2nd Term Priorities

Obama's prioritization
In his 2nd-term administration
Should be making some dents
In the rising expense
Of medicine and education.

This priority shouldn't give pause
To government skeptics because
There's much to be gained
By undoing the pain
From ongoing federal laws.

President Barack Obama kicked off his second inauguration yesterday with a rousing speech of liberal policy prescriptions that he intends to pursue in his new term.  Underlying much of the rhetoric was the goal of using the social fabric and safety net to support and strengthen the American middle class.  Among the many factors that have led to the hollowing-out of the middle are the rapidly rising costs of education and healthcare.  It is education that is increasingly necessary to enter the world of steady, well-paid work, while affordable healthcare would prevent much of the undoing of employer-provided benefits that we have seen in the last generation, as well as the great number of personal bankruptcies.

To those who ask: what could the federal government possibly do to arrest these cost increases, I would say: what is it currently doing to contribute to them?  Two examples come to mind.  In education, the federal government contributes to the price spiral by providing a seemingly limitless supply of student loan funding for it.  A more discriminating, less misguidedly generous posture might be in order.  In medicine, the Medicare and Medicaid programs are the biggest contributors to the "fee for service" model that is one of the roots of healthcare inflation identified by the President.  These are just two thoughts off the top of my head; I'm sure that thoughtful policymakers could find more.

Republicans in the News

The Scottish historian Niall
Said Obama had lost his appiall.
This caused a brouhaha
With Dems who said: "Ah ha!
The figures you cite are not riall."

Senatorial candidate Akin
Found his cervical knowledge mistaken.
"We must shut this thing down,"
Said Rove, "or he'll bring down
Our chance for a Senate retakin'."

"Obamacare's taking from Medicare,"
Said Ryan, "Which brings you unsteady care."
He hopes, in all fairness,
The public will care less
For ACA than they already care.

Supreme Court ACA Ruling

When the Chief Justice made a majority
To uphold the Prez' priority,
It wasn't because
Of the old commerce clause,
But the Congress' taxing authority.

In a landmark decision that delighted liberals, enraged conservatives and gave everybody something to ponder, the Supreme Court upheld President Obama's Affordable Care Act 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the majority - sort of. The rejectionists, led by usual swing voter Justice Kennedy, found the ACA "invalid in its entirety." The more liberal justices, led by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, sided with the President and his Solicitor General on the basis of Congress' ability to regulate interstate commerce. The Chief Justice, perhaps splitting hairs, would not validate the "commerce clause" argument, but did reason that the individual mandate in the ACA amounts to a tax, which the Congress has broad powers to impose. Part of the Court's ruling may be read as enabling the states to opt out of funding the expanded Medicaid coverage mandated by the ACA, which means that - even assuming the President is re-elected in the fall - we're not done fighting over Obamacare.

Overheard in the Supreme Court

"I've studied Congressional acts a lot
On the government's power to tax a lot,
Which I'll argue today,
Though tomorrow I may
Invoke contradictory facts a lot."

Intense public interest in the Supreme Court hearing on the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) means that even the most obscure preliminary arguments are followed with intense focus. Thus, the Wall Street Journal's article on the opening arguments was among the day's most popular, though it should normally have made one's eyes glaze over. The first day's argument turned on whether the penalty for non-compliance with mandated insurance is a tax. If so, argued Washington trial lawyer Robert Long, it is covered by the Anti-Injunction Act, which holds that taxes cannot be legally challenged until they are effective; in this case, that's not until 2014. The Obama administration, which evidently wants to get the legal challenges over with, did not agree, saying that the penalty is not a tax under the AIA. However, they intended to argue the next day that the penalty is covered by the government's constitutional power to levy taxes; certainly a nuanced position, to say the least.