Siegel's Take

Shrinking the Government

2011-06-05T20:01:50Z

Republicans want to shrink the government. The 2 biggest issues for them are deregulation and tax cuts. Deregulation will cut out government activities and enable the "free market" to do its magic. Tax cuts will deprive the government of funds so it will not be involved in anything - except military activities to support laissez faire business. Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times describes a country that lives up to this Republican ideal:

]]> It has among the lowest tax burdens of any major country: fewer than 2 percent of the people pay any taxes. Government is limited, so that burdensome regulations never kill jobs.

This society embraces traditional religious values and a conservative sensibility. Nobody minds school prayer, same-sex marriage isn't imaginable, and criminals are never coddled.

The budget priority is a strong military, the nation's most respected institution. When generals decide on a policy for, say, Afghanistan, politicians defer to them. Citizens are deeply patriotic, and nobody burns flags.

So what is this Republican Eden, this Utopia? Why, it's Pakistan.

Pakistan is not the only country that is "starving the beast." Many African countries are doing the same thing, though not so willingly. I remember Hillary Clinton telling us that Somalia would be another example of a country with limited government.

Republicans are killing America. We have spent years building up America to its currently top place in the world. Now Republicans are trying to tear it down. And what for? To serve the needs of the super-rich and huge multinational corporations.

Joe Stiglitz, the great economist said:

The more developed an economy, the greater the share of resources consumed by the public sector.

Big government is needed to make and implement the rules to make the market function, Stiglitz says. Without such rules you will have chaos, the kind of chaos you have in Pakistan and Somalia.

Shrinking the government is a terrible idea.

Rand Paul, the Slave

2011-05-11T23:58:18Z

With regard to the idea of whether you have a right to health care, you have realize what that implies. It's not an abstraction. I'm a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery. It means that you're going to enslave not only me, but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants who work in my office, the nurses-- Rand Paul.

]]> Rand Paul, the libertarian, thinks he is a slave if he must help people that are sick. I wonder why someone who is so selfish became a doctor. I wonder if Rand Paul believes in our American democracy. Did he read the Declaration of Independence, which says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If someone was dying in the street, would Rand Paul let him die without lifting a finger because he did not want to be his slave?

If Rand Paul is having an argument with a political opponent - a Democrat, let's say - would he try to shut him up (remove his right to free speech) because he does not want to be the Democrat's slave?

If a neighborhood teenager is pursuing happiness by riding a bicycle that annoys Rand Paul would he stop the teenager so that he would not be the child's slave?

What selfishness! They call it libertarianism. But it is nothing except self-centeredness. I-I-I-I. Me-me-me. Nobody else counts. If Rand Paul has to do anything for anybody it means he is a slave.

And he claims to be a physician. My cousin is a physician. One day, when we entered an auditorium for a concert we were informed the performance might be delayed because someone passed out. My cousin said: "Can I help?" Now, that's a physician. What would Rand Paul say? "I don't want to be a slave."

This really bugs me. Physicians in this country are extremely well paid, better than in any other country. We have the richest slaves in history!

Birthers are Racists

2011-04-27T23:56:14Z

Never in the history of the U.S. was any president asked to produce a birth cirtificate to prove he was born in America. Never! And yet as soon as Barack Obama came on the scene, the Republican Party was filled with birthers screaming "Where is Obama's birth certificate?" Why? What's so different about Obama? The answer is that he is black.

]]>
When Obama was elected, a good many conservatives thought that something like this should never happen. No other president was black. Why was a black guy elected president? What happened to the good old Southern Strategy? Why wasn't it working any more? Something must be done. It's not nice to say we're against Obama because he's black. Let's paint him as someone who is different, hates America, does not belong - he wasn't born in the U.S.

Republican leaders thought this was an excellent strategy. It would not hurt to paint Obama as a 'furiner.' It would not hurt to get people believing that he was an imposter and not a true American.

