Obamacare punishments as a tax

Thanks to Todd, who helps me with the technical side of this blog, for stepping in with the news emergencies while I was away.  You’ve discussed how the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare in its insurance purchase mandate.  Litigation on other Obamacare issues is getting under way.  (There are now 23 lawsuits against the contraception and abortifacient mandate.)

What do you think about conservative Chief Justice Robert putting the best construction on Obamacare by construing its penalties as a tax?  The reasoning was that people who refuse to buy health insurance will face a penalty, but it is being collected not by a court, as with a fine, but by the Internal Revenue Service.  Therefore, it is as if a tax has been imposed, which you can get out of if you buy health insurance.

The bill itself never calls the penalties a tax, nor did its authors or President Obama himself (who specifically said it was not a tax).

Is this logical?  Is this a proper function of a court opinion, to construe a bill despite its wording so that it can pass constitutional muster?

Some people are praising Justice Robert for his Solomonic compromise.  Some conservatives are saying that at least he ruled against the overly-broad application of the Commerce Clause, which can subject just about everything to government supervision since just about everything has economic implications.  This was, in fact, the basis of the administration’s defense of Obamacare, that Congress can make laws regarding interstate commerce.  The court ruled that forcing people to buy something is not commerce, as such.  But since that argument was found specious, Justice Robert kindly supplied an argument of his own that he could accept, even though the administration’s lawyers didn’t make it.   Some Republicans are saying that, at least, defining Obamacare as a tax can allow them to score political points by attacking President Obama and the Democrats as having raised taxes.

But this strikes me as a very dangerous ruling.  What other behavior could the Executive Branch require using the tax code to enforce fines apart from the safeguards of the Judicial Branch?  Could General Motors get bailed out by imposing a tax on everyone who does not buy a Chevy?

Also, does anyone know whether the Affordable Health Care Act was initiated in the House of Representatives, rather than the Senate?  Tax bills have to begin in the House.  Maybe this bill did, coincidentally, have that origin, even though it was never presented as a tax bill.  If not, since the Supreme Court declared it a tax bill, I’d think it would have to have been.

At any rate, this strikes me as a crisis not only with the Constitution–with the executive, legislative, and judicial branches all mixed up and infringing on each other–but with language itself, creating new meanings (“tax”) for existing words (“penalty”).

The Wall Street Journal: A Vast New Taxing Power – WSJ.com.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Rose

    Chief Justice Roberts may have been too clever by half.
    As many point out, what inactivity can be taxed next?
    As for the ‘free riders’, why doesn’t the hospital just send a collection agency after them?

  • Rose

    Chief Justice Roberts may have been too clever by half.
    As many point out, what inactivity can be taxed next?
    As for the ‘free riders’, why doesn’t the hospital just send a collection agency after them?

  • Matthew

    The question is, what does the law actually say? If, based upon the wording of existing tax law, it is possible to tax inactivity, then that’s how Roberts had to interpret it. It may be stupid, but that doesn’t make it unconstitutional. It’s up to the legislative branch to change the law. It is the duty of the Supreme Court to strike down a law only if it violates the Constitution, with an eye toward precedent. If it doesn’t make sense but it still fits within the Constitution, they can’t strike it down on that basis alone. Conservatives shouldn’t complain because the law doesn’t say what they think it should say, and they can’t expect the Supreme Court to do their work for them – that’s the modus operandi of liberals (e.g., Roe v. Wade).

    What I do wonder is, what was the reasoning of Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito? Were they all wrong where Roberts was right? Not being an expert on constitutional exegesis and taxation philosophy, I am inclined to give Roberts the benefit of the doubt, but for the four of them to be wrong seems to me farfetched.

  • Matthew

    The question is, what does the law actually say? If, based upon the wording of existing tax law, it is possible to tax inactivity, then that’s how Roberts had to interpret it. It may be stupid, but that doesn’t make it unconstitutional. It’s up to the legislative branch to change the law. It is the duty of the Supreme Court to strike down a law only if it violates the Constitution, with an eye toward precedent. If it doesn’t make sense but it still fits within the Constitution, they can’t strike it down on that basis alone. Conservatives shouldn’t complain because the law doesn’t say what they think it should say, and they can’t expect the Supreme Court to do their work for them – that’s the modus operandi of liberals (e.g., Roe v. Wade).

    What I do wonder is, what was the reasoning of Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito? Were they all wrong where Roberts was right? Not being an expert on constitutional exegesis and taxation philosophy, I am inclined to give Roberts the benefit of the doubt, but for the four of them to be wrong seems to me farfetched.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    In a couple of days we will be celebrating the gaining of our freedom from an opressive government.

    I remember freedom. Do any of you remember the days when we were a free country? Now they tell you what to eat, what to drive, where to live, what insurance to buy.

    Yes, I remember freedom. It was pretty nice. A bit more risky maybe, but a whole lot more enjoyable.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    In a couple of days we will be celebrating the gaining of our freedom from an opressive government.

