Category: Politics

Charles Krauthammer, On Obama Care, See Commonsnese2day’s One Word Answer.

Commonsense2day thoroughly enjoys the Opinion Pages of Mr. Krauthammer, he invokes common sense 2 day. Please read his piece below, and here is our one word answer. “Romney”.

Tell us what you think….

Obamacare: The Reckoning

Obamacare dominated the 2010 midterms, driving its Democratic authors to a historic electoral shellacking. But since then, the issue has slipped quietly underground.

Now it’s back, summoned to the national stage by the confluence of three disparate events: the release of new Congressional Budget Office cost estimates, the approach of Supreme Court hearings on the law’s constitutionality and the issuance of a compulsory contraception mandate.

Cost:

Obamacare was carefully constructed to manipulate the standard 10-year cost projections of the CBO. Because benefits would not fully kick in for four years, President Obama could trumpet 10-year gross costs of less than $1 trillion — $938 billion to be exact.

But now that the near-costless years 2010 and 2011 have elapsed, the true 10-year price tag comes into focus. From 2013 through 2022, the CBO reports, the costs of Obamacare come to $1.76 trillion — almost twice the phony original number.

It gets worse. Annual gross costs after 2021 are more than a quarter of $1 trillion every year — until the end of time. That, for a new entitlement in a country already drowning in $16 trillion of debt.

Constitutionality:

Beginning Monday, the Supreme Court will hear challenges to the law. The American people, by an astonishing two-thirds majority, want the law and/or the individual mandate tossed out by the court. In practice, however, questions this momentous are generally decided 5 to 4 — i.e., they depend on whatever side of the bed Justice Anthony Kennedy gets out of that morning.

Ultimately, the question will hinge on whether the Commerce Clause has any limits. If the federal government can compel a private citizen, under threat of a federally imposed penalty, to engage in a private contract with a private entity (to buy health insurance), is there anything the federal government cannot compel the citizen to do?

If Obamacare is upheld, it fundamentally changes the nature of the American social contract. It means the effective end of a government of enumerated powers — i.e., finite, delineated powers beyond which the government may not go, beyond which lies the free realm of the people and their voluntary institutions. The new post-Obamacare dispensation is a central government of unlimited power from which citizen and civil society struggle to carve out and maintain spheres of autonomy.

Figure becomes ground; ground becomes figure. The stakes could not be higher.

Coerciveness.

Serendipitously, the recently issued regulation on contraceptive coverage has allowed us to see exactly how this new power works. All institutions — excepting only churches, but not excepting church-run charities, hospitals, etc. — will be required to offer health care that must include free contraception, sterilization and drugs that cause abortion.

Consider the cascade of arbitrary bureaucratic decisions that resulted in this edict:

(1) Contraception, sterilization and abortion pills are classified as medical prevention. On whose authority? The secretary of health and human services, invoking the Institute of Medicine. But surely categorizing pregnancy as a disease equivalent is a value decision disguised as science. If contraception is prevention, what are fertility clinics? Disease inducers? And if contraception is prevention because it lessens morbidity and saves money, by that logic, mass sterilization would be the greatest boon to public health since the pasteurization of milk.

(2) This type of prevention is free — no co-pay. Why? Is contraception morally superior to or more socially vital than — and thus more of a “right” than — penicillin for a child with pneumonia?

(3) “Religious” exemptions to this edict extend only to churches, places where the faithful worship God, and not to church-run hospitals and charities, places where the faithful do God’s work. Who promulgated this definition, so stunningly ignorant of the very idea of religious vocation? The almighty HHS secretary.

Today, it’s the Catholic Church whose free-exercise powers are under assault from this cascade of diktats sanctioned by — indeed required by — Obamacare. Tomorrow it will be the turn of other institutions of civil society that dare stand between unfettered state and atomized citizen.

