Liberty and Justice for All!

Louisiana is at it again. They are trying to pass legislation meant to overrule the new health reform law. Supporters of the bill believe that the Federal Government cannot compel citizens to purchase health insurance.

Some argue that since the government has the power to tax, that the mandate (and the fine attached for not being covered by health insurance) is just a tax and so it is constitutional. I suggest you read the article to learn about the current home-ownership and child birth mandates that currently exist in our tax system. It is also interesting to point out that people will be free to choose no insurance. They will just pay a fine for not buying that insurance.

Others argue that the interstate commerce clause grants the Federal Government the power to enforce a mandate on the citizens.

However, I am going to ignore that for a second. Let’s assume that the State of Louisiana has the power to overrule the mandate and the federal tax code and allow citizens to not be fined for refusing to purchase insurance. What will happen then?

Well, the Louisiana law would overturn the mandate while keeping the ban on pre-existing condition clauses intact. Citizens of Louisiana would be free to wait to buy insurance until they get sick. Since they cannot be turned away for their pre-existing conditions, insurance will stop being insurance in Louisiana and it will only be a kind of discount plan.

See, the reason that we used to allow pre-existing condition clauses is because we wanted to prevent anti-selection (the practice of waiting until you are sick to buy insurance). So if you eliminate those clauses, you need another way to prevent anti-selection. The only other way available is a mandate.

So what will happen is that private insurers offering individual health policies will stop doing business in Louisiana since they will no longer be able to protect themselves from anti-selection. No more private insurance would be made available in Louisiana. Louisiana will have driven the insurers out of our state.

However, as the Supreme Court said in Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, the supremacy clause cannot be used to override state law unless

the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion, or that the Congress has unmistakably so ordained.

So even if you want to argue that Congress has not unmistakably ordained that state law can be overridden using the supremacy clause, the nature of the regulated subject matter (health care) permits no other conclusion (than to mandate healthcare coverage since pre-existing condition clauses are banned). The mandate will stand and the state will waste more money trying to defend its quixotic legislation.

more the engrish!

*

John Kennedy is complaining that Landrieu hasn’t committed to debate on his timetable. Her response?

“Sen. Landrieu looks forward to a series of debates with Mr. Kennedy in October when the important work of this Congress is completed. Meanwhile, she will be travelling to every part of the state to discuss the merits of the New ERA energy proposal, which is a very significant piece of legislation that will lower gas prices and transition the country to alternative fuels and energy independence.

“In the meantime, if John Kennedy wants to debate before then, he should debate himself given that he has taken both sides of every issue.”

Excellent.

Yes, Landrieu should debate and it seems that she will do it in October. Seems like Kennedy is making much ado about nothing.

C. B. Forgotston seems to think so. I have to somewhat disagree. I don’t think this is a matter of having a clue or not. I think that Jindal believes that if he says something as “fact”, that people will just believe it and the media won’t challenge it.

I wonder why he would get that idea…

Steve at Bayou Buzz asked some legislators about the pay raise issue. A Republican legislator who is nameless posed this possibility:

One Republican legislator told me that then candidate Jindal really probably did not even know that the legislative raise platform was in the written campaign material.

That is a sad commentary on the state of Louisiana politics. What is even more sad is that with how much Jindal is “handled” by Timmy and Sellers that the idea is actually believable as well.

If that is the lengths you have to go when you run for office, if you have to let other people right your platform for you in order to win, then I guess I will never win an election ever because I would refuse to let campaign advisers tell me what my platform was going to be.

Steve at Bayou Buzz asked Jindal about why he won’t veto the pay raise. See the response here:

Now, Jindal gives his typical non-answer to Steve’s question. However, what is important to notice is Jindal’s “this is our only chance” comment. Is it really our only chance? Is this the only legislative session that will take place during Jindal’s term as governor? I think not. This has been Jindal’s mantra from day one. By telling us that we have one chance, or that this is our only chance, he uses fear tactics to get the voters to fall in line. While this may have been an effective card to play in the past, I think he has overplayed it and it is really beginning to sound silly. I hope that the voters will get tired of hearing how this is our only chance… especially when Jindal has shown that he is unwilling to fulfill campaign promises made (not just with pay raises but with actual ethics reform as well).

WWL has more video from the press conference  and it really is a must see. It really shows how much of a typical Louisiana politician that Bobby Jindal is. I mean, he has an 80% approval rating. Is he really that scared that the legislature wont let him do what he wants when 80% of the state is behind him? Most governors with 80% approval ratings would not be afraid to stand up to the legislature if he felt the legislature was doing something wrong (which he claims they are).