    I remember freedom. Do any of you remember the days when we were a free country? Now they tell you what to eat, what to drive, where to live, what insurance to buy.

    Yes, I remember freedom. It was pretty nice. A bit more risky maybe, but a whole lot more enjoyable.

  • Isaac

    The argument I’ve found most persuasive is that the Constitution does not put enough of a limit on what can be taxed to override this, so if this is a de facto tax the Supreme Court is right in upholding it, by rule of law. The tax code already includes incentives for such diverse thing as having a mortgage, contributing to a retirement account, and medical expenses, so this isn’t as much of a stretch in that area. Whether this holds up in the long term is another question, but a tax explicitly benefiting one particular manufacturer has other juridical checks that will hopefully be upheld.

  • Isaac

    The argument I’ve found most persuasive is that the Constitution does not put enough of a limit on what can be taxed to override this, so if this is a de facto tax the Supreme Court is right in upholding it, by rule of law. The tax code already includes incentives for such diverse thing as having a mortgage, contributing to a retirement account, and medical expenses, so this isn’t as much of a stretch in that area. Whether this holds up in the long term is another question, but a tax explicitly benefiting one particular manufacturer has other juridical checks that will hopefully be upheld.

  • Matthew

    In addition, from now on new requirements and mandates on individuals (I wonder whether EPA regulations can be challenged on this basis?) will have to be presented as taxes rather than simply “Thou shalt.” The Court’s refusal to allow the withholding of Medicaid funds from states if they don’t go along with the expansion may make it harder to do the same to states. Will presenting new mandates as taxes (which, economically speaking, is what they are anyway) make them politically more difficult to impose? I sincerely hope so.

  • Matthew

    In addition, from now on new requirements and mandates on individuals (I wonder whether EPA regulations can be challenged on this basis?) will have to be presented as taxes rather than simply “Thou shalt.” The Court’s refusal to allow the withholding of Medicaid funds from states if they don’t go along with the expansion may make it harder to do the same to states. Will presenting new mandates as taxes (which, economically speaking, is what they are anyway) make them politically more difficult to impose? I sincerely hope so.

  • Isaac

    And while I was typing Matthew pretty much posted what I was trying to say.

    I think on the larger issue we as Christians, as distinct from Conservatives, should be careful in not going to far in anger on this. This isn’t Roe v. Wade, the moral implications are indirect consequences of the law, not explicit results. I think it’s important for us to make a distinction between the ideals of our politics and the ideals of our faith. Muddying the line is going to hurt us before it has any effect on the culture.

  • Isaac

    And while I was typing Matthew pretty much posted what I was trying to say.

    I think on the larger issue we as Christians, as distinct from Conservatives, should be careful in not going to far in anger on this. This isn’t Roe v. Wade, the moral implications are indirect consequences of the law, not explicit results. I think it’s important for us to make a distinction between the ideals of our politics and the ideals of our faith. Muddying the line is going to hurt us before it has any effect on the culture.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    I don’t know if pro-Obama people know this, but when Roberts permitted the bill to pass under the guise of a tax, he was essentially giving the President a backhanded reprimand. Obama and his people repeatedly claimed that this was not a tax, yet when Roberts stated that this bill passed as a tax, I didn’t hear the President say “Oh, wait a minute, Mr. Chief Justice; you got that all wrong.”

    Not that it makes the ruling any better to swallow, but there was a bit of a character sting in the way it was handed out.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    I don’t know if pro-Obama people know this, but when Roberts permitted the bill to pass under the guise of a tax, he was essentially giving the President a backhanded reprimand. Obama and his people repeatedly claimed that this was not a tax, yet when Roberts stated that this bill passed as a tax, I didn’t hear the President say “Oh, wait a minute, Mr. Chief Justice; you got that all wrong.”

    Not that it makes the ruling any better to swallow, but there was a bit of a character sting in the way it was handed out.

  • SKPeterson

    Interesting points Isaac and Matthew. It could/would also make subsidies for agriculture into taxes. Not that most members of Congress would have a problem with raising taxes to subsidize agriculture, but it would at least put paid the notion that Congress is “helping family farmers” by sending tax monies from the citizenry to firms like ADM. I wonder though about the extension to regulation. Will this decision now force every regulation to be designated a tax? Are regulations mandates and are mandates now taxes? I don’t think this decision allows for that, but I wonder how firm such an argument might be, and if Justice Roberts has opened a whole new can of worms that (surprise!) he had no inkling of. I sincerely hope so, and that he is not the only hoisted upon his petard.

  • SKPeterson

    Interesting points Isaac and Matthew. It could/would also make subsidies for agriculture into taxes. Not that most members of Congress would have a problem with raising taxes to subsidize agriculture, but it would at least put paid the notion that Congress is “helping family farmers” by sending tax monies from the citizenry to firms like ADM. I wonder though about the extension to regulation. Will this decision now force every regulation to be designated a tax? Are regulations mandates and are mandates now taxes? I don’t think this decision allows for that, but I wonder how firm such an argument might be, and if Justice Roberts has opened a whole new can of worms that (surprise!) he had no inkling of. I sincerely hope so, and that he is not the only hoisted upon his petard.

