Affordable Care Act's Lie

The implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)  has been nothing short of a disaster. Not only has the website not worked for those trying to sign up, but people who have their own insurance are being notified that they will have to change policies. In 2009, President Obama said "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." For many this has been true, since most people have insurance through their employer. However, for many people, they have purchased their own insurance plans, which includes myself. In my previous job I had an insurance plan through my employer because the benefits were good. Then I changed jobs and joined an employer that doesn't offer as good insurance and the rate is amazingly high. Also, because I was a new employee I wasn't eligible for insurance anyway for the first 90 days. This led me to explore insurance options. I was given the number to an insurance agent who explained to me some of the coming changes and told me that the insurance I was looking for wouldn't be legal next year.

I decided to purchase the insurance plan because it was inexpensive. The plan is more of a disaster insurance. I am young, healthy and have no pre-existing conditions. So, for me I don't need many services because I've never had health issues. These types of plans are no longer legal with the Affordable Care Act the law of the land.

I've read plenty of stories in the news about people being sent notices that their insurance plans are being cancelled. Many fell short of actually 'blaming' the Affordable Care Act for the cancellation of policies. But then I was sent a notice from Anthem saying directly that because of the Affordable Care Act my insurance plan will no longer be offered. The sad thing is that on the notice they say there will be options that suit my needs, but the current plan I'm paying for is what suits my needs, that's why I chose the plan!

Next year when I am required to choose a new health plan, my insurance rate is going to go up. By how much, that I don't know. Hopefully it will not increase at the rate of people who live in California. According to the LA Times, rates there are doubling[1].

The Affordable Care Act has been a disaster from the beginning. The people were promised that this bill would slow cost of insurance and that those who liked their coverage would be able to keep it. So far none of that has happened. Prices are going up and people, like me, are being told they can no longer keep their own insurance plan. The problem now is because insurance premiums are going up, the government is going to subsidize part of the premiums so it doesn't hurt the average household as much. This is creating a structure that will addict people to this law. Once a subsidy has been put in place and people rely on it to make their own budgets work it will become an untouchable subject. If it's possible for me to make ends meet under the new ACA legislation without needing the government subsidy (I'm sure I will qualify as I'm married with a low income)I will not accept the government subsidy. That "free" money is addicting and a government subsidy isn't something any American should rely on.

---

[1] http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-health-sticker-shock-20131027,0,2756077.story#axzz2ixa8K7x7

Hybrid Tax

I am currently in the market for a very, very cheap used car. I work at a car dealership so my eyes and ears have been open to new vehicles people are trading in to see if one is suitable for me. I live less than two miles from work so something small works just fine. A few days ago I noticed a small 2004 Honda Civic Hybrid was traded in at work. When I talked to the used car manager of the dealership he mentioned that it sounds like it would be a good fit. All my driving is "city" driving so the hybrid would be the best option. As I have been thinking about this decision it was my wife who brought to my attention that many states are instituting hybrid car taxes and that I should check in VA. Well, after a quick Google search I discovered that VA does in fact charge people who own Hybrids $64 per year in extra fees. This is all part of an effort to regain revenue lost by those who drive hybrids because they will not be buying as much gas as a regular gasoline powered vehicle. I must say that this has practically turned me off from buying a Hybrid car. Not only has the state discouraged people from buying hybrids, they are penalizing those who are trying to save money and/or protect the environment. My main motive here is to just save money.

I can understand the motive behind passing the tax, when people buy more fuel efficient cars they buy gas less, which reduces the governments revenue. So in order to recuperate that loss we need to throw in another tax to prevent the drop in revenue. The problem with it is, it is penalizing only one particular type of car. Since this law appears to only apply to hybrid vehicles, if a vehicle were to achieve the same mpg as a hybrid but run on gasoline alone, would that car be taxed too? It seems that there is a sort of discrimination against hybrid vehicles. As an example, my current beater car gets about 40mpg because it's small and has about 90hp. A new Honda Civic Hybrid is rated at 44mpg. So, with this very slight mpg difference, the hybrid owner is subject to an additional tax and I am not. Also, hybrid cars have higher MSRP and have a higher risk because not only is there a gas motor, there is also an electric motor with a battery that is hugely expensive to repair.