Donald Trump thought this was such an excellent strategy, he made birtherism the main basis for his presidential candidacy. Trump is such a great salesman, he got all pundits talking about Trump, who then got to the top of the list of Republican presidential candidates.

Things got so out of hand, the president decided to post his long form birth certificate. Will this change the mind of birthers? Of course, not. KOS tells us why:

That the birthers aren't satisfied with the release of the long form birth certificate isn't surprising. Birthers aren't satisfied because no matter how many documents Barack Obama releases it will never be enough, because there isn't a document in the world that will turn him white.

Exactly. Obama is not white. Birtherism is the modern form of racism.

The Stark Contrast

2011-04-16T20:04:34Z

The contrast between Republicans and Democrats has never been so clear, obvious and stark. On the Republican side you have the Ryan Budget that tells ordinary Americans to fend for themselves and gives a huge tax cut to billionaires. On the Democratic side you have the Obama Budget that tells Americans that we are all in this together and billionaires should pay their fair share of taxes.

]]>
Ryan's "bold" plan gets rid of Medicare as we know it. He substitutes vouchers, which every year will cover less and less. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) calculates that seniors in 2022, when the "courageous" plan hits seniors, seniors will pay twice as much for healthcare - and of course, a lot more afterwards.

Ryan's "innovative" plan trashes Medicaid that serves the poor, the infirm and the elderly. It converts the system to block grants to the states. In other words, he shoves the problem to the states. Those on Medicaid will suffer.

Maybe the most "courageous" part of Ryan's plan is his reduction of the top tax rate from 35% to 25%. After all, the poor billionaires who have seen their income swell beyond anyone's expectations, deserve a reduction in taxes. But these are "job creators." Of course, but I can't understand where the jobs they created went.

As if this is not enough, Ryan repeals Obama's healthcare system and takes an axe to the Obama's new financial regulation law.

President Barack Obama waited for this nasty budget before presenting his own budget proposal. In his outstanding speech, Obama declared that his proposal is based on a Democratic vision that is very different from the Republican vision. He said:

The fact is, their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America.

Obama expressed the Democratic vision as follows:

The America I know is generous and compassionate; a land of opportunity and optimism. We take responsibility for ourselves and each other; for the country we want and the future we share. We are the nation that built a railroad across a continent and brought light to communities shrouded in darkness. We sent a generation to college on the GI bill and saved millions of seniors from poverty with Social Security and Medicare. We have led the world in scientific research and technological breakthroughs that have transformed millions of lives.

This is who we are. This is the America I know. We don't have to choose between a future of spiraling debt and one where we forfeit investments in our people and our country. To meet our fiscal challenge, we will need to make reforms. We will all need to make sacrifices. But we do not have to sacrifice the America we believe in. And as long as I'm President, we won't.

Obama let us know that the Affordable Healthcare Act will reduce the deficit about $1 trillion. He will get further reductions, not by removing Medicare from seniors, but by streamlining healthcare delivery; this will be done by expanding many of the cost-cutting activities the bill calls for. He will cut defense outlays.

One big area for cutting is the so called tax expenditures, otherwise know as loopholes. This area costs us about $1 trillion each year, and it's the area where the most "fooling around" with the tax code takes place.

Regardless of the cutting, Obama saves some money for investments in education, research and innovation in order to produce good jobs in the future.

Instead of a tax cut, Obama offers a tax increase to those making more than $250,000 a year.

What a contrast. Both plans reduce the deficit, but in vastly different ways. Ryan's plan guts services for the poor and takes some of the money saved to give billionaires a tax cut. Obama's plan assures services for the poor and future job growth with the partial aid of taxes for billionaires.

Paul Ryan's Crusade

2011-04-07T22:25:00Z

Paul Ryan, Courtesy: Slate.Com

Rep. Paul Ryan, the Republican hero of the hour, unveiled his deficit-busting budget to the acclaim of conservative pundits. After hearing what Ryan's budget entails, I decided that his document is not a budget but a crusade - against the undeserving poor and Democrats who try to help the poor.

]]>
Ryan's budget is filled with spending cuts. He reduces Medicare spending by $389 billion, and Medicaid spending by $735 billion. According to an analysis by the non-partisan Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/3 of his cuts come from programs for poor people. A good portion of the other cuts hurt the elderly.

And what does Ryan do with a good portion of the money saved? He has a tax cut for the rich. Millionaires and billionaires have been paying a marginal tax rate of 35%. This is too high for Ryan. So he reduces it to 25%!

Then Ryan has the nerve to tell us that his program will bring more jobs.

This is disgusting. To hell with the poor, he says. They don't vote anyway. We must take care of the rich.

Ryan calls what he's doing a "cause." No, it's a crusade of the super-rich against the rest of us. Paul Ryan's crusade will make America a third world nation.

Republicans for Rich, Democrats for Poor

2011-04-02T22:06:34Z

The major difference between today's Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans favor the rich and the Democrats favor the poor. This is apparent from legislation Republicans advance - tax cuts anyone - to the legislation Democrats advance - spending to help the poor and infirm. Both the rich and the poor people in this nation know it, as can be seen from the following chart:

]]> Vote percentage by income in 2010. From the Washington Post.

This diagram makes the distinction crystal clear. Majorities of those earning less than $50,000 vote for Democrats. Majorities of those earning $50,000 or more vote for Republicans. Furthermore, the poorer you are the more likely you are to vote for Democrats, and the richer you are the more likely you are to vote for Republicans.

The so-called polarization is the conflict between rich and poor. Every time a Democrat presents a case to help the poor, Republicans pounce and scream about class warfare. The above diagram tells you that there definitely is class warfare - and the rich are winning.

If you think this is wrong, join the Democratic Party.

The Abortion Tax

2011-03-20T21:49:09Z

Tea Party Republicans are wild. In my wildest dreams, however, I did not think they would favor the wild idea (to them) of raising taxes. Yes, tax-cut Tea Partiers in the House have introduced a bill (HR-3) to increase taxes. On women who have an abortion.

]]> IRS to do an audit to determine whether government funds of any sort were accessed to pay for any part of the abortion. This means the IRS would need to ask all sorts of embarrassing personal questions about abortion, rape and incest. Thomas Barthold, chief of staff of the nonpartisan Joint Tax Committee, testified about the expectant horrors:

Barthold replied that the taxpayer would have to prove that she had complied with all applicable abortion laws. Under standard audit procedure, a woman would have to provide evidence to corroborate facts about abortions, rapes, and cases of incest, says Marcus Owens, an accountant and former longtime IRS official. If a taxpayer received a deduction or tax credit for abortion costs related to a case of rape or incest, or because her life was endangered, then "on audit [she] would have to demonstrate or prove, ideally by contemporaneous written documentation, that it was incest, or rape, or [her] life was in danger," Owens says. "It would be fairly intrusive for the woman."

Of all the people in the country to tax the Tea Partiers chose women. Not all women. Just those who have abortions. I wonder how this will reduce the deficit. Maybe it will bring us new jobs - in the form of auditors working for the IRS.

The IRS can use more auditors, not for auditing women for abortions, but to audit taxpayers to make them honest. It is known that for every increased dollar spent by IRS, 10 dollars more are collected. So what do Tea Partiers do? They reduce funding for IRS - to reduce the deficit!

Tea Party Republicans don't want the IRS to audit tax cheaters. They would rather the IRS audit women who have had abortions!

The Immoral Republican Budget

2011-03-08T20:03:14Z

The budget that the House Republicans want to slam down our throats will be terrible for our society. Here are the 10 worst things it will do:

]]>
2. Zero out federal funding for National Public Radio and public television.

3. Cut $1.3 billion from community health centers--which will deprive more than 3 million low-income people of health care over the next few months.

4. Cut nearly a billion dollars in food and health care assistance to pregnant women, new moms, and children.

5. Kick more than 200,000 children out of pre-school by cutting funds for Head Start.

6. Force states to fire 65,000 teachers and aides, dramatically increasing class sizes, thanks to education cuts.

7. Cut some or all financial aid for 9.4 million low- and middle-income college students.

8. Slash $1.6 billion from the National Institutes of Health, a cut that experts say would "send shockwaves" through cancer research, likely result in cuts to Alzheimer's and Parkinson's research, and cause job losses.

9. End the only federal family planning program, including cutting all federal funding that goes to Planned Parenthood to support cancer screenings and other women's health care.

10. Send 10,000 low-income veterans into homelessness by cutting in half the number of veterans who get housing vouchers this year.

While Republicans want to cut these services to the vast majority of Americans, they seek tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. Terrible. We should not put up with it.

Should We Mount a No-Fly-Zone in Libya?

2011-03-04T22:22:31Z

Some politicians whenever they see a problem overseas always want to use military force to "correct" the situation and bring "freedom" and "democracy" to those living under despots. Sounds laudable. But the best way to spread freedom and democracy is not by killing people but by talking to them.

]]> John McCain, the senator who loved the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War and who wants us to bomb Iran, now recommends that we set up a No-Fly-Zone in Libya. He thinks this would be just as easy as starting the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars were.

My first question for McCain is "How do we pay for this new war? The same way we paid for the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars? With tax cuts?"

President George W. Bush thought he would bring democracy to the Arab World with the force of arms. The result was plenty of people killed in Iraq. And today, they are still killing people in Iraq. Furthermore, Iraq is more friendly with Iran than it is with U.S. And, though there is voting there, I wouldn't call their political system democracy.

But many say that we should stop the killing in Libya. I'm definitely for that. But how do you stop the killing by starting a war? Instituting a no-fly-zone over Libya will constitute a declaration of war. We will not save anybody, just as we did not save anybody in Iraq. The main result will be more killing.

President Obama is trying diplomacy and sanctions. Sanctions, if done right and if we get other countries to cooperate with us, will isolate Kadafi. It can be done and if it succeeds U.S. will come out smelling like a rose.

Remember, the big reason Egypt's revolution is on its way to succeeding is that Obama did not overtly interfere, though many suggested he should. The revolution came from the Egyptians themselves. They are proud of what they are accomplishing.

Injecting a no-fly-zone into Libya will produce a larger war. Let's resist the siren for war. NO-FLY-ZONE!

Mideast Revolution Stirs the Midwest

2011-02-26T23:21:14Z

The papers and the radio stations and the TV stations and the Internet are packed with articles and pictures of the great uprising of angry, ordinary Arab people against their oppressive dictators that have kept them in poverty and misery for decades. We have been cheering for the protesters, while we have been doing nothing for ourselves here in America. Until now.

]]> tax-cut syndrome; President Bush followed him to bestow on billionaires as well as millionaires the so-called Bush tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts make the billionaires that caused the Recession bigger oppressors.

How about you? During the last 3 decades, your earnings, regardless of whether you are a college grad or not, have stagnated, or even worse, disappeared. If you were at one time a union member, chances are you no longer are - because your oppressors, the super-rich, killed your union. Maybe you have healthcare insurance and maybe not. Even if you do, every day you pay more and more for it. I'm sure you pay taxes, but the corporations of some of your oppressors do not.

Here's what Carl Gibson, a guy who studies these things, said:

I have one dollar in my wallet. That's more than the combined income tax liability of GE, ExxonMobil, Citibank, and the Bank of America. That means somebody is gaming the system.

These plutocrats have the money to control the political system and they do. So far they have devastated private-sector unions and brought wages for working people - college grads and not - down. Now they are upset that unions in the public sector are hindering them from getting richer. So they are determined to get rid of them as well.

This is what Governor Scott Walker is trying to do in Wisconsin. There is not much of a fiscal crisis there. The Democrats have said they are willing to cut benefits as the governor suggested. Governor Walker is unmoved. He wants to get rid of collective bargaining to destroy the unions. Other Republican governors are trying to do the same thing.

We have proof that killing unions is their goal. We know that the billionaire Kochs are behind Americans For Prosperity, the organization behind this union-busting activity. Here's what its Michigan Executive Director Scott Hagerstrom said:

It's easy to go out there and fight taxes and increased regulation, you know we send out an action alert on taxes to AFP [Americans for Prosperity] and we get thousands of people to respond. You send out one on a more complicated issue and it just doesn't quite resonate...We fight these battles on taxes and regulation but really what we would like to see is to take the unions out at the knees so they don't have the resources to fight these battles.

Here are your oppressors. They want to take you, whether you belong to a union or not, "out at the knees." Yesterday they destroyed private-sector unions. Today they destroy public-sector unions. Tomorrow they will destroy you and all other people who work for a living.

This is why today's demonstrators are taking to the streets of every capitol city in America. They are telling their oppressors they will not take it any more. Hopefully, these demonstrations will wake up everybody else that's been suffering under the thumb of the billionaire oppressors.

Business vs. Labor

2011-02-21T01:20:43Z

Gov. Scott Walker, (R-WI)

The present confrontation between Wisconsin's labor unions and Scott Walker, the new Republican governor of Wisconsin, is the beginning of the last phase of a long effort by Big Business to kill all labor-unions so that Big Business can be free to exploit labor as much as it wishes.

]]> President Reagan gave the signal by firing air-traffic controllers, Big Business knew the coast was clear for getting rid of labor unions. First they concentrated on private-sector unions. These were the groups that managed to negotiate contracts for good wages and good benefits. Why give good money to workers when CEOs and other executives could keep the money for themselves?

With the help of some legislative help from Republicans, who did not like labor unions either, companies hired "labor consultants" to find ways to undermine the entire labor movement. They also hired "media consultants" to spread the propaganda that turned Americans against unions.

The Republicans and Big Business did a good job. Today there are very few labor unions in the private sector. But there are many public-sector unions. These plutocrats can't allow workers to make much more than those in the public sector (they definitely do not). But public-sector pensions are better, and plutocrats can't stand it. They are trying to get rid of public-sector unions. Wisconsin is the start of this public-sector union-busting effort.

This whole union-busting movement is outrageous. And President Obama offered his support to the Wisconson unions. The conservative firebrand Breitbart does not like what the president said and he called the president's involvement "deeply un-American."

What's un-American about supporting labor unions? We have in America 2 big antagonists: business and labor. It's true that one can't exist without the other. However, business has many times more power than labor. Business has billions of dollars to support what it wants. In addition, rich businesses get together in the Chamber of Commerce and in many similar organizations to fight against labor. If these rich businesses can join Commerce "unions," why should not poor workers be able to join Labor unions?

Ask that of Republicans like Scott Walker and of Republicans in general who want to destroy labor unions. Republicans support the plutocrats and they do whatever the plutocrats ask of them because they get well paid during elections.

Once union-busting reaches its goal of killing off all labor unions, Big-Business Republicans will run the country for the pleasure of Big Business. We will live in a "third world country."

Do Republicans Want to Slash the Deficit?

2011-02-18T01:17:35Z

NO, is my answer. All Republicans talk about cutting the deficit. In the House they have introduced 600 amendments to the budget bill, each cutting something else in the budget. Paul Ryan is on the air every day scolding Obama because the president does not take the lead in cutting the deficit. But in truth, Republicans don't care at all about the size of the deficit. It is merely a cudgel for attacking Democrats.

]]> epublicans come up with lots of ways of cutting government programs that help the poor. But somehow they never get around to cutting anything that helps rich people or Big Business. Instead they help the rich by giving them big tax cuts. And much of the deficit problem will disappear if we get rid of Bush's tax cuts. As E.J. Dionne says:

How do we know our difficulties stem primarily from a shortage of revenue? Consider what would happen if we allowed all the tax cuts scheduled to expire in 2012, including the ones enacted under Bush, to go away. That would produce nearly as much deficit reduction over the next decade - roughly $4 trillion - as all the maneuvers of the Bowles-Simpson commission put together. If you want to be serious about closing the deficit, ending the Bush tax cuts is a good place to start.

So it is discouraging to hear (from the Wall Street Journal) that a bipartisan group of senators is discussing a so-called Grand Bargain that includes 10 times as much spending cuts as tax increases.

This is RIDICULOUS! In order to do, as Republicans say, "share the sacrifice," Republicans should accept tax increases for the rich in return for Democrats accepting reduction in spending for the poor. But it must be done on a more equitable basis: at least 50/50.

Republicans' maniacal support of tax cuts for the rich is one big reason we have a big deficit. Once they accept ways of increasing revenue - including the phasing out of Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 - then we will be on a path towards balancing the budget.

The chances of this happening are pretty slim. Because Republicans do not give a damn about the deficit. Their only concern is to hurt Democrats.

You First

2011-02-15T23:57:53Z

2012 Budget Allocation

President Obama submitted a 2012 budget that reduces the deficit by over a trillion dollars over the next decade. At the same time, the budget calls for investment in education, infrastructure and research in order to grow jobs for Americans. It addresses our 2 main problems: the deficit and unemployment. Republicans are attacking it furiously because it does not address "entitlements." Obama did; he said "You first."

]]> Republicans, all sorts of Republicans, including Tea Party guys and gals, in any and every avenue of communication, bellowed constantly that Republicans, if elected, would slash the budget, get rid of the deficit, and put America on a good financial footing again. Rah, rah, rah! When anybody asked any of these good-finance Republicans what they would cut, the answer was: "we'll see," "we'll have to analyze it," "Rep. Paul Ryan will figure it out," "let's wait for the deficit commission to report," and most telling of all: "we'll see what the President proposes."

In other words, Republican were scared to death to say what they actually planned to do: slash Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Of course, this is how they won a majority in the House and increased their membership in the Senate. But now they are asked to govern. And still they refuse to answer what they would cut.

Republicans punted before the election and they punted after the election. After Obama released his budget, here's what Senator Mitch McConnell said:

The budget was an opportunity for the president to lead. He punted.

Rep. Paul Ryan, the Republican financial guru, says the same thing in a bigger paragraph:

Americans expect their presidents to lead, they expect their presidents to take on the country's biggest challenges, and arguably the biggest domestic challenge perhaps in the history of this country is this crushing burden of debt that is coming our way. The president punted on the budget and he punted on the deficit. That's not leadership ... Anyone who knows anything about me knows we have to tackle entitlements or they're going to tackle us.

Poor Republicans. They did not have the nerve to say what they mean, so they punted. They told the President, "You first." President Obama is no dummy. So he told the Republicans that since they are so concerned about the deficit and have been haranguing the public about the deficit for so long and have not told the public that they plan to kill Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, perhaps they should explain their real position. He told them: "You first."

This is a "You first" budget. Sounds terrific to me.

Where Are the Jobs?

2011-02-12T19:57:50Z

The Good Old Days

Remember this Republican refrain? Throughout the 2010 election campaign Republicans repeated at nauseum "Where are the jobs?" Obama is doing nothing to grow jobs, they said. If Republicans were elected they would drastically change things and produce jobs. To which I say now, "where are the jobs?"

]]> Republicans in the House have been busy. They voted to kill the recently passed health care reform bill. How many jobs would such a move bring?

The House is reintroducing the culture wars with its fierce attack on abortion. Republicans are pushing the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," in which they make a distinction between "forcible rape" and just plain "rape"; the latter is not so bad, according to them. The language was changed after public protest, but the nastiness of the bill remains. If this is not enough, Republicans also introduced the "Protect Life Act," which allows hospitals to let abortion-seeking women die rather than refer them to another hospital. They also want to raise taxes of businesses that provide insurance that cover abortions. OK, they're against abortion, but how will this stuff produce jobs?

Republicans did promise to cut the budget. And recently they came up with a list of cuts that scares even Republican leaders. However, the leaders are going along with the Tea Party zealots towards a showdown with Obama. Republicans will refuse to increase the debt limit, thus producing a world economic crisis worse than the one we are trying to get out of. Do you think this will produce jobs?

Eric Cantor boasts about the anticipated cuts:

The level of cuts here have not taken place in Congress since World War II. That's how big these cuts are, OK? So we have now produced a working document, again a bill that will be brought to the floor that will make history again. Since World War II, this place has not seen a cut like this. These are not easy cuts. But we understand our country is on a path to fiscal ruin and if we want to get the economy going, we want to get people back to work, this is one of the first steps we need to take.

How on earth would these cuts "get people back to work," when they will result in many layoffs and in degradations to sick and poor people?

At the same time that Republicans want to get rid of services for the poor and the middle class, they strenuously insist that we give tax cuts to the rich. Obviously, they don't give a damn about the deficit. They worry only about the rich who keep them in power. Why bother about jobs when the rich do not need them?

All of us are asking "where are the jobs"? Except Republicans in Congress.

Republican Judge Plays Politics

2011-02-03T00:28:33Z

ACA Signing, Courtesy: Wikipedia

Ever since the Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act that would provide healthcare for millions who don't or can't have health insurance now, Republicans have been on a war-path to get rid of this legislation. They passed repeal legislation in the House and are striving to do so in the Senate. At the same time, Republicans have been attacking ACA through the courts.

]]> Republican lawyers chose to challenge the individual mandate - a person must buy insurance in order to assure he is not a "free-loader". So far, two Democratic judges found the individual mandate constitutional and two Republican judges found it unconstitutional. The latest one, Judge Roger Vinson, not only found the individual mandate unconstitutional, but decided that the entire ACA is unconstitutional.

A note here about the "liberal press." The two Republican-leaning decisions received lots more press than the Democratic-leaning decisions. As a matter of fact, because of all the noise, many of us do not realize that there were 2 decisions in favor of ACA's constitutionality.

But more important, even prominent Republican lawyers insist that Judge Vinson's decision is wrong. President Ronald Reagan's solicitor general Charles Fried says:

I am quite sure that the health care mandate is constitutional. ... My authorities are not recent. They go back to John Marshall, who sat in the Virginia legislature at the time they ratified the Constitution, and who, in 1824, in Gibbons v. Ogden, said, regarding Congress' Commerce power, "what is this power? It is the power to regulate. That is--to proscribe the rule by which commerce is governed." To my mind, that is the end of the story of the constitutional basis for the mandate.

Republicans make a fuss that regulating inactivity (not buying insurance) may not be regulated while regulating activity may. Rick Hills, who says he is "a registered Republican and an outspoken conservative," destroys this argument with specific examples from the past:

Hills frames the question this way: If the federal government can't tell people they don't have the right to refuse to buy insurance, then why was it okay for the federal government to regulate people's "pacifism," i.e., their refusal to fight in wars? Why is it okay for the government to regulate people's refusal to serve on juries?... "If you can regulate inaction to raise juries, and you can regulate inaction to raise an army, then why isn't there equally an implied power to conscript people to buy insurance, to serve the goal of regulating the interstate insurance market?" Hill asks.

The whole issue is pure politics. Unfortunately, Republican judges are being overly political. Judge Vinson talked about the "tea party" and actually quoted from the brief that the Family Research Council submitted. The "terrible" individual mandate is an intrinsic part of Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health care plan. Also, the following Republican senators were for it before they were against it: Chuck Grassley, Olympia Snowe and Bob Bennett. Bob Dole is among Republicans that were for it in the past.

I hope that if this case gets to the Supreme Court, it will not be further politicized, as was Bush v. Gore. I place my hopes upon Justice Kennedy, who I believe is not politically polarized as are the other Republican justices.