You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘John Galt’s Grandchildren’ category.
It’s not only Americans who are rediscovering the virtue of rational self-interest. Howard Roark in New Delhi
…As modern India continues to undergo seismic economic and cultural shifts, not to mention the current global recession, Rand is emerging as a touchstone for a new generation. For many Indians, she is a tonic of modernization, helping to inspire a break with India’s collectivist, socialist past. Rand’s mixture of capitalist boosterism and self-empowerment is an irresistible combination for a range of Indians, from think-tankers to corporate barons to pop stars…
More at the link.
Good Intentions Aren’t Enough with Health Care Reform
…Americans want health care reform because we want affordable health care. We don’t need subsidies or a public option. We don’t need a nationalized health care industry. We need to reduce health care costs. But the Senate Finance plan will dramatically increase those costs, all the while ignoring common sense cost-saving measures like tort reform. Though a Congressional Budget Office report confirmed that reforming medical malpractice and liability laws could save as much as $54 billion over the next ten years, tort reform is nowhere to be found in the Senate Finance bill. [17]
Here’s a novel idea. Instead of working contrary to the free market, let’s embrace the free market. Instead of going to war with certain private sector companies, let’s embrace real private-sector competition and allow consumers to purchase plans across state lines. Instead of taxing the so-called “Cadillac” plans that people get through their employers, let’s give individuals who purchase their own health care the same tax benefits we currently give employer-provided health care recipients. Instead of crippling Medicare, let’s reform it by providing recipients with vouchers so that they can purchase their own coverage…
More at the link.
Wyoming Governor Calls for 10th Amendment Resolution
Ohio Tea Party and other organizations unite: Support Ohio Sovereignty Aug 1, 2009
From The Pincer Movement:
…Though the 10th Amendment is entrenched in the Constitution, forcing its application has become a burden of the states themselves. Clearly the federal government has not only ignored the Mighty 10th, it will undoubtedly fight vehemently any attempt to enforce it. After all, most politicians have massive egos and aren’t inclined to voluntarily shed themselves of power; this includes most federal judges.
So the battle that is now just commencing will be long and hard. Any legal foundational help will be welcome. That help could come from what is referred to as the Enumerated Powers Acts (HR450 and S1319) currently in congressional committee. The House bill was introduced by Arizona’s John Shadegg and the Senate sister by Tom Coburn of Oklahoma…
More at the link.
In Congress, not in the hands of the unelected bureaucrats of the EPA. Blackburn, Conaway Move To Stop Egregious Regulation
Discharge Petition Would Preserve Congressional Authority
Washington, Jul 24 – Representatives Marsha Blackburn (TN-7) and Michael Conaway (TX-11) today filed a discharge petition for HR 391, a bill that would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating “greenhouse gases” under the Clean Air Act.
…A discharge petition requires the Speaker to bring a bill to the floor for a vote when a majority of Representatives have signed the petition. “If you share our view that Congress should be the sole authority deciding if greenhouse gasses should be regulated, we urge you to sign the discharge petition,” Blackburn and Conaway said in a letter to their colleagues.
More at the link.
To Florida schools. From Tallahassee.com, Editorial: It makes sense
Law will force another look at zero-tolerance
Amid the flurry of bills Gov. Crist has signed into law in recent weeks, one got the governor’s John Hancock with little fanfare. It should have been publicly heralded as the return of common sense.
In fact, SB 1540, which requires school boards to revisit their zero-tolerance policies, was lauded by the governor as just that. With support from Florida’s Department of Juvenile Justice and law-enforcement agencies throughout the state, the measure is touted as a means of reducing the number of juveniles who are needlessly thrust into the system because of minor infractions — most commonly, petty disobedience.
Consider cases from several headlines: In March, a Lakeland boy was suspended from school for intentionally passing gas on a school bus. In Hernando County, an 11-year-old girl was suspended for bringing a plastic butter knife to school. A student in Brandon was suspended because a calculator he brought to school was equipped with a “knife-like object.”
In too many cases, it had become clear that the state-sanctioned zero-tolerance policy was being abused by school districts to dump children into the juvenile-justice system rather than finding acceptable ways to deal with minor cases of acting out or acting up.
Much more at the link.
H/T Overlawyered
It should be good enough for Congress: Congressmen Who Vote for Government-Run Health Care Agency Should Be Its First Customers, Legislation Says
Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) introduced a bill Monday that urges members of Congress who vote to create a government-run health insurance agency to give up their own comprehensive health insurance plans to join the new the public option they advocate for others.
The bill, H. Res. 615, says members of Congress who vote for a government-run health care bureau should become the inaugural customers of government-run health-care.
