Unfortunately, I don’t have much time today to comment on the Supreme Court’s big decision in the so-called Healthcare Cases. But I drew some degree of satisfaction from the Court’s decision that the mandate was a tax. Long-time readers of the blog (yes, all five of you) may recall that I made that argument almost two years ago. It seems to have taken the Supreme Court quite a bit of time, paper, and angst to come around to my position, but I’m glad they ultimately did.
/smugness
-Michael
Is there a connection between the increasingly anti-Muslim tenor of American political discourse and the persistent rumors of Obama’s secret Islamic faith?
There’s no way to empirically prove the connection that I can think of, but I do wonder if the paranoia over Obama’s religious beliefs and location of birth have contributed to the current hostility towards Islam, culminating in the “Ground Zero Mosque” controversy.
Under Bush, the hysteria over Muslims as a whole was not as prominent. The hysteria over Muslim terrorists was pretty high, yes, but there was a firm distinction drawn between “Muslims” and “terrorists.” Bush’s political message was, in general, focused on outreach to and inclusion of the Muslim majority while characterizing Al-Qaeda and other terrorists groups as “a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam”:
I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It’s practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.
For Obama, however, such inclusiveness and tolerance comes at a much higher political cost and meets with greater resistance and anger. Although he did publicly defend the building of Park51 — a step I was surprised to see him take, and do give him credit for — it came at a very high cost in terms of the poll numbers.
Bush could defend the rights of Muslims and be thought of a just and respectful man for it; but no one believed Bush was secretly born in a Muslim nation, and he was overwhelmingly known to be a Christian. He also took a hawkish approach to foreign policy and national security, and had the Republican branding on both those points to back him up.
Although Obama is no dove — and, if anything, he has simply continued the national security strategy of the previous administration — he is viewed as weaker on national security by default for being a Democrat. He has done a good job of giving his critics very little ammo on this front, though, and by and large the “Obama is a weakling dove” meme hasn’t taken hold, because Obama’s policies haven’t given the media any chance to spin him out as a coward who won’t use force when it’s require. However, the “Obama is an Anti-American Islamosocialist” meme is out in full force, and it polarizes any political issue that touches on Islam.
In fact, 1 out of every 5 Americans believe Obama is a Muslim. And if you narrow the sample down to Republicans, a whopping 1 in the 3 believe he is. This is stupidly, crazy high.
And in an America where nearly 20% of the population thinks their president is a “secret Muslim,” there is less room for tolerance and nuance in political messaging. I do suspect that the fact Obama is president is a large part of why — compared to eight or nine years ago — expressions of anti-Muslim sentiment have increased and been met with greater acceptance, and I suspect it is also why the Ground Zero Mosque controversy came to exist at all.
-Susan
When I learned recently that the Department of Justice is arguing that the individual mandate falls within Congress’ tax power, I had to chuckle. You see, a while back I wrote my one and only post on the healthcare debate, in which I argued that the individual mandate was, in fact, a tax. Of course, Obama disputed that very point in an interview with ABC.
Mr. Stephanopoulos posed the obvious question about this kind of coercion when “the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t [buy insurance]. . . . How is that not a tax?”
“Well, hold on a second, George,” Mr. Obama replied. “Here’s what’s happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average—our families—in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I’ve said is that if you can’t afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn’t be punished for that. That’s just piling on. If, on the other hand, we’re giving tax credits, we’ve set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we’ve driven down the costs, we’ve done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you’ve just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that’s . . .”
But I guess he’s changed his mind. Perhaps he reads our blog.
I understand, of course, that Obama’s words don’t forever bind the government. There’s no estoppel against the government, and DOJ has the right to assert whatever non-frivolous defense of statute it wants. Still, doesn’t this seem kinda . . . screwy?
-Michael
Update: Over at Balkinization, Jack Balkin explains why the government’s tax argument is not a concession that the Commerce Clause argument is weak. I note this primarily because the post is an epic takedown of the often-annoying Randy Barnett (of the Volokh Conspirary).
