AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Subject: HOPE: Judge Napolitano says ObamaCare will be judged unconstitutional by Supreme Courtt.

Constitutional Judge Andrew Napolitano (you've seen him on FOX), says the following in an article in Newsmax:

"The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to regulate the state governments," Napolitano says. "Nevertheless, in this piece of legislation, the Congress has told the state governments that they must modify their regulation of certain areas of healthcare, they must surrender their regulation of other areas of healthcare, and they must spend state taxpayer-generated dollars in a way that the Congress wants it done.


"That's called commandeering the legislature," he says. "That's the Congress taking away the discretion of the legislature with respect to regulation, and spending taxpayer dollars. That's prohibited in a couple of Supreme Court cases. So on that argument, the attorneys general have a pretty strong case and I think they will prevail.”


Napolitano, author of his just-released “Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History” and a Fox News senior judicial analyst, is the youngest Superior Court judge ever to attain lifetime tenure in the state of New Jersey. He served on the bench from 1987 to 1995.


Napolitano tells Newsmax that the longstanding precedent of state regulation of the healthcare industry makes the new federal regulations that much more problematic.


"The Supreme Court has ruled that in areas of human behavior that are not delegated to the Congress in the Constitution, and that have been traditionally regulated by the states, the Congress can't simply move in there," Napolitano says. "And the states for 230 years have had near-exclusive regulation over the delivery of healthcare. The states license hospitals. The states license medications. The states license healthcare providers whether they're doctors, nurses, or pharmacists. The feds have had nothing to do with it.


"The Congress can't simply wake up one day and decide that it wants to regulate this. I predict that the Supreme Court will invalidate major portions of what the president just signed into law…"


The judge also says he would rate President Obama as one of the worst presidents in terms of obedience to constitutional limitations.

Americans are now pretty evenly divided about whether they would rather have Barack Obama or George W. Bush in the White House. 48% prefer Obama while 46% say they would rather have the old President back.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/14/obligatory-polls-obama-leads-bush-by-two-ron-paul-by-one/

Our monthly look ahead to the 2012 Presidential race finds Barack Obama more or less tied with all four of the leading candidates for the Republican nomination. He trails Mike Huckabee 47-45 and Mitt Romney 45-44, ties Newt Gingrich at 45-45, and leads Sarah Palin 47-45. This is the weakest performance Obama’s posted in these 13 monthly surveys and a pretty clear indication that passing health care has not done anything to enhance his political standing, at least in the short term.
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/04/obama-gop-folks-knotted-up.html

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19216&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD

"SPREADING THE WEALTH" ISN'T FAIR

President Obama says he wants to create what he calls "a sense of balance and fairness in our tax code," and ensure that well-off Americans "pay their fair share." He famously defended his planned tax hikes to "Joe the Plumber" by saying, "I think when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody."

Starting in January 2011, "the rich" -- defined by President Obama as individuals earning more than $200,000 and families earning more than $250,000 per year -- will see their marginal tax rate rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent.

Their effective tax rate will increase even more as certain credits and deductions are phased out.

Meanwhile, projections from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center showed that 38 percent of Americans were expected to have had zero or negative federal individual income tax liability in 2009, before the stimulus was enacted.

After President Obama's budget, stimulus, and other tax changes, this proportion will increase to nearly 46 percent in 2011, all while the federal government grows in size.

Simple facts about our tax system do not support the contention that it is "unfair" in favor of the rich, says Arthur C. Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute:

According to the most recent IRS data, the top 5 percent of earners bring in 37 percent of the income but pay 60 percent of the federal individual income taxes.

The bottom half of earners bring home 12 percent of the income but pay 3 percent of the taxes.

Today, according to the Tax Foundation, 60 percent of Americans consume more in government services than they pay in taxes.

The president's argument is wrong, says Brooks. There is nothing inherently fair about equalizing incomes. If the government penalizes you for working harder than somebody else, that is unfair. If you save your money but retire with the same pension as a free-spending neighbor, that is also unfair.

Real fairness, says Brooks, does not mean bringing the top down. Yes, free markets tend to produce unequal incomes. We should not be ashamed of that. On the contrary, our system is the envy of the world and should be a source of pride. Generation after generation, it has rewarded hard work and good values, education and street smarts. It has offered the world's most disadvantaged not government redistribution but a chance to earn their success.

Source: Arthur C. Brooks, "'Spreading The Wealth' Isn't Fair," Wall Street Journal, April 14, 2010.

Starting in January 2011, "the rich" -- defined by President Obama as individuals earning more than $200,000 and families earning more than $250,000 per year -- will see their marginal tax rate rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent.

I am trying to find a good comparsion between the flat and fair tax arguments.