“That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option,” the resolution reads.
A non-binding resolution, but a start. More at the link.
Arizona Moves to Oppose Obama’s Expected Health Care Mandates
Voters in Arizona will decide next year whether residents will be subject to mandates in the pending health care reform that President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are promoting.
At least five other states – Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wyoming – have considered proposals to take pre-emptive action against the pending federal mandates, but those proposals have either not made it out of committee, failed to get enough votes from one side of the legislature, or are still being crafted.
Only the Arizona Legislature introduced an initiative (HCR2014), which if passed, would amend the state constitution to codify that no resident would be required to participate in any public health care option. Arizonans will vote on the initiative in November 2010.
“HCR2014 is proactive and will protect patients’ fundamental rights,” Arizona State Rep. Nancy Barto, a Republican, said in a statement. “We are a front-line battle state to stop the momentum of this powerful government takeover of your health care decisions. Health care by lobbyists thwarts your rights and can be stopped here.”
It’s a matter of state sovereignty:
Vukmir said that the Obama proposal could be unconstitutional, under the Tenth Amendment, which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
“I’m a strong believer in the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment,” Vukmir told CNSNews.com. “The Tenth Amendment has been eroded by Congress and the Supreme Court for decades. We have to ask, does the Tenth Amendment have any meaning? We are supposed to have strong state governments and a weak central government. That has eroded away.”
Some specifics:
Arizona’s Health Care Freedom Act, firstly, establishes the right of state residents to spend their own money to seek and receive health care and, secondly, the right to choose not to participate in any health care system of any type.
Good for Arizona.
It appears there are still a few free market advocates in Washington. From Human Events, Breaking Down Government Motors
…Thankfully, freedom still has a voice in Congress. Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) introduced legislation that would require Congressional approval before the government takes ownership of a private enterprise. This bill would allow Congress to stop the current shift away from free-market principles.
Johanns is not the only free-marketer. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) has introduced legislation to require the federal government to distribute its ownership shares in General Motors and Chrysler to taxpayers when those companies emerge from bankruptcy proceedings. Alexander argues, “instead of the Treasury owning 60 percent of shares in the new GM and 8 percent of Chrysler, you would own them, if you were one of about 120 million individuals who paid taxes on April 15. This is the fastest way to get the stock out of the hands of Washington and back into the hands of the American people in the marketplace where it belongs.”
Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) also joined the fray last weekend, introducing legislation that would restore private ownership to companies that have been effectively nationalized. The Thune proposal would make July 1, 2010 a new day of independence. By that date, the government would have to sell any ownership stake acquired over the past year-and-a-half. There’s no better way to fight the ever-expanding power of the federal government’s ownership in private enterprises than to legislate it out of existence…
Much more at the link.
We need more. The Tea Party movement needs to identify and support them.
There’s a whole of shaking going on, and big government types don’t like it. From the Washington Times, Mont. gun law challenges federal powers
A new Montana gun law puts the state at the forefront of a national bid to restore states’ rights by attacking up to a century of federal court decisions on Washington’s power.
Two other states – Alaska and Texas – have had favorable votes on laws similar to Montana’s, declaring that guns that stay within the state are none of the feds’ business. More than a dozen others are considering such laws, and more-general declarations of state sovereignty have been introduced this year in more than 30 legislatures.
The federal courts may not respond well to these laws in the short term, but backers who acknowledge this say that regardless, they intend for the laws to change the political landscape in the long term. They hope these state laws will undercut the legitimacy of contrary federal law – as has happened with medicinal marijuana – and even push federal courts to bend with the popular wind.
Montana law proponents say the real target of this legislation is courts’ interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause:
“The Interstate Commerce Clause has grown and grown until the government asserts authority over everything under the sun,” said Mr. Marbut, who wrote the original firearms legislation. “How much water you have in your toilet. Almost all environmental laws. Maybe one-third of all federal regulations are asserted under the Commerce Clause.”
…In that sense, the law is only nominally about guns. “Guns are the object, but states’ rights are the subject,” he said.
Five states have their own version of the law, although it hasn’t passed their full Legislatures: Alaska, Texas, Minnesota, South Carolina and Tennessee. Several more are considering it: Georgia, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Kansas, Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho and Washington.
Opponents don’t want the all-powerful-Federal-government boat rocked:
Mr. Helmke added that the courts were unlikely to side with Montana, describing the Interstate Commerce Clause as “settled federal law.”
“In effect, Montana’s trying to turn back the clock to pre-New Deal times, or even pre-Civil War times,” Mr. Helmke said.
Hole in one, sir. That’s what state sovereignty and Tea Party movements are about, getting the country back to Founding Principles.