The Daily Caller has an interesting piece today noting that Obama has not yet pardoned anyone. This “pardon drought” is apparently one of the longest in U.S. history, trailing just behind Washington, Adams, Clinton, and Bush (W). (Also, as pardon expert P.S. Ruckman, Jr. observed, Iran has pardoned more people than Obama lately.) In some ways, Obama’s decision is unsurprising, as the pardon power seems to be a “no-win” situation. Pardoning a criminal isn’t going to earn celebration from a big chunk of the electorate, while a bad pardon can be disastrous. Will these considerations drive the presidential pardon into extinction? And is that a bad thing?
As The Seattle Times explained, ”[t]he concept of clemency dates to Babylonian times, acting as a safety valve for criminal sentences that kings believed were unjust, or a means to show their power to be merciful. Without clemency, Alexander Hamilton wrote, ‘justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel.’” The Framers embraced the right of clemency in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, which provides that the president “shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” Thus, the President may grant clemency in any situation involving a federal crime (which would, interestingly, include any crime here in DC). The pardon (like other forms of clemency, such as commutation) is meant to address the grey areas of the law while providing a degree of relief to those who have paid their debt and want their rights back.
The president’s clemency power, however, does not give the criminal complete absolution; it carries an imputation of guilt, and the acceptance of a pardon is tantamount to a confession. See Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 76 (1915). Moreover, pardons do not often allow convicts to escape from prison time, as they’re only given to those [(update: under the Guidelines, at least)] who have served their prison terms and proven they can live a productive life. It’s also unlikely to go to anyone who committed a violent crime. (See, for example, Bush’s pardons.)
To be honest, even though the system is relatively rigid and doesn’t leave murderers wandering the streets or anything, I don’t really see the de facto disappearance of the pardon as a bad thing. Given their scarcity (even before the recent drought), pardons strike me as an arbitrary act of executive grace that is too de minimis to have any effect on the system as a whole. It also seems to be an archaic holdover from a time when the king had absolute power — but that absolute power concept is contrary to the American concept of a more limited chief executive. The pardon abrogates the finding of the jury who convicted the pardoned by stripping the verdict of its punitive weight. And it appears prone to substantial abuse.
So, here’s hoping the drought continues.
-Michael
Obama is making diversity a top priority for his Supreme Court pick. But now comes news that he and Joe Biden interviewed 9th Circuit Judge Sidney Thomas for the opening. Why hasn’t someone pointed out the obvious: there’s already a “Thomas, J.” on the court!
I’m just sayin’.
-Michael
Smart and Beautiful Girlfriend spotted something interesting tonight: a rare show of emotion during the State of the Union from one of the Supreme Court justices. When Obama suggested that Citizens United would “open the floodgates” to corporate spending in elections, Justice Alito visibly shook his head and said, “Not true.” He then seemingly caught himself and smiled.
Looks like the Justices are sensitive to criticism, too.
-Michael
Update: CNN is reporting Alito said, “No, that’s not right.”
The latest popular religious-political brouhaha to erupt involves a new conservative slogan, which is being featured on bumper stickers, t-shirts, coffee mugs, and other items of internet kitsch. The slogan is, “Pray for Obama, Psalm 109:8.”
On the face of it, Psalm 109:8 does seem like an appropriate sentiment for a right-leaning Christian to pray for God to bring onto Obama: “Let his days be few; and let another take his office.”
But the slogan might be worth reexamining when taken with the rest of the text of Psalm 109:
6 Appoint an evil man to oppose him;
let an accuser stand at his right hand.7 When he is tried, let him be found guilty,
and may his prayers condemn him.8 May his days be few;
may another take his place of leadership.9 May his children be fatherless
and his wife a widow.10 May his children be wandering beggars;
may they be driven from their ruined homes.11 May a creditor seize all he has;
may strangers plunder the fruits of his labor.12 May no one extend kindness to him
or take pity on his fatherless children.13 May his descendants be cut off,
their names blotted out from the next generation.14 May the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the LORD;
may the sin of his mother never be blotted out.15 May their sins always remain before the LORD,
that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth.