This right here is an example of a government going too far. While in one hand they are encouraging people to drive more fuel efficient cars and on the other penalizing those who drive more efficient cars. It is currently in law that by 2025 cars must achieve an average of 54.5 mpg[1], but by driving more fuel efficient cars they lose money so taxes of another sort will follow. When the American public save over $1.7 trillion at the pump, the government will institute additional taxation to recover that lost revenue.

---

[1] http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/28/obama-administration-finalizes-historic-545-mpg-fuel-efficiency-standard

Conversation with an Insurance Agent

I wanted to do this blog not because of any news story I've seen, but because of a conversation I had with a health insurance agent. I wasn't aware of some of the changes that were happening because of Obamacare. Since I have changed jobs, I am currently not covered by any health insurance because I have not been in my current job long enough to be eligible for their insurance. As I spoke to people at work they said it would be a good option to try and just buy insurance outright because the plan offered through work was expensive and had services I wouldn't need. I was then given a number of an insurance

agent.

I called to see what sort of rates I would be able to get. I am a healthy and active adult with no preexisting conditions. During the conversation the agent said that under the current system I would need to take a survey of about 100 questions to determine my health. After he laid out two different options he then proceeded to tell me I could only have insurance for 1 year. When I asked why, he responded, Obamacare. Under the new law, if I am to purchase insurance by myself privately right now because it's cheaper and more customizable than my employer, that coverage will disappear after one year and be replaced by new insurance options that conform to the Obamacare rules. What he then proceeded to tell me was that as of right now they do not know how much each plan will cost but enrollment in the government plans will start in the coming months. Also, because I am a young and healthy adult, I will likely have to pay more for  that government insurance plans than the private plan I am looking at now. Because Obamacare no longer allows for questions regarding preexisting conditions, young people like myself will need to subsidize the cost of others with health problems. Also, under the new government plans I will be required to have services I do not want or need.

Now, for many the preexisting conditions exception sounds wonderful. But it will make millions of people like me have to pay more. I will be penalized for living a healthy lifestyle and taking care of myself. Also, when talking to the agent he laid out a scenario for me. There are 3 versions of me, identical in almost every single way. One is me, healthy and active. The second is exactly like me but does heroin. The third is exactly like number one, but smokes cigarettes.  Under the current system, me and the heroin addict will pay the same for health insurance but the smoker will pay 1.5 times more than me. For a law that removes preexisting conditions, this seems to be a problem. Insurance agents are not allowed to ask any questions other than your basic info (name, address, SSN..etc) and "do you smoke." Now if we are eliminating questions regarding obesity or drug use, why do smokers get penalized? Also, why am I getting penalized? I am healthy, I am active, I eat organic foods, but when it comes to my insurance I will pay the same amount as an overweight drug addict. Insane.

The Syria Mistake part 2

Ever since the reported gassing of Syrian civilians, President Obama has been mulling over the idea of military intervention. After the speech about the 'red-line' crossed by the Assad regime from a few months ago, Syria was sort of put on the back burner. Now, it's back to being front page news.

Now, Secretary of State John Kerry has come out and said that Sarin gas was in fact used in the chemical attack[1]. Since this revelation, members of congress and the President have been advocating for strategic military strikes to deter Assad from using chemical weapons again. One major issue with this assessment is the assumption that it was in fact Assad who used the gas. There have been reports that it was actually the rebels who used the gas, as well as having committed other horrific atrocities.  According to some at the UN involved in the investigation of the sarin gas attack, it was the rebels who used the nerve agent[2]. Given the ties between the rebels and Al-Nusra Front it wouldn't be surprising that the rebels are the ones behind the attack. It's unclear what sort of evidence the President has that contradicts the UN and affirms that it is Assad using chemical weapons.

