conservative Republicans that you actually get a massive majority in the House to the point that they can, and will, de-fund any and all parts of this. That’s a very, very tough row to hoe, because Newt tried it in 1995 and was permanently damaged by it. And we’re talking a very big majority—perhaps 60-100 new seats. Possible? Maybe. Likely? Not right now. The other alternative is a massive citizen strike, of such tremendous proportions that you pull a reverse “Piven-Cloward.” This is the radical Left strategy of so overloading the social welfare system that it breaks down and forces a radical revolution. (If no one gets their welfare checks, they take to the streets).
Lots of people have been blustering that they won’t pay their taxes, or will “go to jail” rather than follow parts of this bill—and absolutely a black market in medicine and drugs will appear—or otherwise refuse to comply with regulations. The problem with this approach is that the new legislation is going to be regulated and policed almost entirely either by the IRS or by employers. So it shifts the burden of civil disobedience from the many to the few who have the most to lose (owners), while at the same time taking the resolution of all protests out of the hands of citizen juries and into the hands of the government (the Tax Man).
If the Liberty Groups/Tea Parties were smart, they’d fold up their tents and attempt to get a two-thirds GOP majority in both houses, which is our last, best hope.