Bible verses are often quoted in a way that obscures or sanitizes the meaning if taken in context, and the vast majority of the time the “true” meaning is adamantly not implied or suggested by whoever is using the quotation. However, while undoubtedly some people purchasing the Psalm 109 products do so with unawareness of the double meaning, I do not think all who advocate the slogan’s use do so in good faith.
People are defending the “Pray for Obama Psalm 109″ slogan even after being informed of the larger and more sinister context of the verse. Those in favor of the slogan argue that they don’t mean the slogan “like that,” so the shirts are merely expressing a benign sentiment. However, what this argument basically boils down to is that it is acceptable to deliberately spread about misinterpretations of the Bible and to obscure the true meaning of God’s word. Somehow, I don’t think that argument is entirely coherent with certain other Biblical passages.
At least one online company has announced it will no longer sell Psalm 109 shirts, although when I checked earlier, the shirt pictured in the image above was still available for purchase. Zazzle says:
With that in mind, it is only after great thought that we have determined that these products, in the context of the full text of Psalm 109, may be interpreted in such a way as to suggest physical harm to the President of the United States. In deference to the Office of the President of the United States, and in accordance with federal law prohibiting the making of threats against the physical wellbeing of the President of the United States, Zazzle has therefore determined that these products are in violation of the Zazzle User Agreement and not appropriate for inclusion in the Zazzle Marketplace. We have begun efforts to remove them from our website, and we will be vigilant to the publication of similar products moving forward.
-Susan
Obama’s speech on Saturday annoyed me, but it was a subdued, anticipated annoyance. Everyone knows Obama’s done jack all for gay rights and he has no plans on immediately addressing the issue. The only semi-firm commitment he made was to not let his nominees or appointees lose their jobs on the basis of opposition to their sexual orientation — and if he actually keeps that pledge, well, it’s a start.
But this whole hoopla over the “internet left fringe,” no matter how significant the misstatement truly was or whether it was just an extremely clumsy paraphrase by NBC’s Harwood, set me off like dry tender. And apparently it had the same effect on all those pajama-clad bloggers.
Obama’s generically supportive speech leaves a lot of room for criticism:
“I greatly appreciate the support I’ve received from many in this room. I also appreciate that many of you don’t believe that progress has come fast enough. I want to be honest about that. Because it’s important to be honest amongst friends.”
Man, Obama is good at this whole “let’s be candid” thing. See, he’s admitting, indirectly, that he’s been a little slow; he’s softening the blow for when his detractors introduce that irrefutable criticism. And, “It’s not for me to tell you to be patient,” Obama acknowledges. He’s not counseling patience — in a round-about, politician-speak way, he’s telling supporters of GLBT rights that they need to keep doing their thing and not sit around waiting for Obama to get on board. Because it is more efficient for him if he waits for a more opportune time to set his sights on the issue.
The problem is, the problem has always been, gays have no where else to go. They can’t redirect their monetary donations, they can’t start voting against the Democrats — because their only other option is a party that has made clear its choice to court the vote of those motivated by fear and prejudice rather than of those motivated by a desire for equality and human rights. So no matter how much Obama fails to come through for the GLBT wing, he knows — they ain’t going anywhere. Most people aren’t going to vote for someone who denies their equal dignity as a human being, just to make a political point.
Sure, they can reduce funding and grassroots support, but that’s a cost he is clearly willing to accept.
And you know what, I get it. I really do. Obama’s got a giant agenda, and a limited amount of time to do it. There are certain temporal orderings of the issues to be addressed that will allow more overall to be accomplished.
And I don’t necessarily disbelieve that Obama fully intends to come through on his promises — some day. But he has deftly avoided providing any sort of a time table he can be held accountable to, and if I had to guess, plans on making this a cause to take up when/if he’s a lame duck in his second term. By then, not only will there be less political risk for him, but the voter support for such a move will almost certainly have increased as well.
