Sunday, March 30, 2014

Affordable Care Act - 3-31-2014


The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!
H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

The Obama administration this week announced that some 6 million people had successfully signed up for healthcare insurance under the Affordable Care Act, via the governmental healthcare website. They touted the fact that the law was gaining more and more enrollees as the Monday, March 31 deadline approached.

The White House opted to ignore discussing the reality that given the fact that acquiring health insurance was the law and as such people HAD to have such health protection, of course the numbers would have to go up.

The White House also omitted having the conversation on the fact that the 6 million number only includes those who have signed up, as in put items into their website shopping cart.  It does not count the number of people who have actually purchased and paid for their insurance; that number also does not delineate how many of those people already had insurance, how many qualified for subsidies, and how many opted for Medicaid.

The subsidies and Medicaid are after all not gifts from the government, but reassigned wealth from those working to support the government’s largesse.

Those aforementioned specific numbers within the heralded six million seem to be somehow unavailable, as the administration euphemistically says about information they do not wish to divulge.

In addition to all that, this week the administration unilaterally and illegally again extended the date for purchasing the mandated health insurance to those who, on the honor system, have claimed they had trouble with the website.

The outright absurdity of this entire ill conceived ‘Ponzi scheme’ legislation would indeed be comical if it were not so deleterious to the financial health of the nation.

Politico.com did the nation an invaluable service this week by highlighting the number and specificity of many of the unilateral delays to the Affordable Care Act. The American electorate should be appalled and worried about an executive overreach of power as described by the facts of the piece.

It is reprinted here in its entirety, with thanks to Politico.com.

To wit:

Working backwards, here’s a brief history of some of the most prominent Obamacare delays:

March 25: Final enrollment deadline extended. The March 31 deadline — the end of enrollment for 2014 — will be loosened for people with special sign-up circumstances.

March 14: High risk pools extended. The special, temporary coverage for people with serious pre-existing conditions — which was only supposed to last until the health insurance exchanges were in place — was extended a third time for another month.

Feb. 10: Employer mandate delayed. This time, businesses with between 50 and 100 workers were given until 2016 to offer coverage, and the mandate will be phased in for employers with more than 100 workers.

Jan. 14: High risk pools extended. The high-risk insurance pools, which originally had been slated to close Jan. 1, had already been extended once.

Dec. 24: Enrollment deadline extended. In a message on HealthCare.gov, customers were told they could get help finishing their Jan. 1 applications if they were already in line on Dec. 24.

Dec 12: Enrollment deadline extended. Customers on the federal enrollment website were given nearly two more weeks to sign up for coverage effective Jan. 1.

Nov. 27: SHOP delayed. Online enrollment for the federal health insurance exchanges for small businesses was delayed.

Nov. 21: Open enrollment delayed for 2015. The administration pushed back next year’s enrollment season by a month.

July 2: Employer mandate delayed. The administration declared that it wouldn’t enforce the fines in 2014 for businesses with more than 50 full-time workers who don’t offer health coverage. The fines were pushed back to 2015.

Nov. 15, 2012: Exchange deadline delayed. The Department of Health and Human Services gave states an extra month to decide whether they would set up their own health insurance exchanges — a decision they announced just one day before the original deadline.


Sunday, March 23, 2014

How Much Is Enough?


The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!
H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

The entirety of mass media has been focused almost entirely on the tragedy of the missing Malaysian Airlines flight. The number of hours dedicated to an issue for which there is achingly little information is staggering.

It is thus perhaps understandable that the aforementioned media has chosen not to focus its attention on more domestic issues. In this era of political gridlock and ridiculous claims of ‘unfairness’, there still remains some hard realities that must be addressed by our elected leaders.

To wit:

This nation is still far from a true economic recovery, and yet the body politic refuses to address the issues of debt, deficit and responsible budgetary restraint. There are continued cries for increasing taxes on the rich, and that more money is needed for this infrastructure or another.

In short, the electorate is bombarded daily with the message that the government requires more cash to continue fulfilling its purpose.

The reality is that government as a whole can longer manage its fiduciary mandate and as such has voluntarily relinquished its responsibility to America for no other reason that political cowardice and budgetary ineptitude.

For proof of that fact, consider this edited compendium of information from various sources relative to the budgetary madness currently in play in Washington. It should be of both deep concern and outrage on the part of the American people.
As they say, you can’t make this stuff up. The numbers do not lie.
Consider:

Inflation-adjusted federal tax revenues hit a record $1,104,947,000,000 in the first five months of fiscal 2014, but the federal government still ran a $377,379,000,000 deficit during that time, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement for February.
Each month, the Treasury publishes the government’s “total receipts,” including all revenue from individual income taxes, corporate income taxes, social insurance and retirement taxes (including Social Security and Medicare taxes), unemployment insurance taxes, excise taxes, estate and gift taxes, customs duties, and “miscellaneous receipts.”
In constant 2014 dollars, the $1,104,947,000,000 that the federal government collected from October through February in fiscal 2014 was $90,193,750,000 more than the 1,014,753,250,000 it collected in October through February in fiscal 2013.

