Think it over, then do as you're told

Washington Times:

The Obama administration announced Wednesday that it would allow insurers to issue until October 2016 health plans that do not meet Obamacare regulations, pushing back another Affordable Care Act deadline well past November's midterms.

Facing the prospect of another wave of cancellation notices this fall, the administration took even further action to mitigate the blowback from President Obama's broken promise that all Americans could keep their health care plans under Obamacare.

Not long ago, congressional Republicans attempted to pass legislation which would have made changes to ObamaCare. Obama fought this legislation, insisting that ObamaCare is "settled law." This made no sense, of course, since Congress has the constitutional authority to pass new laws. A law is only "settled" until Congress says it's not. (The president has veto power, of course, but the point stands: there is no such thing as settled law as Obama would have it.)

Since then, Obama has made dozens of changes to what he insists is "settled law," all without these changes being first voted on by Congress. The president has no authority to make or change laws on his own, which means that in addition to being a liar and a hypocrite, Obama has repeatedly violated the oath he took to uphold the Constitution. In a sane world, he would be impeached for this, but we don't live in a sane world.

As the Times article suggests, this latest change, allowing insurers not to obey "settled law" until after the 2016 presidential election, is politically motivated. Democrats own ObamaCare, and they can't afford to have millions of cancellation notices sent out prior to a big election. They say otherwise, of course, but the rationale they give is completely transparent:

“We’re extending this to give people an opportunity to make a judgment about what works best for them and their families,” a senior administration official said, briefing reporters on the major policy change.

Let's walk this through. The law, as written, automatically cancels the insurance policies of millions of Americans and forces them into policies the government says they must have. People are upset about this, as Obama repeatedly promised them the law would do no such thing. ("If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.")

So now comes this delay, pushing the betrayal of that promise up past the 2016 presidential election. And the reason given is "to give people an opportunity to make a judgment about what works best for them." But what will happen after people make that judgement? The government will ignore it, cancel their policies, and herd them into ObamaCare policies anyway! 

We'll give you a little time to decide before we force you to do it our way.

I'm tempted to ask just how stupid they think we are, but we keep electing people who treat us like sheep, so I guess I have my answer.

Stop the flood

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Thursday blasted as “amnesty” a House GOP plan to give legal status to millions of immigrants living in the country illegally.

“I think it would be a mistake if House Republicans were to support amnesty for those here illegally,” he said when asked about the proposal to be outlined in the House GOP's immigration principles.

Other Republicans in the House who support the plan have gone to great lengths to push back on the idea that granting legal status would be amnesty. (The Hill)

Republicans are quibbling over the definition of amnesty as if the word, not the policy, is the issue. And to the extent they are focused on illegal immigrants who are already here, instead of those who are still trying to get here, they are pretty much whiffing on the issue entirely.

If amnesty is, as my dictionary says "a general pardon for offenses, especially against the government", then granting legal status to those who are here illegally is certainly amnesty. But that's not the point. The point is that this policy rewards people for breaking the law -- a bad idea if you want laws to be respected and obeyed.

But the bigger point is that resolving the legal status of those who are already in the country does nothing to keep out those who continue to enter illegally. If your kitchen is flooding, the first priority is to shut off the water. Once you've done that, you can worry about how to clean things up and repair the damage.

For decades politicians have been playing this game where they pardon those who broke the law and promise to secure the border later. But later never comes. The border never gets sealed. And 10 years later we've got a new batch of politicians calling for more pardons in exchange for the same old promises.

I think Americans are tired of this game. I think those who oppose amnesty would come around to it once the borders are secure and the flood is finally stopped.

But I don't see that happening when Washington doesn't even have the fortitude to build a border fence that was approved and funded back in 2006. For all the sound and fury about illegal immigration, our "leaders" seem more interested in scoring political points than doing anything about it.

Distrust of the media at record highs

A new Gallop poll suggests that 60% of Americans have little or no confidence in the news they get from the media. This is the highest level of distrust ever recorded and, sadly, I think its entirely warranted.

One interesting breakdown in the poll is the difference in trust by political affiliation. Only 26% of Republicans and 31% of Independents say they trust media reporting. Democrats are roughly twice as trusting, with 58% saying they trust the media "a fair amount" or  "a great deal."

Putting aside the issue of how much trust in media reporting is actually warranted, this poll underscores a fundamental fact: Republicans and Democrats live in different worlds. They start with different assumptions, view the world through different lenses, and draw different conclusions about the same information.

We often hear calls for Rs and Ds to put aside partisan differences and work together for the good of the country, but how is that possible when they have such different ideas about they way the world works? How can they find common ground when one group readily accepts what the other views with skepticism? And why should we have any confidence that compromise will yield good results when the two sides wish to take the country in such different directions?

Republicans pushing for Internet sales tax

This seems like a bad idea, both economically and politically, especially in a foundering economy right before an election.

Despite their lip service to cutting taxes, a handful of Republican senators are pushing for a sales tax on Internet purchases. Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming has introduced the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act that would create a new national online tax that would take away more of our money and freedom. The Republican cosponsors of S. 1832 are Sens. Lamar Alexander, Roy Blunt, John Boozman, and Bob Corker. These Internet sales tax schemes are nothing new but greedy politicians seem more determined than ever to pass it this year.

There's a reason Republicans are known as the stupid party.

Oh, and anytime politicians start talking about "fairness," check your wallet.