Rarely has one law so exemplified the worst of the Leviathan state — grotesque cost, questionable constitutionality and arbitrary bureaucratic coerciveness. Little wonder the president barely mentioned it in his latest State of the Union address. He wants to be reelected. He’d rather talk about other things.

But there’s no escaping it now. Oral arguments begin Monday at 10 a.m.

Contact Mr. Krauthammer at: letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Original article at the Washington Post can be viewed here

Recommend to a friend

FATHER RICK SANTORUM, A NICE GUY…BUT…

Email to a Friend Email to a Friend

The 2012 republican primaries have been full of nice people, I think everyone would agree with that statement.  However, each one of them come with their own “but”. Congress woman Bachman, tore out of the gate with an Iowa straw poll win that the media latched onto to make her the first ‘flavor’ of the race, then came the ‘buts’. Then we had the rise of Herman Cain, the Godfather’s Pizza CEO, and his 999 plan, and then came his ‘but’s’ with a little side of extra cheese to boot, and the new ‘flavor’ failed to deliver, and so much so that he bowed out.

Then we had the extra-ordinary Texan who rose and fell through his seemingly odd behavior and failed debate performances which led every one to question is good old fashion IQ. Odd, but again, the flavor or the day that came and went.

And of course we have Newt, that requires no comment as his ‘buts’ are so prolific. So, here we are with Father Santorum as the new flavor of the day, the question will not be his strengths as a candidate and potential leader of the free world. The question facing the American populace will be are his ‘buts’ bigger and more troubling than Mitt Romney’s or Newt Gingrich’s but’s.

Ron Paul’s but’s are excluded for the obvious reasons.

It’s a real telling sign when we are not voting on the most qualified but instead the least offensive.

Recommend to a friend

NEWT ALL ALONE.

Email to a Friend Email to a Friend

All alone am I ever since your goodbye All alone with just a beat of my heart” (All Alone Am I/Manos Hadjidakis)

CHICAGO, February 5, 2012—Like the Brenda Lee recording, Newt Gingrich stood on a podium in an empty room, all alone, with just the sound of his voice. There were no supporters, no cheers, no Newtrons crying out “Newt, Newt, Newt!” Even his wife was missing from his side. Continue reading

Recommend to a friend

How Obama Got Elected . com

This is an insightful piece of video and documentary.  It is neither a slight on Obama nor his supporters. From our perspective it makes the case for the CommonSense2day. Those interviewed on the piece are intelligent individuals, who some may say were subjected to “media malpractice”.  This documentary highlights the importance for the American people to develop a true “common sense” understanding on the basics of mass media. Continue reading

Recommend to a friend

Charlie Gibson’s Gaffe-”The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.”

Gibson got it wrong“At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of ‘anticipatory self-defense.’ “

– New York Times, Sept. 12

Informed her? Rubbish.

The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

He asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, “In what respect, Charlie?”

Sensing his “gotcha” moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine “is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.”

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, “The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,” I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” This “with us or against us” policy regarding terror — first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan — became the essence of the Bush doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

It’s not. It’s the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush’s second inaugural address: “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”

This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy’s pledge in his inaugural address that the United States “shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson’s 14 points.

If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume — unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise — that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration.

Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption.

Not the “with us or against us” no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.

Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.

Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed “doctrines” in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.

Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.

Yes, Sarah Palin didn’t know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn’t pretend to know — while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and “sounding like an impatient teacher,” as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes’ reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.

By Charles Krauthammer
Saturday, September 13, 2008; A17
You can communicate with the author at: letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Email to a Friend Email to a Friend
Recommend to a friend

Governor Signs Chemical Castration Bill, Authorizing the Castration of Sex Offenders in Louisiana

A dose of Common Sense from Governor Bobby Jindal in Louisiana. Hat’s off to Governor Jindal, keep the “common sense” coming.

BATON ROUGE – Governor Bobby Jindal today signed the Sex Offender Chemical Castration Bill, SB 144, authorizing the castration of convicted sex offenders. Continue reading

Recommend to a friend