Although the federal government brought in a record  of approximately $1,104,947,000,000 in revenue in the first five months of fiscal 2014, according to the Treasury, it also spent approximately 1,482,327,000,000—leaving a deficit of approximately 377,379, 000,000.

After the current fiscal year, the second highest federal tax intake in the first five months of a fiscal year occurred in the first five months of fiscal 2007, when the government collected 1,076,721,860,000 in 2014 dollars—or 28,225,140,000 less than in the first five months of this fiscal year.

At the beginning of 2013, Congress passed and President Obama signed “The American Taxpayer Relief Act.” While this act made permanent some of the lower tax rates enacted for ten-year periods under President George W. Bush, it also increased some tax rates.
The Congressional Research Service summary of the law said it: “Amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) revise income tax rates for individual taxpayers whose taxable income is at or below the $400,000 threshold amount ($450,000 for married couples filing a joint return) and increase the rate to 39.6% for taxpayers whose taxable income exceeds the threshold, (2) set the threshold for the phaseout of personal tax exemptions and itemized deductions at $250,000 for individual taxpayers ($300,000 for married couples filing a joint return), and (3) increase the top marginal estate tax rate from 35% to 40%.

The law also: “Increases the capital gains tax rate from 15% to 20% for taxpayers whose taxable income exceeds the $400,000 threshold amount.”

Sunday, March 16, 2014

The Feinstein Issue


The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!
H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

Sen. Dianne Feinstein took to the Senate floor this week to make the accusation that in effect the C.I.A. had been, and still is, acting in an unconstitutional manner, claiming that the agency had been spying on members of the senate committee which has been investigating the spy agency.

In true Washington D.C. fashion, the C.I.A. then immediately countered that staff members of the committee had acted illegally in the execution of their congressional oversight responsibilities.

This brought calls from all political circles of conduct bordering on a constitutional crisis.

Such commentaries might make for comical, pointless political theater, but completely miss the point.

There is nothing unconstitutional about one branch of government spying on another. This is so because there is nothing written within the framework of our governing document addressing such issues.

Many in the political class and their media sycophants attempted to decry such ambiguities within the Constitution as flaws of omission made by the framers and the founders of this nation. 

The truth of the matter of course is much different.

To wit:

The Constitution is so beautifully crafted as to specifically REMAIN nebulous on such situations. The construct of the checks and balances is never quite as clear as in these hyperbolically labeled ‘constitutional crises’.

Consider a possible resolution to the concerns and claims made by Senator Feinstein.

(It should be noted that in the absence of any hard data on the facts of her claim, the Madison Conservative is not addressing those issues at this time, but rather taking advantage of the situation to provide clarity on a bigger issue).

If Congress believes that the C.I.A. has been spying on it, all it need do is to pass legislation specifically prohibiting the agency, an arm of the Executive branch, from undertaking such actions on any other branch of government, i.e. the legislative and/or judicial.

The law is passed by both houses and is presented to the President for his signature. If he chooses to sign the bill, it becomes law. This would then provide criminal penalties should the C.I.A. begin to snoop anew.

Of course, the President could veto any such legislation, which would return it to the Congress. If both houses met the threshold of a two-thirds majority vote, they could overturn the veto, and the legislation could still become law.

In either event, the aggrieved party could petition the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of any such law. Once the Court ruled on that specific delineation of legality, the issue would be settled.

In over two hundred years, no such case has ever been presented to the Court, so there can be no constitutional crisis on this matter. By definition, a constitutional crisis would only exist if the Constitution were to be specifically ignored on a described action of government.

What can happen is for the legislative branch to flex its constitutional muscle and let the Executive branch know that this government is an equal triumvirate.

It would make for fascinating study on the nature of a true democratic republic.

The Madison Conservative encourages the Congress to take such actions.

We owe the founders, framers, ourselves and our posterity no less than to preserve the structural integrity of the United States Constitution.

Sunday, March 9, 2014

Happy Birthday!


The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!
H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

 This coming Sunday, the 16th of March, will mark the 263rd birthday of the namesake of the Madison Conservative, James Madison.

In advance of his birthday, we would hope to provide a biographical sketch of the great American, but it would be nearly impossible to encapsulate the achievements of the man deemed ‘The Father of the United States Constitution” within the space limitations of this blog.

The Madison Conservative would recommend that Americans take this week to search out the story of our 4th President and his passions for the nation he helped create.

In an era of raw partisanship, it would be of immense help to the body politic to remember that James Madison, in creating the structure of the United States government, he pulled off the ultimate accomplishment in principled compromise.