Since the President is sure it is the Assad regime, he has been threatening force over the past few days. As usual, he went to the UN to find support, but Russia and China voted against military action in Syria and have warned the US to not get involved in the region[3].  Now that the UN has been essentially ruled out, the US was looking to its closest ally, Britain. A few days ago, Britain held a vote on joining the US in action against Syria, which was struck down[4]. Once the reports came from Britain that they would not strike Syria, the President started thinking about taking action alone. The President led on that he would strike even if he didn't have support from congress and other nations. Now, Obama is saying that congressional authority is something he wants to carry out their strikes.

Since this sort of flip on the issue, war hawks like Senator McCain are blasting his decision and saying that Assad is "Euphoric" about the President's decision. Many of the war hungry representatives are unhappy with the president's decision. They are seeing it as a sign of weakness that will make the US look like it is now unable to commit to military action.

While it does make the US seem unwilling to strike, it's the right decision. When making the choice to fly planes to a foreign country and destroy targets as well as kill people, Congress needs to be consulted. The authority of "Commander-in-Chief" has gone WAY overboard in the modern era. We have become to comfortable with war presidents. War is something that shouldn't be decided to easily. With the advanced technologies we possess and the ability to separate the personal experience of war we seem to make the decision more lightly than usual. For the US, sending boots on the ground is hard, a drone is easy because it poses almost no risk to us. But to the people of Syria, it's still the same outcome. They still will see it as the big policeman of the world, the US, has bombed innocent people who were never a threat in the first place.

Another issue with the proposed intervention is Syria is that there is no real end goal. The President claims that the strikes will make it so Assad will not use chemical weapons again. But can some strategic strikes really prevent anything indefinitely?  Even if the gassing stops, the Assad regime will still be in control and there will still be a war raging between the government and the rebels. We will only be adding to the destruction.

Now that the president has decided to seek the approval of congress, let's hope they listen to the people and vote against furthering the destruction Syria is experiencing.

---

[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408405/Assad-joined-Hitler-Hussein-John-Kerry-says-Syrian-president-used-deadly-sarin-nerve-gas-Damascus-attack.html

[2] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/

[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23845800

[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/british-parliament-syria-vote_n_3839067.html

Foreign Policy

In a recent article from the Cato Institute, scholar Justin Logan responded to claims made by Charles Krauthammer regarding 'Isolationism'. For those who don't know what Isolationism means, it is the view that the US needs to start minding its own business and stop getting involved in conflicts across the globe.  Krauthammer is considered an Internationalist, while Logan would be considered an Isolationist.

According to Krauthammer[1], freedom across the globe isn't something that occurs naturally. It is stabilized by a strong power. Britain was once the dominating world power, but now the United States is burdened with keeping peace. He believes that without the protection of the United States, chaos would follow. And with recent events like radical Islam, North Korea, and terrorist cells across the globe this may in fact be true.

In Logan's article, he first criticizes the term "Isolationist" because it was used as a smear word for those opposed to military intervention. According to Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Walter McDougall, America’s “vaunted tradition of ‘isolationism’ is no tradition at all, but a dirty word that interventionists, especially since Pearl Harbor, hurl at anyone who questions their policies.”[2] Also, with ongoing wars and issues in Egypt, Syria and other countries, Americans are starting to ask, why are we getting involved? It is through excessive spending and casualties that Americans appear to be turning to a more Isolationist view.

Now, back to the Internationalist view. They claim that if the US were to withdraw forces from around the globe chaos would follow. Terror threats would increase and attacks would occur more often. They claim that isolationism doesn't work and the only logical thing to do is to engage in foreign conflicts. The issue with their belief is that America has never embraced isolationism, making it impossible for someone to say that it doesn't actually work. Internationalists typically point to the time period when the US was reluctant to join WWII, but is that one period of reluctance proof that isolationism doesn't work? Also, when the US gets involved in a civil war in a foreign country, one side will always come out our enemy.  The more fights we enter, the more enemies we will make.

I am not saying that the US is responsible for its enemies. It is of course the choice of those who oppose us to act. But when we are flying drones into Pakistan to kill 'militants,' and civilians are killed, people have a reason to be angry. According to Columbia University[3], between 75 and 155 civilians were killed in Pakistan in 2011 by drone strikes.

If the world does in fact need a global leader, why the United States? With the economic burden we have today, the US cannot continue on its path as being the peace keeper across the globe. Ever since WWII, the US has been spending more money on defense and been has known few years of peace. In the graph above, the red dashes indicate wars the US has been engaged in, while the blue line indicates defense spending (as percent of GDP). In the 68 years since WWII the US has been involved in 5 wars. In the previous 152 years before the US was a global superpower, we engaged in 5 wars.  That averages to every 13.6 years the US is in a war in the modern era, compared to every 30.4 years before superpower status.

It appears that the internationalist position held by Krauthammer doesn't really work. The US may in fact be able to stabilize certain countries, but ever since we have achieved this status, chaos has followed us. So much for ensuring global stability.

---

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-how-fractured-is-the-gop/2013/08/01/6fd6f816-fada-11e2-9bde-7ddaa186b751_story.html

[2] http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/rand-paul-no-isolationist

[3] http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/human-rights-institute/COLUMBIACounting%20Drone%20Strike%20DeathsSUMMARY.pdf

Detroit. The Conservative Haven?

This article by Michael Tanner at the Cato Institute completely destroys the argument that Detroit failed because of 'free market' principles.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/government-not-globalization-destroyed-detroit

Immigration (Part 1)

The purpose of this blog post is to address the problem of immigration. Conservative organizations and politicians have been blasting the immigration reform bill that passed the senate. Most of the criticism are coming from claims of amnesty as well as concerns over a possible spike in the deficit as immigrants take advantage of government services. Also, Republicans are for the most part worried that if illegal immigrants are granted citizenship it will be the death of the Republican party.

One of the major organizations to come out swinging against immigration reform is the Heritage Foundation. According to a study conducted by Robert Rector and Jason Richwine Ph.D, immigration reform will add trillions to the deficit[1]. In their research they advocate being very cautious about who and how many people are to be let into the US due to the vast benefits citizens receive. According to their empirical analysis, if the current illegal immigrants were legalized it would add about $9.3 trillion to the deficit over a lifetime. When this study was released, political commentators such as Glenn Beck[2] and Rush Limbaugh[3] have been blasting immigration reform.

On the other side of the debate is the Cato Institute. While they are not fully behind the immigration reform bill, due to various flaws, they do agree that reform is necessary and disagree with the Heritage Foundation's findings. While these two organizations frequently agree on economic issues, here there is virtually no agreement. The Cato Institute responded to the Heritage report with harsh criticism. First was the critique that the Heritage analysis didn't account for GDP increases. Then, they didn't conduct any analysis on the immigration reform bill that was before the senate[4]. Not only does Cato disagree with Heritage's report, scholars at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the American-Action Forum, and the Hudson Institute also disagree with Heritage's methodology[5]. When Cato conducted their statistical analysis they found that by legalizing immigrants GDP would increase by $1.5 trillion over ten years and that Heritage's proposal would reduce GDP by $2.6 trillion over ten years.

So, with these two policy think tanks in Washington, DC in disagreement, what is the right path for the US? Both organizations mostly follow the Austrian school of economics but come to very different conclusions. In order for there to be any consensus there must be common ground first. Both organizations understand that the current illegal's in the US have broken the law. They have taken advantage of a broken system and are able to abuse government benefits due to the US becoming a welfare state.  However, what action is to be taken? Both organizations are looking for the most economical way of dealing with this problem. Are we to allow them the benefits of US citizenship, which costs money, or do we deport or imprison them, which also costs a lot of money.

According to a GAO study, in 2009 the US spent $1.6 billion on incarcerated illegal immigrants[6]. This clearly demonstrates that something needs to be done about immigration. Now, this $1.6 billion is the cost to incarcerate approximately 55,000 illegal immigrants. By doing a little math we can find that it cost around $29,000 to incarcerate an illegal immigrant. Now, if we were to imprison all illegal immigrants it would cost over $319 billion for one year to keep the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in prison, in 2009 dollars. So, if you're looking for an economical solution, this one isn't it. So if arresting and imprisoning an illegal immigrant is off the table, what next.

Typically, deportation is another option that is expressed by conservatives. Given that illegal immigrants broke the law it only stands to reason that they don't deserve to be here and should be sent home. According to CNS News it costs about $12,500 to arrest and deport an illegal immigrant[7]. If we then deported all the illegal immigrants in the US today it would cost $137.5 billion. This option already looks better than putting these individuals in jail. The cost per person is less than half of what it costs to keep that person in jail. While this option is better economically, it still costs billions of dollars.

With the arrest or deport plans failing to be economically beneficial to the United States, there must be other options to resolve this problem. We cannot just arrest or deport all of the illegal immigrants in the US because it would be fiscally irresponsible. Not to mention, if it was made mandatory to deport all current illegal immigrants they would pursue all means necessary to stay in the US, making it harder to identify them and deport them, costing even more money. This issue is complex and will need a complicated solution. With a problem so large we cannot just allow quick fixes. Amnesty isn't the answer, but neither is a simple deportation program. Deportation is expensive and amnesty was tried under the Reagan administration and the problem has only gotten worse.

---

[1] http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-us-taxpayer?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Heritage%2BHotsheet

[2] http://www.christianpost.com/news/glenn-beck-calls-marco-rubio-piece-of-garbage-for-defending-senate-immigration-reform-bill-99038/

[3]http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/05/07/the_idea_that_amnesty_will_produce_new_taxpayers_and_wipe_out_the_cost_is_pathetically_wrong

[4] http://www.cato.org/blog/heritages-flawed-immigration-analysis

[5] Ibid

[6] http://www.cis.org/vaughan/gao-report-criminal-aliens

[7] http://cnsnews.com/news/article/feds-estimate-deportation-costs-12500-person

Mayor Bloomberg

Politico Headline: "Mayor Bloomberg: End 'shoot-first' laws." This sort of thing makes me really angry. Not the fact that the Mayor wants to alter the law, but that he is talking about Florida's gun laws and the Zimmerman trial. Bloomberg made this statement after the conclusion of the George Zimmerman trial blasting Florida's 'shoot-first' gun law. Bloomberg should remember he is the Mayor of New York City, not a representative of Florida. He should keep his mouth shut on the laws Florida residents have enacted for their own protection.

Bloomberg then goes on to say

 "But one fact has long been crystal clear: ‘shoot-first’ laws like those in Florida can inspire dangerous vigilantism and protect those who act recklessly with guns. Such laws – drafted by gun lobby extremists in Washington – encourage deadly confrontations by enabling people to shoot first and argue ‘justifiable homicide’ later"[1].

Here, Bloomberg is clearly making a reference to the Zimmerman/Martin case given the time in which this statement was delivered. What is unfortunate is that he is using this event for political gain. It's made even worse because he isn't even acknowledging any evidence put forward by the defense. Bloomberg must believe as the prosecution tried to prove, that Zimmerman acted as a vigilante and not in self defense; that he shot Martin first and then decided to deal with the consequences later.  Clearly Bloomberg hasn't actually been following the case since there was photographic evidence of Zimmerman's bloody face and head, as well as testimony at the trial from forensic pathologist Dr. Vincent DiMaio that Martin was standing over Zimmerman when he was shot[2], which fit with Zimmerman's story.

The worst part about Bloomberg's quote is he is saying that the people of Florida don't know the proper policy for their own protection. He clearly believes that up on his high horse in NY City he knows the true needs of people living in Florida.

His entire rhetoric is offensive to those who believe they shouldn't have to flee from criminals. The 'shoot-first' laws he is referring to is also known as 'stand your ground' laws. They essentially state that "a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first[3]." So in essence, we have a right to our own protection and we aren't require to run away first. One question for Bloomberg, what happens if someone is cornered and unable to run away, in something like a dark alley? If someone is making threatening advanced and you can't 'run away,' what then, beg? Also, even if you are required to 'flee first,' litigation will still follow because it will need to be determined how much effort should be put into running away before deadly force is used.

When Florida enacted their 'stand your ground' laws they were actually returning to an old concept that was well known around the founding era. It's known as "Castle Law" or "Castle Doctrine." Castle Doctrine states that if someone were to be attacked in their home they were not legally obligated to retreat, but could meet force with force. Currently, 24 states have some sort of "stand your ground" laws[4]. So given the amount of states, it appears that many people in the US desire the legal protection for self-defense.

So not only is Bloomberg speaking about this issue without addressing the facts, he is telling residents of Florida and half the country that they are in the wrong on this issue. Bloomberg needs to remember he is the Mayor of New York City, not Miami. He doesn't represent the state of Florida, he doesn't represent the Federal government either. His sole concern should be those living in NY City. It's time for politicians to stop bashing people in other states. Your job as an elected official is represent those who put you in office, not to make social commentary or bash representatives of other states. Mayor Bloomberg, if you want to spew your ideology to everyone, be a talk show host, not a tax paid politician.

---

[1] http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/mayor-bloomberg-end-shoot-first-laws-gun-control-94123.html#ixzz2Z4jrNslk

[2] http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/07/09/forensic-pathologist-says-trayvon-martin-was-on-top-of-zimmerman

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

[4] http://www.propublica.org/article/the-23-states-that-have-sweeping-self-defense-laws-just-like-floridas

Obamacare

Since its inception, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) has been nothing but trouble. Back in 2011, the CLASS act was delayed and then a year later it was repealed. In April of this year, the ACA's Small business  Health Option Program (SHOP) was postponed until 2015.The Obama administration then decided to delay the employer mandate until 2015.  The reasons cited for this delay is the complications of this program and for businesses to have time to adapt to the law[1]. What is amazing is that he Individual Mandate is still in effect.  The Obama administration has essentially admitted that health reform has an incredibly complex regulatory system. Given the complications for compliance, it will inevitably cost businesses money.

 On July 9th, HHS decided to delay another part of the law. HHS was planning to implement anti-fraud measures into the law by verifying a person's income to determine their subsidy eligibility. They were unable to achieve this goal in time and this is now postponed[2].

Although the delay for employers has been put in effect, which may not be legal, they are still spending tax payer dollars as if nothing changed. According to Michael Tanner at the Cato Institute, the administration has already spent $31million in advertising alone[3]. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has been trying to recruit businesses and celebrities to endorse health reform.

Also, along with spending millions to recruit celebrities, HHS has already contracted with SERCO, a British firm, to help deal with the expected health care applications. The contract is for up to $20 Billion[4]. So not only is the administration already spending millions of dollars on this program, it's delaying one of its key components.

At this point it's just getting out of hand. There was jubilation when Obamacare was passed; now it's a sore spot invoking nothing but controversy. Flawed programs, repeals, and delays have plagued Obama's signature achievement as President. Ezra Klein at the Washington Post is even calling for the Employer Mandate to be repealed because it's bad policy[5]. While at this point in time it appears to be a defeat for the President, it may prove to be a smart move to delay the mandate to after the election. If what many fear is correct, businesses will suffer from the mandate, which would cost Democrats many seats.

Even though democrats may be able to help protect businesses, they will not be able to shield themselves from the possible fallout from increased insurance rates due to Obamacare. The Wall Street Journal reported that insurance rates from the exchanges for healthy individuals could "double or even triple when they look for individual coverage”[6]. This won't exactly bode well for the democrats who helped passed this legislation. We can only hope the people will smarten up and call for repeal before it is fully implemented. Thankfully, Obama has given Republicans more time to challenge the law before it entraps all of the American economy.

---

[1] http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Pages/Continuing-to-Implement-the-ACA-in-a-Careful-Thoughtful-Manner-.aspx

[2] http://washingtonexaminer.com/hhs-gives-up-on-obamacares-anti-fraud-measures/article/2532747

[3] http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/mad-man

[4] http://www.serco-na.com/cio-sp3/cio-sp3-services-and-solutions

[5] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/02/obamacares-employer-mandate-shouldnt-be-delayed-it-should-be-repealed/

[6] http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/07/01/wsj-health-insurance-rates-could-double-or-even-triple-for-healthy-consumers-in-obamacares-exchanges/

Response to Billy Corriher at Center for American Progress

On July 9, 2013 Billy Corriher from the Center for American Progress wrote a piece about Justice Clarence Thomas and his decision in the Shelby County v Holder case. The Shelby case was in regards to the 1965 Voter Rights Act and if it still applied to today. Under this act, southern states were required to get approval from the Department of Justice if they wanted to make any changes that would affect voting in those states[1].

In Mr. Corriher's article, he starts off by comparing Justice Thomas to Justice Marshall, the only African-American's to serve on the high court. The article starts out rather plainly and goes on to define the different philosophies of the judges. Thomas is considered an 'originalist' while Marshall believes the Constitution to be a 'living document.[2]' Marshall once said of his judicial philosophy "you do what you think is right and let the law catch up.[3]" There is a sort of problem with this statement given the job of a Supreme Court justice isn't to dictate the direction of the law, but to interpret it within the confines of the Constitution.

The court decided it was no longer necessary to keep key provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act given the changes in America in regards to race. Also, given the context in which the Act was passed, it is no longer relevant to American society. The Act was passed during a time when racism was rampant across America and the Jim Crow laws were just being challenged. Protests for racial equality were occurring across the US, not exactly something are seeing now. Also, the justices ruled that there is to be 'equal sovereignty' between states. Corriher seems to think this concept is false, or disagrees in some way. I'm not exactly how the government can treat states differently in regards to voting laws while at the same time treat all voters the same. This 'equal sovereignty' seems only logical.

Corriher then goes on to claim that "Justice Thomas and the other conservative justices seem to believe that racism in voting is over, or at least that Southern states have made enough progress that the preapproval process is no longer justified." This is clearly a shot at the justices and there are no statistics cited here to prove if there is still in fact significant racial disparity in voting records. It is also crazy to believe that the justices think racism in its entirety has disappeared. But just because elements of racism exist in society, does that mean policy is to be crafted for what may well be a slim minority? According Ilya Shapiro at the Cato Institute, the court overturned the Act "[b]ased on 40-year-old data showing racial disparities in voting that no longer exist.[4]" So yes, southern states have made enough progress to have the preapproval process removed.

Even though data seems to side with the justices, Corriher then goes on to equate voting law changes as discriminatory, such as voter identification, penalizing college students for voting at school and not at home, and ending early voting[5]. It seems that any sort of restriction at all is discriminatory. After the election all we hear in the news is how many people voted more than once, or forged a name so they could vote numerous times.. The reason for these added restrictions doesn't appear to be for the sole purpose of preventing a minority class from voting, but to try and reduce fraud.

In another shot against Thomas, Corriher goes on to say that the justice would also like to see preferential college admissions towards minorities overturned. While to his progressive worldview this may sound insane. But to someone who hold an 'originalist' interpretation of the Constitution and believes in equal opportunity, this isn't a foreign desire.

Corriher goes on to end his article by saying that Justice Thomas is undoing everything that Justice Marshall did to make our society more equal. This again is another cheap shot at Thomas. If nothing at all had changed between 1965 and now this may be a valid argument, but things have changed. The court has recognized that. Data shows racial disparity in voting has disappeared, and in order to ensure a 'free society' how can you punish one state but not another? The Voting Rights Act in today's America no longer levels the playing field, it only makes people less equal. It's a good thing that Thomas is doing everything he can to ensure equality for all, even if it means undoing some of Justice Marshall's work.

---

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965#Vote_count

[2] http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/civil-liberties/news/2013/07/09/69044/clarence-thomas-the-anti-thurgood-marshall/

[3] Ibid.

[4] http://www.cato.org/blog/supreme-court-restores-constitutional-order-strikes-down-outdated-voting-rights-act-provision

[5] http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/02/2244651/north-carolina-voter-suppression-voting-rights-act/?mobile=nc