Maybe he realizes that while he may have broad support that the support is just as shallow as the promises made in his campaign.  Maybe he realizes that the legislators realize this as well and that they know he is actually a very weak governor who lacks the leadership skills to effectively govern our state.

What is funny is that at the end of the video, you see Sellers telling Jindal that it is time to go.  The look on her face is really pathetic. It is as if she can see the approval rating droping in front of her eyes.

The Gambit is against teaching Creationism/ID in schools. Jindal supports it.

The Gambit supports keeping the helmet law. Jindal opposes it.

Now, the Gambit reprinted Jeremy Alford’s articlediscussing Jindal’s tight ship and how “Melissa Sellers has become Public Enemy no. 1 to many reporters at Louisiana news outlets”. She has already become famous for removing people from mailing lists and otherwise having a very tight ship, keeping the Governor in a press vacuum as much as possible unless she can control the setting. However, included in the Gambit was a piece by Clancy himself discussing the preview of Melissa Sellers and her tactics. The Press Secretary from Hell nearly threw a tantrum about not being allowed in the Gambit endorsement meeting. She could not just sit still. She apparently paced back and forth and even went as far as to put a glass against the wall to hear what was going on! The woman is obsessed!

So the Gambit staff knew Jindal’s positions on helmet laws and ID. The Gambit, who is usually rather liberal, knew his extremist stance on gay marriage and abortion. The Gambit knew the kind of people that Bobby Jindal surrounds himself with. Yet they endorsed him anyway?

This tells me one of two things.

A) They are really that stupid

B) They knew that Jindal was a bad choice for Louisiana but knew it would create four years of stories that they would be able to write about. They could write on how Jindal lied to them, how he hasn’t kept his end of the bargain, and how he turned out to be a wolf in sheep clothing. They would sell advertising in their newspapers and keep raking in the dough.

These are the only to reasons I can think of. Anyone have any other good possibilities? I’ll add them.

As promised, here is the link to the Gambit opinion on the weakened ethics enforcement. When Clancy Dubos was on Garland’s show, he stated that he was working on an editorial on the “clear and convincing” issue. I found this interesting because he stated previously.

When I have something to say personally, I put my name on it — as in my column.

This can’t be true, because if “he” was writing this last week, “he” didn’t put “his” name. It was just a Gambit “commentary”. It seems like Clancy protested a bit too much previously when we tried to put the words of the Gambit on Clancy when it came to his blind and uninformed support of Bobby Jindal. That is not to say that the commentary here is bad, because it is very good and everyone should read it.

Now, in the same commentary page where the Gambit gets it so right, they also get it so wrong. The Gambit has endorsed GHEL Steve Scalise for Congress.

While we do not agree with many of Sen. Scalise’s positions on social issues

Then why on earth would you support him? Gilda Reed has a solid grasp on the need for Coastal Restoration and Hurricane protection. Gilda Reed will also be able to start working from day one to work on the needs of Southern Louisiana. And if Gilda gets elected, the Democrats in Congress will bend over backwards to help her out since they won’t want to lose that seat in the fall. She is likely to be one of the most effective members of Congress from the start. Steve Scalise is likely to be one of the least effective members of Congress because he will be a member of the minority party and will offer nothing for the Democrats to support. We need Reed!

I think Deryl (4unionparish) at Louisiana Conservative is in love. Ironically, i believe the ultra conservative blogger who supports those candidates that fight same sex love, is in love with Governor Bobby Jindal.  How else could you describe the gushing that takes place at one of his most recent posts? The post title itself (Stealing Governor Bobby Jindal) reminds me of a Jerry Springer episode where one of the guests will challenge the other guest because the other guest wants to steal his significant other. He even wants a “2×4 wake-up call” to be given to those who wish to steal his beloved Bobby away.

leave our miracle working Governor the hell alone!!!

Miracle worker? Please. I can see the chair throwing starting already. Steve will jump in and break them up any moment.

Is this the attempt by jealous conservatives to steal away the most popular, most capable, and most honest Governor in

Louisiana history

Most honest? Granted, that wouldn’t take much. Most capable? That has yet to be seen. I think he must sit in his room, listening to “can you feel the love tonight”, gazing at a picture of Jindal’s inauguration and reflecting on his special night at the mansion, crying that he couldn’t have more alone time with Governor Jindal.But then he can’t just let the blame rest on fellow conservatives. No, he has to try and put the blame (and suspicion to the plot to steal his beloved) on liberals.

First, and superficial, is that by having a TRUE conservative, unlike McCain, on the ticket will make it much easier for the Dems to motivate their voters and fight against their obvious (and comical) party division. Many Dems are threatening to crossover to McCain if their choice, Obama or Oclinton, is not the Dem candidate. Governor Jindal would provide the necessary conservatism, something very lacking in the McCain campaign, to persuade those Dems to remain loyal to the Democrat ticket.

Um, wrong. The last thing that Democrats want would be a strong conservative on the ticket. Why? Because conservatives will have a huge problem voting for McCain because they view him as being too moderate. A conservative on the ticket, especially Jindal, will bring out the die hard voters who will blindly follow “true conservatives”.

Much more devious, and more characteristic of a liberal media that has never let the truth get in their way of manipulating public opinion,  is the possibility that the liberal media is trying to sabotage the political career of the most popular, most capable, most honest and most conservative Governor in Louisiana history.

How on earth would someone getting the national stage as a V-P candidate hurt that person? If anything, Jindal as the V-P candidate along with a McCain loss would probably move him into the spotlight for 2012. But the truth is often something hidden from Deryl when he is blindly attacking liberalism. 

“Conspiracy nut”, you, say?

No, just nut.

The outrage from abandoned Louisiana conservatives would be so severe that Governor Jindal would become an albatross around the neck of McCain.

Only Nick (from what I  have seen) from LouisianaConservative.com has said that he would openly speak out against Jindal if Jindal accepted an invitation to be V-P. I have a feeling that a supermajority of Louisiana conservatives would blindly follow Jindal anywhere he goes. See, they care more about Jindal and his cult of personality than they do their own well being.

He then goes on to quote Jindal on several spin answers where one might think he intends to stay Governor for 8 years. However, what he cannot quote is Jindal answering “NO” to the question of “will you accept the nomination to be Vice President”. Why? Because such a quote does not exist.  But that still doesn’t change the fact that Deryl is so blinded by his love for Bobby Jindal that he cannot stand to think that his beloved governor might very well have flaws. In fact, he repeats himself several times. I guess he needs to convince himself that his beloved wouldn’t dare leave  him so he repeats how much Jindal is “smart” and “capable” and honest”.

I think he should just send the Governor flowers and get it over with. But here is a newsflash Deryl, Bobby Jindal is happily married. Or did some toe tapping take place in the bathroom during the blogger dinner at the Governors mansion that went unreported? Hmmm….

h/t to Jim at JindalWatch

In his most recent Jindal apologia, Jeff Sadow states:

The latter group is represented by the likes of Democrat state Sen. Ben Nevers, who has offered legislation (SB 20) that would prevent elected officials from running from another elective office and another (SB 23) that would prohibit the governor from appointing anybody to anything who contributed to his campaign. The former serves absolutely no ethical purpose and the latter is a deliberate attempt to discourage exercise of free speech rights.

Look at Jindal’s executive council, who donated a lot of money to Jindal’s campaign who got his appointment to a job that will likely pay more than what was donated. Mr. Sadow doesn’t quite understand that while a person does have the right to make campaign contributions, they do not have the right to be appointed to an office by the Governor. And the only people who would be discouraged from making campaign contributions are those who want government employment and feel that the only way to obtain it is to give a campaign donation.

I am also fairly sure, because I am fairly cynical about government reform, that all this will do is prevent individuals who want government appointments from donating from their personal funds. They would probably still be able to make campaign contributions via any corporations they own. Since Bobby Jindal has not pushed to prevent corporate contributions to campaigns, there will still remain that unethical loophole.

Looking towards a global perspective, there are those who want to make sure Jindal politically gains little luster from the session because they want to reduce his power for the future.

Of course, Sadow here poisons the well and presents the logical fallacy that those who dare make the comment against Jindal and his so called attempts at reform are people who want the ethics session to fail. I am sure that such people exist. However, there are many others who are calling Jindal out on his so called “ethics reform” because his attempts at ethics reform do not include certain important items. The lack of those items means that Jindal (and others) can continue to act unethically.

And what is worse, and what everyone needs to be reminded of, is that Jindal and his administration seem to be more worried about fixing the “perception” of ethical problems then actually fixing ethical problems. And, as Elliot Stonecipher correctly pointed out, people will look at any ethics bill passed and will falsely assume that Jindal has passed meaningful ethics reform. However, just because an ethics bill passes does not make it meaningful.