The following biography is courtesy of the WhiteHouse.gov website, and is the official biography in total.

Happy Birthday Mr. Madison!

At his inauguration, James Madison, a small, wizened man, appeared old and worn; Washington Irving described him as "but a withered little apple-John." But whatever his deficiencies in charm, Madison's buxom wife Dolley compensated for them with her warmth and gaiety. She was the toast of Washington.

Born in 1751, Madison was brought up in Orange County, Virginia, and attended Princeton (then called the College of New Jersey). A student of history and government, well-read in law, he participated in the framing of the Virginia Constitution in 1776, served in the Continental Congress, and was a leader in the Virginia Assembly.

When delegates to the Constitutional Convention assembled at Philadelphia, the 36-year-old Madison took frequent and emphatic part in the debates.

Madison made a major contribution to the ratification of the Constitution by writing, with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, the Federalist essays. In later years, when he was referred to as the "Father of the Constitution," Madison protested that the document was not "the off-spring of a single brain," but "the work of many heads and many hands."

In Congress, he helped frame the Bill of Rights and enact the first revenue legislation. Out of his leadership in opposition to Hamilton's financial proposals, which he felt would unduly bestow wealth and power upon northern financiers, came the development of the Republican, or Jeffersonian, Party.

As President Jefferson's Secretary of State, Madison protested to warring France and Britain that their seizure of American ships was contrary to international law. The protests, John Randolph acidly commented, had the effect of "a shilling pamphlet hurled against eight hundred ships of war."

Despite the unpopular Embargo Act of 1807, which did not make the belligerent nations change their ways but did cause a depression in the United States, Madison was elected President in 1808. Before he took office the Embargo Act was repealed.

During the first year of Madison's Administration, the United States prohibited trade with both Britain and France; then in May, 1810, Congress authorized trade with both, directing the President, if either would accept America's view of neutral rights, to forbid trade with the other nation.

Napoleon pretended to comply. Late in 1810, Madison proclaimed non-intercourse with Great Britain. In Congress a young group including Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun, the "War Hawks," pressed the President for a more militant policy.

The British impressment of American seamen and the seizure of cargoes impelled Madison to give in to the pressure. On June 1, 1812, he asked Congress to declare war.

The young Nation was not prepared to fight; its forces took a severe trouncing. The British entered Washington and set fire to the White House and the Capitol.

But a few notable naval and military victories, climaxed by Gen. Andrew Jackson's triumph at New Orleans, convinced Americans that the War of 1812 had been gloriously successful. An upsurge of nationalism resulted. The New England Federalists who had opposed the war--and who had even talked secession--were so thoroughly repudiated that Federalism disappeared as a national party.

In retirement at Montpelier, his estate in Orange County, Virginia, Madison spoke out against the disruptive states' rights influences that by the 1830's threatened to shatter the Federal Union. In a note opened after his death in 1836, he stated, "The advice nearest to my heart and deepest in my convictions is that the Union of the States be cherished and perpetuated."


Sunday, March 2, 2014

Dr. Patrick Moore - (Global Warming pt. 2)


The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!
H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926


The intent of the blog post this week was to focus on the nature of what is driving the current policy debate on  ‘climate change’.  The discussion was going to center upon the fact that a UN report on the scientific data behind global warming released in September indicated that global surface temperatures have not increased for the past 15 years, but scientists who believe climate change due to man is occurring say it has merely paused because of several factors and will soon resume.

In other words, what was once called global warming has been changed by political necessity to the new term ‘climate change’, so that any negative weather event can be ascribed to mans’ damaging of the planet.

However, an intriguing event this past week has necessitated a change in the blogs’ focus.

Dr. Patrick Moore, who was a co-founder of Greenpeace testified this week in Washington on the fact that there is indeed no true science in what the Obama administration is now terming the greatest weapon of mass destruction, the aforementioned ‘climate change’.

Dr. Moore left Greenpeace when, as he describes, the organization made the conscious decision to move to the political left in an attempt to help drive its own agenda.

The Madison Conservative herein presents an abbreviated list of comments made by Dr. Moore during his appearance before the Senate committee.

There is a link at he bottom of the post for those who wish to read the entire presentation. It is fascinating reading.

Selected Highlights of Dr. Patrick Moore’s Feb. 25, 2014 testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

 “Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. There is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization.

Humans are a tropical species. We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing…It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.

Earth’s Geologic History Fails CO2 Fears: ‘When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.’

On UN IPCC’s 95% confidence in man-made global warming: ‘Extremely likely’ is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.

Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by “human influence”, when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910-1940?

What we do know with “extreme certainty” is that the climate is always changing, between pauses, and that we are not capable, with our limited knowledge, of predicting which way it will go next.”

It is a rather lengthy read, but for those concerned about the farce that is this administration’s policies on ‘climate change’, here is the link to the entirety of Dr. Moore’s testimony: