The View from Right Field

The Supreme Court on Obamacare: Victory In Loss for Supporters of Limited Government

Four comments on yesterday’s Supreme Court decision on Obamacare:

First, as I said two years ago when Obamacare passed, I think a good argument can be made that it was good the Affordable Care Act was not overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.  I am not sure certain parts of the Democratic/liberal/progressive side could have handled such a decision with appropriate restraint (given, for example, President Obama’s hissy fit over the Citizens United decision), and I am not sure it would have been good for the stability of our country.

Also, those who wanted the Supreme Court to overturn Obamacare, or at least the individual mandate, because they didn’t like it as policy were misunderstanding the role of the Supreme Court.  It is not a legislature of last resort (though some liberals/progressives seem to think it is, at times).  The Supreme Court’s role is to enforce the rules we have set for how our system is to operate.  It does not make policy; it protects procedures.

Second, based on the cursory news reports I have read of Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion, I am very happy with it.  By basing his upholding of the individual mandate on the taxing power, he may have expanded the taxing power somewhat.  But by refusing to base his opinion on Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce power, and by specifically saying that Congress would not have the power to impose the individual mandate under the commerce clause, he has taken another step down the road of setting limits on the federal government’s power under the commerce clause.  This is very important. 

If the individual mandate had been upheld as a valid exercise of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce, then there would be no significant limit on the federal government’s power under the commerce clause.  The federal government could do whatever it wanted on almost any subject it wanted.  There would be no real limits on the federal government’s powers, either vis-à-vis the states or the people.  But from what I have read, Chief Justice Roberts did say there were limits to the federal government’s powers under the commerce clause, and by doing it in a case that approved Obamacare (instead of striking it down), he did not give liberals/progressives the easy foothold to oppose the limits.  They won the case; why are they complaining about the reasoning?

Third, and tied in point two, I like that part of the decision that struck down, by a 7-2 majority, the section of Obamacare that tried to blackmail the states into accepting Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid by threatening to withhold all of the money that states are already getting for Medicaid if they refused to go along with, and pay part of the cost of, the federal government’s proposed expansion of Medicaid.  This could wind up being a significant limit on the federal government’s ability to force the states to do what the Feds want by threatening to withhold money.  Believers in federalism have to be happy with this part of the decision.  I don’t see how big government Democrats/liberals/progressives can be.

Fourth, I understand that Obamacare is still around.  But within five to ten years, I do not think it will matter.  Obamacare is incredibly complicated.  (I once compared it to a Rube Goldberg invention, which is unfair to Rube Goldberg inventions because they work.)   Under the law one group gets healthcare coverage one way while another group gets it in a different way and a third group gets it a third way.  Very complicated.  And with the attempted forcing of states to participate in the expansion of Medicaid thrown out, who knows how many of those people will get coverage or how that coverage will be paid for.

Certainly, experience with provisions of the law that have gone into effect has not been good.  Cost estimates of particular provisions have been wrong.  Estimates of the numbers of people that would be served by other provisions have been way off.  And if estimates and projections have been so wrong on small things, why should there be any confidence on what the law’s proponents have told us on how the rest of the law is going to work?

The law is not going to work as we have been told it would.  It will need to be replaced or changed so much that it will unrecognizable.  Or we will be left with a healthcare system worse than the one we have now.  Which may be my scariest comment about the decision.  But that is a comment on the law, not on what the Supreme Court did.

"Thatababy" by Paul Trap

I have included a couple of Paul Trap's comics from Baseball America in my blog.  This is from his comic strip "Thatababy".  It's great.  You can find it at www.GoComics.com or here.

Childcare Subsidies for Stay-At-Home Parents – Part Two

Two weeks ago I wrote about a government proposal in Germany to give childcare subsidies to parents who stay home and care for their children themselves.  (The government already provides government-subsidized day care for parents who work.).  In that post, I imagined some of the objections if such a program were suggested in the United States and gave my responses.

Since writing that post, I have seen more of the responses in Germany to the proposal.  According to Der Spiegel, a German news magazine: “[T]he center-left opposition has blasted it for promoting an antiquated view of women’s role in society.” 

“The Local” reports on the reaction of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development:

“[P]aying a parent to stay at home with their young children could not only reduce Germany’s female workforce, but work against the integration of the country’s migrants – something the government has been striving to promote.

The organization is concerned that the money could become an incentive for women to give up work, and make it less likely they look for a job.”

What I don’t understand about these objections is this:  Where is the right of parents to decide for themselves what to do?

Isn’t the “antiquated view of women’s role in society” the idea that everybody has to do the same thing, that they all have to stay at home or they all have to go to work (as in East Germany)?  Wouldn’t the modern view be that each woman should have the right to decide for herself whether to stay home or go to work?

If an immigrant mother would rather stay at home with her children, even though they might wind up learning German a little later, isn’t that her choice?  Does the government or some political party really think they know what is best for everybody such that they have the right to stop people from doing what they want or to make it so expensive that low-income people really don’t have a choice?

Why can’t we let people choose for themselves?

Germany Tells Obama to Fix the U.S. Deficit Before Telling Others What to Do

See these excerpts from an article in Der Spiegel, a German news magazine, yesterday:

“German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble rebuffed recent criticism of Germany's handling of the euro crisis from Barack Obama, telling the US president to get his own house in order before giving advice.

‘Herr Obama should above all deal with the reduction of the American deficit. That is higher than that in the euro zone,’ he told German public broadcaster ZDF on Sunday night. It is easy to give advice to others, he added. …

In the interview, Schäuble also reiterated his opposition to euro bonds, saying countries must remain individually liable for their public debt as long as they were taking sovereign decisions on how the money was being spent.

‘If you spend the money from my account, you won't be frugal with the money,’ said the finance minister.”

Trading Matt Garza for Prospects? Didn’t that Already Happen?

The rumors are that the Cubs may be looking to trade Matt Garza for prospects.  Of course, the Cubs have already been involved in a trade like that.  A year and a half ago, Jim Hendry traded Cubs prospects, and lots of them, for Matt Garza.  Phil Rogers wrote in yesterday’s Tribune about the major league debut of one of them, right-handed pitcher Chris Archer.  Another, outfielder Brendan Guyer, has already been in the majors and was called up again this year before he had to undergo shoulder surgery for a torn labrum in his left shoulder.  Oh, and that’s not all.  The Cubs also gave up Hak-Ju Lee, a shortstop who was number two on this year’s Baseball America list of top ten prospects for the Rays.

In other words, if the Cubs are lucky, Theo Epstein, et al., might get as many good prospects for Matt Garza as Jim Hendry gave up to get him.

And this is what concerns me:  When the Rickettses bought the Cubs, Tom Ricketts seemed to think Jim Hendry, whose modus operandi was to trade prospects for expensive players on other teams, was great.  Now he thinks Theo Epstein and his team are great.  The real question is:  Does Tom Ricketts know what he is doing?

Letting Low-Income Parents Choose Schools for Their Children, Just Like the Rich Do

The Administration has, reluctantly, allowed a modest increase in the number of federally-funded scholarships in the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program.  This program provides scholarships of up to $12,000 a year to low-income families in the District of Columbia, allowing them to send their children to private schools, if they want to.  The program was established in the George W. Bush administration, and Democrats/the Obama administration have been trying to end it ever since.

The Administration’s feelings about the program can be seen in the statement it issued after agreeing to increase the program by about 85 students.  (There are 1615 in the program now.)  According to The Washington Post:  “The statement by Education Secretary Arne Duncan attributed the increase to the need to ensure sufficient numbers of students for the statistically valid evaluation mandated by Congress.”

People who don’t like these kinds of programs argue the important thing is to improve the public schools that low-income children go to now.  Don’t abandon the public schools, they say.  Make them better.  Also, they argue that the private schools aren’t demonstrably better; that their scores aren’t statistically significantly better.  Or if they are better, it’s because they get the better students.

But those arguments don’t really respond to the reason I this program.  My support for this program is not because the private schools’ scores are better from a statistically significant point of view.  The reason I like the program is that it gives low-income parents the same chance to choose what school their children go to that rich people already have.  The parents whose children participate in this program can’t afford a house in a Virginia school district with good schools (like Education Secretary Duncan) or private school tuition to a top-notch private school in DC (like President Obama).

What I want to do is to figure out a way to let low-income people have the same chance to choose where their children go to school, just like high-income people.  High-income people aren’t forced to send their children to one particular school.  They can pick where their children go to school by moving or by paying tuition.  They can choose.  And that is what I want to let low-income people do, too.  I want them to be able to choose.

After all, if we trust rich people to pick the best school for their children, why can’t we trust low-income parents to choose for their children?  Are rich people smarter, such they can choose, while low-income people aren't smart enough to choose?  I don’t think so.  I don’t care how much money parents make, I think they are the best people to decide where their children go to school.  I trust parents to choose the best schools for their children.  Because they know their children best.