He picked a subject area with widespread popular support as the first opportunity to legislate for many, especially in the House with rookies comprising over half of it, many of whom evoked ethics in their campaigns – and who have not seen the temptations that lax ethics standards could entice them into opposition.

If Sadow really believes this, he is more naive and uninformed than we all thought.

If Jindal can get at least half of the agenda the way he wants and the other half in a semblance of the way he wants, his power will magnify for the next contemplated special session on economics and the regular session, which will feature the slaughtering of a lot of sacred cows for which he’ll need all the power he can get.

WELL, either that or Jindal will have to make so many deals to pass a smokescreen “ethics bill” that allows us to eliminate the perception of ethical problems to the rest of the country (while allowing Jindal to continue his unethical activities) that when it comes time to deal with a special session on economics and the regular session, his hands will be so tied to the deals he made that he will have no power to do anything. I would not expect a Jindal apologist to look at the other side of the coin though.

Otherwise, he may have trouble living up to high expectations that have formed around his governorship.

I believe he already is having those troubles.

Update: Jeff responded to me on his thread. Here is my response to his post.

“A contribution is a form of political speech, so you are arguing that to be appointed to office you must give up your right to speak out about politics in this format which is not substitutable with any other. “

No, I am saying that if your desire is to get a public appointment that you will not be able to buy your way into the governors office. Your argument that a monetary campaign contribution is “not substitutable” with any other form of political speech is illogical. People seeking government employment under a specific candidate would be able to erect signs in their yard, put bumper stickers on their cars, wear other campaign gear, volunteer to make phone calls, hand out fliers, and do many other things that are quite valuable to a campaign.

“If we identify the communication of ideas — i.e., helping to finance a candidate that articulates those ideas — as a bedrock principle of a free, democratic society, your idea violates that.”

While it is true that financing of candidates should be a part of a free and democratic society, this was not “my idea” (though I do support it) and the idea does not violate that principle. It is currently illegal for people who own casinos to make campaign contributions. Such restrictions have not been ruled to violate those individuals free speech rights. Or would you argue that casino owners should be allowed to make campaign contributions as well?

“Further, it relies on the facile assumption, long disproven by hordes of researchers, that money buys influence in politics.”

Who are these researchers? Perhaps you can provide a link to the hordes of researchers that claim “Money does not buy influence in politics”. Is it any wonder that Jimmy Faircloth is Bobby Jindal’s executive council? He contributed the maximum to his campaign (and his law firm also contributed to his campaign as well).

“Just think it through, tens of thousands of people gave to Jindal, for example. A few hundred at most — many not even his contributors — will be appointed by him. So all these other people failed to “buy” an office, in this simplistic formulation? If so many fail, then where is the quid pro quo you so blindly assume?”

Where in my argument did I make the claim that people only contribute to try and buy an office? I did not, so your argument is already flawed.

However, there are many people (at many levels of government) who make contributions for the purpose of either getting a prime appointment, getting a government contract, or getting legislation passed that would be favorable to their businesses. Anyone who would reject that this happens is naive at best.

“Finally, restricting free speech rights that discourages some people’s input into the process only empowers other organizations or people. This would magnify the electability of candidates who rely on their own resoources and disadvantage those that cannot.”

Louisiana law allows corporate campaign contributions. Federal law does not. Many people have been elected to Federal offices who did not rely on their own resources. So again, your argument is flawed.

“And it would do nothing to discourage those who create or take advantage of 527 organizations to go around such a law. Indeed, the organizations’ input would become more substantial at the expense of others, whose motives are far more difficult to uncover than tracking the transparency in reporting of individual contributions.”

Well, then perhaps we need to work of fixing the problems surrounding 527 organizations and not use that as an excuse to allow people to purchase their way into government employment.

“Courts have consistently ruled that political donations are exercises of free speech that can be limited only in amount.”

My casino example proves you wrong.

“Further, they also have sided with the doctrine that there must be a compelling state interest in the curtailing of free speech liberties.”

The elimination of the ability of a person to purchase their way into a government appointment is quite compelling. I am sorry that you do not agree. People should not have the right to bribe elected officials to get what they want. Giving large contributions to a candidate for the purpose of getting a government appointment is clearly a bribe.

“There’s obviously no such interest present in this restriction either in a person’s exercising this right, or, for that matter, a winner’s right to appoint who he pleases subject to constitutional or legal qualifications (thus your false dichotomy).”

Just because you say that there is no such interest does not make it so. Again, i find it quite compelling that we would eliminate the ability of someone to bribe their way into government employment. But hey, if you think that bribes are free speech then go right ahead and keep believing it.