  • Trey

    I looked it up PPACA originated in the Senate not the House: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/06/29/if-the-health-care-law-is-really-a-tax-law-is-it-doomed-on-procedure/ . Thus, it is unconstitutional based on procedure if it is a tax.

    Roberts didn’t call it as he should have. Nevertheless taxation with representation is encased in the Constitution and the history of the nation.

  • Trey

    I looked it up PPACA originated in the Senate not the House: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/06/29/if-the-health-care-law-is-really-a-tax-law-is-it-doomed-on-procedure/ . Thus, it is unconstitutional based on procedure if it is a tax.

    Roberts didn’t call it as he should have. Nevertheless taxation with representation is encased in the Constitution and the history of the nation.

  • Cincinnatus

    I disagree with the ruling, of course, for a number of reasons.

    But I think most pundits and other members of the commentariat are over-(psycho-)analyzing Roberts’ decision. Roberts is nominally “conservative” in the sense that he almost always rules in favor of established power relations–in this case Congress and the insurance companies. Check out his other landmark rulings if you don’t believe me.

    Speculating on his motives seems a distraction, and I find it implausible that he’s playing some sort of “long game” with…well, with whom exactly? And what would be his preferred outcome in such a game? And how will this single decision tilt the “game” in his favor?

  • Cincinnatus

    I disagree with the ruling, of course, for a number of reasons.

    But I think most pundits and other members of the commentariat are over-(psycho-)analyzing Roberts’ decision. Roberts is nominally “conservative” in the sense that he almost always rules in favor of established power relations–in this case Congress and the insurance companies. Check out his other landmark rulings if you don’t believe me.

    Speculating on his motives seems a distraction, and I find it implausible that he’s playing some sort of “long game” with…well, with whom exactly? And what would be his preferred outcome in such a game? And how will this single decision tilt the “game” in his favor?

  • Bob Smith

    The big issue to me is how the Lutheran Church will respond to this. The two kingdoms doctrine has been interpreted as forbidding the church from endorsing or condemning specific candidates or legislation. Yet Obamacare allows the government to order people to do sinful things. In the birth control mandate they do just that. We are on a course where we have to obey God rather than man. To complicate matters, we are not mere subjects in America. We are each one of millions of electors and empowered to help choose our leaders. As such, all that applies to Christian rulers applies to us on a small scale. How does the Church and the pastors God sends to her encourage Christians to do their duty without wading into the fray?

  • Bob Smith

    The big issue to me is how the Lutheran Church will respond to this. The two kingdoms doctrine has been interpreted as forbidding the church from endorsing or condemning specific candidates or legislation. Yet Obamacare allows the government to order people to do sinful things. In the birth control mandate they do just that. We are on a course where we have to obey God rather than man. To complicate matters, we are not mere subjects in America. We are each one of millions of electors and empowered to help choose our leaders. As such, all that applies to Christian rulers applies to us on a small scale. How does the Church and the pastors God sends to her encourage Christians to do their duty without wading into the fray?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I am a bit uneasy. This is the sort of thing, like gun control that only punishes the law abiding. It seems to reward those who through their indigence meet the standards of compliance but those who are diligent are penalized. It is a structure that promotes, underwrites and nourishes dysfunction at the expense of healthy behavior. It reminds me of the contemporary Greek system where taxes are high and compliance is low. Economists have noted that there seems to be a threshold of some x percent tax burden above which taxes cannot be collected because people will find loopholes or just not comply. This promotes civil disorder and a culture of corruption. Hmm, Roman and Chinese Empires? The current Euro zone where it is diversity vs. democracy?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I am a bit uneasy. This is the sort of thing, like gun control that only punishes the law abiding. It seems to reward those who through their indigence meet the standards of compliance but those who are diligent are penalized. It is a structure that promotes, underwrites and nourishes dysfunction at the expense of healthy behavior. It reminds me of the contemporary Greek system where taxes are high and compliance is low. Economists have noted that there seems to be a threshold of some x percent tax burden above which taxes cannot be collected because people will find loopholes or just not comply. This promotes civil disorder and a culture of corruption. Hmm, Roman and Chinese Empires? The current Euro zone where it is diversity vs. democracy?

  • Susan

    Re: “…does anyone know whether the Affordable Health Care Act was initiated in the House of Representatives, rather than the Senate? Tax bills have to begin in the House.”

    A commenter on tODD’s post about Obamacare, wrote that the Senate used a House bill to bypass that requirement. Other pundits have repeated this same anaylsis. Here is a link to one pundit’s take on it:

    Excerpt:

    Just a quickie post to debunk an argument that we’re already seeing in threads and e-mails: Namely, doesn’t Article I, section 7 of the Constitution say that all bills that raise revenue must originate in the House? And didn’t ObamaCare pass the Senate before it passed the House? And doesn’t that in turn mean that our nifty new health care “tax” was passed according to unconstitutional procedures?
    Unless I’m missing something, no. The bill that passed the Senate wasn’t technically a Senate bill. Reid took a bill that had already passed the House, stripped out the provisions to turn it into a “shell bill,” and then inserted the text of ObamaCare to get around this requirement. The bill that passed the Senate was H.R.3590, which initially had to do with tax breaks for military homeowners. And yes, they’ve used the “shell bill” strategy before. In fact, the conservative opinion today specifically mentioned Article I, section 7 at one point while raising no objection to Reid’s sleight of hand.