But that’s seven goddamned years away. I liked the fierce urgency of now better.
-Susan
The world is abuzz about Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, which was awarded this morning. Even those who support Obama recognize that the award has come pretty early in the game, before we’ve seen many concrete results. The Nobel committee admitted as much in its explanation of why it gave the prize to Obama:
In response to questions from reporters in Oslo, who noted that Obama so far has made little concrete progress in achieving his lofty agenda, committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said he hoped the prize would add momentum to Obama’s efforts. At the same time, Jagland said, “We have not given the prize for what may happen in the future. We are awarding Obama for what he has done in the past year. And we are hoping this may contribute a little bit for what he is trying to do.”
Jagland specifically cited Obama’s speech about Islam in Cairo last spring, as well as efforts to address nuclear proliferation and climate change and use established international bodies such as the United Nations to pursue his goals. The committee — made up of luminaries selected by the Norwegian government — noted a profound shift in American policy and said Obama had “created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play.”
I think the most disappointing part about this whole thing is what it says about the prospect of peace in our world. If we’re handing out awards to people who have merely expressed a willingness to engage the international community (rather than actually doing anything of substance on the international sphere), we’ve essentially conceded that the chances of anyone doing anything that will advance peace in any tangible sense is hopeless. The Obama Nobel is essentially an award of “A for effort,” because no one else even seems to be trying.
By the way, I hope to work towards a new approach to economics that allows for economic redistribution while entirely avoiding inefficiencies. I’ll take my Nobel Prize in Economics now.
Update: I never thought I’d link to him, but here it is: David Bernstein’s “Top Ten Reasons Why Obama Won the Nobel Peace Prize“.
Update Again: The Economist explains how the Prize has been given out for aspirational reasons before, but agrees with me that the award should go back to its original premise: rewarding people who have actually (already) helped acheive peace.
Although I’ve shied away from the hot potato that is the healthcare debate, Obama said something very interesting on Sunday that I just have to note:
Appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” Mr. Obama was asked by host George Stephanopoulos about the “individual mandate.” Under Max Baucus’s Senate bill that Mr. Obama supports, everyone would be required to buy health insurance or else pay a penalty as high as $3,800 a year. Mr. Stephanopoulos posed the obvious question about this kind of coercion when “the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t [buy insurance]. . . . How is that not a tax?”
“Well, hold on a second, George,” Mr. Obama replied. “Here’s what’s happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average—our families—in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I’ve said is that if you can’t afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn’t be punished for that. That’s just piling on. If, on the other hand, we’re giving tax credits, we’ve set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we’ve driven down the costs, we’ve done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you’ve just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that’s . . .”
“That may be,” Mr. Stephanopoulos responded, “but it’s still a tax increase.”
Mr. Obama: “No. That’s not true, George. The—for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore . . .”
Mr. Stephanopoulos tried again: “But it may be fair, it may be good public policy—”
Mr. Obama: “No, but—but, George, you—you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase.”
“I don’t think I’m making it up,” Mr. Stephanopoulos said. He cited [the] dictionary’s definition of “tax”—”a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”
Mr. Obama: “George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. . . .”
Mr. Stephanopoulos: ”I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.”
Mr. Obama: ”My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but . . .”
Mr. Stephanopoulos: “But you reject that it’s a tax increase?”
Mr. Obama: “I absolutely reject that notion.”
So the Baucus penalty is not a tax? But the Chairman’s Mark of the America’s Healthy Future Act [PDF] calls it an “excise tax.” (See pg. 32.) Black’s Law Dictionary also seems pretty clear: a tax is ”a monetary charge imposed by the government on persons, entities, transactions, or property to yield public revenue.” Even so, under Obama’s approach, any tax on any activity that creates social disutility is (apparently) not really a tax. It’s just the government saying it’s “not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore.”
-Michael
Update: Reason has picked up on this idea as well.