One final comment:  I hear it said every time some public official sends his or her children to a private school (or chooses to live in a school district with great public schools) but then opposes programs like the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, that we shouldn’t mention their children.  That they have the right to do what is right for their children and it is not relevant to their political positions.  I’m getting tired of that argument.  Politicians like the ones I mentioned above have enough money to choose where their children go to school.  But they oppose programs that will give low-income people have the same right to choose.  They say they want to make public schools better.  Fine.  Then they should send their children to those public schools while they are making them better.  If they think their promises to make public schools better are good enough for the children of low-income people, then they ought to be good enough for their children, too.

Is Anthony Rizzo the Most Hyped Cubs Rookie Ever? Not If You Remember Corey Patterson

Dale Svuem says he doesn’t remember a player he coached getting as much hype as Anthony Rizzo.  Casey Coleman says much the same thing.  That may be true, but then neither of them were here in 2001 when Corey Patterson came up.

Kerry Wood – New York Yankee

Here’s a nice entry about Kerry Wood in “The New York Times Baseball Blog”.  Sometimes it’s hard for Cubs fans to remember that Woody wasn’t always with the Cubs, even if he was always a Cub.  Kerry had a great couple of months with the Yankees at the end of the 2010 season, setting up for Mariano Riveria.  He was 2-0, with a 0.69 ERA in 26 innings over 24 games.  In seven games in the postseason he had a 3.38 ERA in eight games.

What Should the Fed Do If the Economy and Unemployment Stall?

In a news conference on Wednesday, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke made it clear that the Fed will act if unemployment doesn’t start coming down from its 8.2% level.  Dr. Bernanke said:

“I wouldn’t accept the proposition that the Fed has no more ammunition.  [I]f we don’t see continued improvement in the labor market we’ll be prepared to take additional steps.”*

The Federal Reserve also announced that it would continue its “Operation Twist” program through the end of 2012.  In Operation Twist, the Fed sells short-term securities and uses the proceeds to buy longer-term securities.  The idea is to lower long-term interest rates and, thereby, encourage business investment and personal spending.

The Wall Street Journal is skeptical of the extension of Operation Twist:

“Fed officials clearly feel the need to do something to spur growth, but if the price of money were the answer the economy should be booming.  Instead, each episode of monetary easing has inspired a burst of market euphoria followed not long afterward by a slow-growth hangover. …

The basic mistake is relying on monetary policy to conjure growth, when what we need are supply-side fiscal and regulatory policies.”**

I would say it a little differently.  I think the Fed would be making a mistake if it tries to do too much.  There are things it can do.  Paul Volcker showed how it can cut inflation (if it has political backing, which he did).  But the Fed can’t do everything.  And it shouldn’t try.

In terms of helping the economy, the key for government, whether the Federal Reserve or Congress or the President, is to set the right conditions so the economy can grow.  In doing that, there are certain things the Fed can do – and needs to do.  But there are also things that need to be done by the political branches.  Currently, Congress and the President can’t agree on doing those.  The President thinks government should one thing.  The House thinks it should do something else.  And Senate, well, it just doesn’t seem to think anything.

But just because the Congress and President aren’t doing their job, doesn’t mean the Federal Reserve should try to do it for them.  When the Federal Reserve does the things that it knows how to do and that are within its area of competence, it can do a good job.  But when it tries to do things that are beyond its competence (other than in absolute extreme emergencies, like the fall of 2008), it will not only probably fail at what it is trying to do, but it may also reduce its ability to actually do the things it normally can do.

Let me channel my inner George Will and make a baseball analogy:  When Sammy Sosa tried to hit home runs, he usually couldn’t.  He’d often strike out or pop up.  But when he “stayed within himself,” when he didn’t over-try, he could hit them.  And he did.  There is an old baseball saying:  You can’t hit a three-run homer with nobody on base.  In other words, don’t try to do too much.  You need to do your job and let your teammates do theirs.  Because when you try to do too much, you won’t even do what you normally can do.

That is what the Fed needs to remember.  It needs to “stay within itself,” i.e., to stay within its expertise and within what it can do.  If it does, it will do its part.  But it shouldn’t try to hit a three-run homer with nobody on base.  It can’t do it all by itself.  It needs to rely on its teammates, Congress and the President, to do their part.  If they don’t do their job, that is their fault, but the Fed shouldn’t try to make up for their failure by doing something it can’t do.  Because by trying to do too much, the Fed could easily wind up not even accomplishing what it actually can do.  And reducing its credibility for being able to do its real job in the future. 

---------
* Kristina Peterson and Jon Hilsenrath, “Fed Warns of Risk to Economy,” The Wall Street Journal, June 21, 2012.

** “Twist and Pout,” The Wall Street Journal, June 21, 2012.

June 23: Thanks, Ryno

It's the 28th anniversary of the "Sandberg Game."  Here and here.