    Full post with embedded links can be found here: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/28/say-doesnt-the-constitution-require-tax-bills-to-originate-in-the-house

  • Susan

    Re: “…does anyone know whether the Affordable Health Care Act was initiated in the House of Representatives, rather than the Senate? Tax bills have to begin in the House.”

    A commenter on tODD’s post about Obamacare, wrote that the Senate used a House bill to bypass that requirement. Other pundits have repeated this same anaylsis. Here is a link to one pundit’s take on it:

    Excerpt:

    Just a quickie post to debunk an argument that we’re already seeing in threads and e-mails: Namely, doesn’t Article I, section 7 of the Constitution say that all bills that raise revenue must originate in the House? And didn’t ObamaCare pass the Senate before it passed the House? And doesn’t that in turn mean that our nifty new health care “tax” was passed according to unconstitutional procedures?
    Unless I’m missing something, no. The bill that passed the Senate wasn’t technically a Senate bill. Reid took a bill that had already passed the House, stripped out the provisions to turn it into a “shell bill,” and then inserted the text of ObamaCare to get around this requirement. The bill that passed the Senate was H.R.3590, which initially had to do with tax breaks for military homeowners. And yes, they’ve used the “shell bill” strategy before. In fact, the conservative opinion today specifically mentioned Article I, section 7 at one point while raising no objection to Reid’s sleight of hand.

    Full post with embedded links can be found here: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/28/say-doesnt-the-constitution-require-tax-bills-to-originate-in-the-house

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Could the health care law have passed the Senate if senators were still elected by state legislators and not by direct election? Direct election of Senators seems to eliminate the protection for states that the Senate was created to establish.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Could the health care law have passed the Senate if senators were still elected by state legislators and not by direct election? Direct election of Senators seems to eliminate the protection for states that the Senate was created to establish.

  • helen

    Could General Motors get bailed out by imposing a tax on everyone who does not buy a Chevy?

    I didn’t buy a Chevy. My savings took/are taking a hit because of the bailout. Shall I call it a tax?

    it would at least put paid the notion that Congress is “helping family farmers” by sending tax monies from the citizenry to firms like ADM.

    True, and high time, too.
    Some years ago, the largest single beneficiary of the “farm program” was some “pocket” kingdom in Europe… Leichtenstein, I believe. Real hard working family farmers!

  • helen

    Could General Motors get bailed out by imposing a tax on everyone who does not buy a Chevy?

    I didn’t buy a Chevy. My savings took/are taking a hit because of the bailout. Shall I call it a tax?

    it would at least put paid the notion that Congress is “helping family farmers” by sending tax monies from the citizenry to firms like ADM.

    True, and high time, too.
    Some years ago, the largest single beneficiary of the “farm program” was some “pocket” kingdom in Europe… Leichtenstein, I believe. Real hard working family farmers!

  • helen

    The big issue to me is how the Lutheran Church will respond to this. The two kingdoms doctrine has been interpreted as forbidding the church from endorsing or condemning specific candidates or legislation. Yet Obamacare allows the government to order people to do sinful things. In the birth control mandate they do just that. We are on a course where we have to obey God rather than man

    The Lutheran church in the US is divided into the elca and the rest of us. The elca (the larger half and usually assumed to be all the Lutherans by the media) already has abortion in its insurance for church workers, as do many of the liberal protestants it consorts with. They’ve “got no dog in this fight”; they sold out long ago.

    LCMS, WELS, and ELS, the next three in size, have spoken against the HHS ruling through their Synodical Presidents. Yesterday I received a copy of President Harrison’s statement with my July news bulletin. (That was for the benefit of those who don’t read the papers, watch TV, or spend time on the internet, I presume.) :(

    We do not ordinarily discuss elections, and haven’t now. But it is reasonable to inform members on topics which infringe on freedom of religion.

  • helen

    The big issue to me is how the Lutheran Church will respond to this. The two kingdoms doctrine has been interpreted as forbidding the church from endorsing or condemning specific candidates or legislation. Yet Obamacare allows the government to order people to do sinful things. In the birth control mandate they do just that. We are on a course where we have to obey God rather than man

    The Lutheran church in the US is divided into the elca and the rest of us. The elca (the larger half and usually assumed to be all the Lutherans by the media) already has abortion in its insurance for church workers, as do many of the liberal protestants it consorts with. They’ve “got no dog in this fight”; they sold out long ago.

    LCMS, WELS, and ELS, the next three in size, have spoken against the HHS ruling through their Synodical Presidents. Yesterday I received a copy of President Harrison’s statement with my July news bulletin. (That was for the benefit of those who don’t read the papers, watch TV, or spend time on the internet, I presume.) :(

    We do not ordinarily discuss elections, and haven’t now. But it is reasonable to inform members on topics which infringe on freedom of religion.

  • kerner

    Never mind for a moment whether this was substantive3ly a good or a bad decision (I’ve been lurking rather than commenting on that point, myself).

    But, in my community at least, the conservative media is using this as a great rallying call to voters for November:

    1. This is a tax (Chief Justice Roberts says so),

    2. This is, therefore, the largest tax increase on the middle class ever (By, naturally, the greatest enemy of the middle class ever: Pres. Obama)

    3. The is a big honking tax on all those starry eyed young people who voted for hope and change, because they are the people most likely to do without health insurance, because they have, statistically, the fewest helath problems.

    4. There are aparently a lot of other tax increases in the AFA on which nobody was focusing until now. Taxes on investments, rent, capital gains, etc. that now have people who pay such taxes scrambling to avoid.

    Does anyone think this will work? i.e. will the American people come to believe that Pres. Obama has handed them, not only a program they don’t want, but a huge tax to pay for it, and as a result decide to vote out Obama and their Democratic senators?

    It would be interesting if it worked out that way.

  • kerner

    Never mind for a moment whether this was substantive3ly a good or a bad decision (I’ve been lurking rather than commenting on that point, myself).

    But, in my community at least, the conservative media is using this as a great rallying call to voters for November:

    1. This is a tax (Chief Justice Roberts says so),

    2. This is, therefore, the largest tax increase on the middle class ever (By, naturally, the greatest enemy of the middle class ever: Pres. Obama)

    3. The is a big honking tax on all those starry eyed young people who voted for hope and change, because they are the people most likely to do without health insurance, because they have, statistically, the fewest helath problems.

    4. There are aparently a lot of other tax increases in the AFA on which nobody was focusing until now. Taxes on investments, rent, capital gains, etc. that now have people who pay such taxes scrambling to avoid.

    Does anyone think this will work? i.e. will the American people come to believe that Pres. Obama has handed them, not only a program they don’t want, but a huge tax to pay for it, and as a result decide to vote out Obama and their Democratic senators?

    It would be interesting if it worked out that way.

  • fws

    “Could General Motors get bailed out by imposing a tax on everyone who does not buy a Chevy?”

    Yes. This indeed happens all the time. We often impose import tarriffs to make imports less competative, or we impose a “penalty” by simply refusing imports that are competative.

    When florida had the last frost that killed all their orange trees, we allowed Brasil to import oranges. Then, when florida growers could again produce, we banned those cheaper Brazilian oranges. Now Brazilians can only import orange juice concentrate and pulp into the usa.

    This too should not be legal. We save a few thousand jobs but increase the prices for everyone, including the poorest and most vulnerable financially among us.

  • fws

    “Could General Motors get bailed out by imposing a tax on everyone who does not buy a Chevy?”

    Yes. This indeed happens all the time. We often impose import tarriffs to make imports less competative, or we impose a “penalty” by simply refusing imports that are competative.

    When florida had the last frost that killed all their orange trees, we allowed Brasil to import oranges. Then, when florida growers could again produce, we banned those cheaper Brazilian oranges. Now Brazilians can only import orange juice concentrate and pulp into the usa.

    This too should not be legal. We save a few thousand jobs but increase the prices for everyone, including the poorest and most vulnerable financially among us.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    The PPACA started out it’s life as H.R. 3950, and passed after the Senate gutted it and rewrote it with “amendments.” So, I I’m doubtful that it’s going to be possible to argue that it didn’t originate in the House, even if it is substantially a product of the Senate. Maybe you could argue that the spirit of the Constitution was violated by this chicanery, but as we have just seen (and seen over and over again over the last many decades), the Supreme Court has no problem with chicanery such as word redefinitions, emanations and penumbras.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    The PPACA started out it’s life as H.R. 3950, and passed after the Senate gutted it and rewrote it with “amendments.” So, I I’m doubtful that it’s going to be possible to argue that it didn’t originate in the House, even if it is substantially a product of the Senate. Maybe you could argue that the spirit of the Constitution was violated by this chicanery, but as we have just seen (and seen over and over again over the last many decades), the Supreme Court has no problem with chicanery such as word redefinitions, emanations and penumbras.

  • fws

    “There are now 23 lawsuits against the contraception and abortifacient mandate.”

    Read the LCMS page on the HHS mandate. And open the pdf they provide there.

    There is no “abortifacent mandate” according to the LCMS.

    So what is the substance of this accusation according to that Pdf? SOME contraceptives, MAY, in SOME cases, DEPENDING upon the way a womans menstrual cycle hits, act as an abortifacent.

    There is scientific evidence that this conjecture or theory is NOT so in most cases.
    There is NO evidence that this conjecture or theory is not true in SOME cases.

    The LCMS would like more studies to be done to make certain that this conjecture has no substance to it before they decide on the HHS mandate. They want conclusive proof of a negative fact.

  • fws

    “There are now 23 lawsuits against the contraception and abortifacient mandate.”

    Read the LCMS page on the HHS mandate. And open the pdf they provide there.

    There is no “abortifacent mandate” according to the LCMS.

    So what is the substance of this accusation according to that Pdf? SOME contraceptives, MAY, in SOME cases, DEPENDING upon the way a womans menstrual cycle hits, act as an abortifacent.

    There is scientific evidence that this conjecture or theory is NOT so in most cases.
    There is NO evidence that this conjecture or theory is not true in SOME cases.

    The LCMS would like more studies to be done to make certain that this conjecture has no substance to it before they decide on the HHS mandate. They want conclusive proof of a negative fact.

  • fws

    Two kingdoms doctrine has NOTHING at all to do with determining the proper sphere of authority of state relative to church!!!!!

    Two Kingdoms is only and specifically another form of the proper distinction of Law and Gospel.

    The Gospel, is not, not in even in the smallest way, defined as anything that includes what anyone does in either the church or the government! Those things are all about carnal righteousness that Romans 8 says pertains only to this life and will end with it.

  • fws

    Two kingdoms doctrine has NOTHING at all to do with determining the proper sphere of authority of state relative to church!!!!!

    Two Kingdoms is only and specifically another form of the proper distinction of Law and Gospel.

    The Gospel, is not, not in even in the smallest way, defined as anything that includes what anyone does in either the church or the government! Those things are all about carnal righteousness that Romans 8 says pertains only to this life and will end with it.

  • fws

    all the legal precidents for the aca were set in place by social security and medicare.

    There is not ONE republican seriously pushing to repeal these two programs. Why not? It would be political suicide to do so. That is just a fact. One to not take for granted as to it’s implications as to legitimacy of stuff that we do not think is wise or good.

    At lease the ACA is not merely an expansion of medicare. It is partially “privatized” by working with insurance companies. It could be alot worse.

    I would not be surprised if the Republican alternative looks alot like the prescription drug mandate put into law by….. the Republicans!

  • fws

    all the legal precidents for the aca were set in place by social security and medicare.

    There is not ONE republican seriously pushing to repeal these two programs. Why not? It would be political suicide to do so. That is just a fact. One to not take for granted as to it’s implications as to legitimacy of stuff that we do not think is wise or good.

    At lease the ACA is not merely an expansion of medicare. It is partially “privatized” by working with insurance companies. It could be alot worse.

    I would not be surprised if the Republican alternative looks alot like the prescription drug mandate put into law by….. the Republicans!

  • fws

    I would love to see the repeal of medicare, social security and welfare. I would like that even though it is 100% certain that I would be now dead if those programs had not existed.

    There is a certain commitment therefore to that desire that I do not believe any of the rest of you possess.

    At breakfast the hens contribute and the pigs are committed.
    I am not a hen in this matter.

  • fws

    I would love to see the repeal of medicare, social security and welfare. I would like that even though it is 100% certain that I would be now dead if those programs had not existed.

    There is a certain commitment therefore to that desire that I do not believe any of the rest of you possess.

    At breakfast the hens contribute and the pigs are committed.
    I am not a hen in this matter.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “This too should not be legal. We save a few thousand jobs but increase the prices for everyone, including the poorest and most vulnerable financially among us.”

    How does it affect citrus prices in Brasil? Does it make these healthy foods more affordable to the poor in Brasil? I am guessing the typical poor Brasilian has a lower BMI than the typical “poor” American. I understand that the wealthy in Brasil would rather sell at a higher price to rich Americans, but what about poor Brasilians? How are they affected?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “This too should not be legal. We save a few thousand jobs but increase the prices for everyone, including the poorest and most vulnerable financially among us.”

    How does it affect citrus prices in Brasil? Does it make these healthy foods more affordable to the poor in Brasil? I am guessing the typical poor Brasilian has a lower BMI than the typical “poor” American. I understand that the wealthy in Brasil would rather sell at a higher price to rich Americans, but what about poor Brasilians? How are they affected?

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    Dennis Prager is discussing this topic, right now:

    http://dena.plr.liquidcompass.net/player/flash/audio_player.php?id=PRAGIR&uid=610

    It’s a good show…no matter what side you are on.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    Dennis Prager is discussing this topic, right now:

    http://dena.plr.liquidcompass.net/player/flash/audio_player.php?id=PRAGIR&uid=610

    It’s a good show…no matter what side you are on.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin
  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin
  • DonS

    Some of these issues were discussed last week on the thread tODD started. For example, apparently the Senate gutted and amended a House bill to ensure that the taxes in the bill “originated” in the House. Though such mischief obviously was not the intent of the Founders, no court is going to touch that unjusticiable question. We also discussed that, since the penalty is income-based, and those of sufficiently low income are exempted, the penalty tax is essentially an income tax surcharge, not an “inactivity” tax, so there’s no potential constitutional issue there (I’m not sure if there would be anyway — I’ve never thought about it. Obviously, Justice Roberts wasn’t concerned about the tax being unconstitutional, specifically pointing out how broad Congress’ taxing power is).

    The interesting thing that came out over the weekend was this: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/07/cbs-roberts-switched-vote-on-health-care/1#.T_HU_pHmWSo

    According to Jan Crawford of CBS News, she claims two Supreme Court sources leaking to her the fact that Roberts switched sides during the deliberation period, initially voting with the four conservative justices to overturn the law in its entirety, and then changing his mind. According to her, he wanted to strike down only the mandate, but the other four said that was nonsensical, because without the mandate the law, with guaranteed issue, cannot stand. It was Anthony Kennedy who tried for a month to convince him to reconsider, and then he tried, in turn, to get Kennedy to switch with him.

    This kind of leak is fairly unprecedented, but she is a credible Supreme Court reporter. Very interesting.

    In any event, there is no option but to ensure that our president, Senate, and House in January are all of a mind to repeal this law using the political process.

  • DonS

    Some of these issues were discussed last week on the thread tODD started. For example, apparently the Senate gutted and amended a House bill to ensure that the taxes in the bill “originated” in the House. Though such mischief obviously was not the intent of the Founders, no court is going to touch that unjusticiable question. We also discussed that, since the penalty is income-based, and those of sufficiently low income are exempted, the penalty tax is essentially an income tax surcharge, not an “inactivity” tax, so there’s no potential constitutional issue there (I’m not sure if there would be anyway — I’ve never thought about it. Obviously, Justice Roberts wasn’t concerned about the tax being unconstitutional, specifically pointing out how broad Congress’ taxing power is).

    The interesting thing that came out over the weekend was this: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/07/cbs-roberts-switched-vote-on-health-care/1#.T_HU_pHmWSo

    According to Jan Crawford of CBS News, she claims two Supreme Court sources leaking to her the fact that Roberts switched sides during the deliberation period, initially voting with the four conservative justices to overturn the law in its entirety, and then changing his mind. According to her, he wanted to strike down only the mandate, but the other four said that was nonsensical, because without the mandate the law, with guaranteed issue, cannot stand. It was Anthony Kennedy who tried for a month to convince him to reconsider, and then he tried, in turn, to get Kennedy to switch with him.

    This kind of leak is fairly unprecedented, but she is a credible Supreme Court reporter. Very interesting.

    In any event, there is no option but to ensure that our president, Senate, and House in January are all of a mind to repeal this law using the political process.

  • kerner

    sg @24:

    Some of the poor in Brasil probably lose their jobs and become poorer, because there is less of a market for the producttheir employers, the “rich Brasilian” farmers, produce. And who says that a Brasilian Orange grower is so rich even by Brasilian standards? I mean, they might be fairly well off, but do we know that? Maybe Brasilian Orange growers are middle class busnessmen who become insolvent whan their export markets disappear.

    I know this is way off topic, but you really are a fan of a centrally planned economy, aren’t you?

  • kerner

    sg @24:

    Some of the poor in Brasil probably lose their jobs and become poorer, because there is less of a market for the producttheir employers, the “rich Brasilian” farmers, produce. And who says that a Brasilian Orange grower is so rich even by Brasilian standards? I mean, they might be fairly well off, but do we know that? Maybe Brasilian Orange growers are middle class busnessmen who become insolvent whan their export markets disappear.

    I know this is way off topic, but you really are a fan of a centrally planned economy, aren’t you?

  • kerner

    DonS:

    I think the difference is that formerly the government taxed buying something as opposed to NOT buying something. Even in the case of “not buying a chevy”, the traditional approach was to tax buying any alternative to a chevy, expecially foreign alternatives like Toyotas. Or to encourage people to eat healthy foods by taxing the “unhealthy” ones.

    The new idea is to tax people who won’t buy something that the government wants us to buy, whether they are actually buying an alternative or not. I wouldn’t have thought it would hold up, and maybe it won’t in the long run, being an opinion really only held by one Justice (with a 4 Justice concurrence, which is very unusual as you know). But for now, repealling Obamacare in the good old fashioned manner (legislative action) looks like the only alternative its opponents have.

  • kerner

    DonS:

    I think the difference is that formerly the government taxed buying something as opposed to NOT buying something. Even in the case of “not buying a chevy”, the traditional approach was to tax buying any alternative to a chevy, expecially foreign alternatives like Toyotas. Or to encourage people to eat healthy foods by taxing the “unhealthy” ones.

    The new idea is to tax people who won’t buy something that the government wants us to buy, whether they are actually buying an alternative or not. I wouldn’t have thought it would hold up, and maybe it won’t in the long run, being an opinion really only held by one Justice (with a 4 Justice concurrence, which is very unusual as you know). But for now, repealling Obamacare in the good old fashioned manner (legislative action) looks like the only alternative its opponents have.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Every “tax credit” for buying energy efficient appliances, cars, roofing materials, etc. is a tax on everyone else who doesn’t buy such things. In my admittedly uniformed opinion, the Gov’t has no business subsidizing or giving tax incentives or credits to support any industry. The rent-seeking needs to stop.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Every “tax credit” for buying energy efficient appliances, cars, roofing materials, etc. is a tax on everyone else who doesn’t buy such things. In my admittedly uniformed opinion, the Gov’t has no business subsidizing or giving tax incentives or credits to support any industry. The rent-seeking needs to stop.

  • DonS

    Kerner @ 29: I do understand the distinction in fact. But, as we discussed in last week’s thread, the penalty tax is actually income-based. You have to earn a threshold level of income to be assessed the tax for failure to buy insurance, and then the penalty tax is based on the amount of income you earn. So, if you truly do not participate in commerce, by not earning an income, or earning an inadequate income, you will not be taxed. In other words, some activity is required to owe the tax, namely earning a predetermined minimum income. After that, the idea is simply that you pay more tax if you don’t buy the insurance than if you do. As Mike points out @ 30, we already have a tax code that benefits you if you do certain things, or if you avoid doing other things, and I don’t really see how this particular additional tax provision is qualitatively different so as to somehow be unconstitutional under the tax code.

    Of course, I disagree with the threshold issue of calling the mandate a tax, since its supporters specifically denied that it was when they shoved it through Congress, but that’s water under the bridge I guess.

    We know how we must vote in November, if we want any shot at repealing this monstrosity.

  • DonS

    Kerner @ 29: I do understand the distinction in fact. But, as we discussed in last week’s thread, the penalty tax is actually income-based. You have to earn a threshold level of income to be assessed the tax for failure to buy insurance, and then the penalty tax is based on the amount of income you earn. So, if you truly do not participate in commerce, by not earning an income, or earning an inadequate income, you will not be taxed. In other words, some activity is required to owe the tax, namely earning a predetermined minimum income. After that, the idea is simply that you pay more tax if you don’t buy the insurance than if you do. As Mike points out @ 30, we already have a tax code that benefits you if you do certain things, or if you avoid doing other things, and I don’t really see how this particular additional tax provision is qualitatively different so as to somehow be unconstitutional under the tax code.

    Of course, I disagree with the threshold issue of calling the mandate a tax, since its supporters specifically denied that it was when they shoved it through Congress, but that’s water under the bridge I guess.

    We know how we must vote in November, if we want any shot at repealing this monstrosity.

  • Jon

    Significantly, Romney doesn’t call it a tax, either. As he said in Massachusetts, it’s a penalty on freeriders who want their health care costs borne by everyone else.

  • Jon

    Significantly, Romney doesn’t call it a tax, either. As he said in Massachusetts, it’s a penalty on freeriders who want their health care costs borne by everyone else.

  • DonS

    That’s not really significant, Jon @ 32. States are free to do things the federal government is not free to do, because of its limited powers. At the federal level, apparently, if it is not a tax, it is unconstitutional.

  • DonS

    That’s not really significant, Jon @ 32. States are free to do things the federal government is not free to do, because of its limited powers. At the federal level, apparently, if it is not a tax, it is unconstitutional.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @28

    In the “free” market, countries that exploit employees enjoy an asymmetrical advantage over those who pay employees more. Tariffs address the asymmetry. If we vote for tariffs to protect our workers, that is our prerogative. It is democratic. You know countries that pay too low wages could increase their domestic markets by increasing wages, then the workers could buy more stuff. Of course that requires more of a future time orientation and a civic minded legislature. So, once again low social function continues to plague them and undermine their prosperity.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @28

    In the “free” market, countries that exploit employees enjoy an asymmetrical advantage over those who pay employees more. Tariffs address the asymmetry. If we vote for tariffs to protect our workers, that is our prerogative. It is democratic. You know countries that pay too low wages could increase their domestic markets by increasing wages, then the workers could buy more stuff. Of course that requires more of a future time orientation and a civic minded legislature. So, once again low social function continues to plague them and undermine their prosperity.

  • Cincinnatus

    I just thought I’d pop in to support the protectionist cause of sg, if only to demonstrate that one can be both anti-free-trade and conservative.

    I felt physical pain when Frank Sonnek shared his ode to NAFTA the other day. Once was I too a cheerleader for unrestricted trade, open borders, the glories of globalization. No more. By social-scientific estimates, NAFTA directly caused the destruction of nearly 700,000 American jobs (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/12/nafta-job-loss-trade-deficit-epi_n_859983.html), a process that is still ongoing. Not to mention the chaos created in the Mexican agricultural sector, among other problems.

    We can disregard those jobs as “redundant” or “inefficient” or whatever, but I’m no longer comfortable in my Christianity or in my conservatism in such a flippant dismissal of the livelihoods of millions of fellow-citizens. A political decision destroyed those jobs. I have no use for such a political decision. Plus, I’m a localist, so why would I endorse anything that advances the march of globalization?

    NAFTA, of course, is serving as a placeholder for other notions proffered by the prophets of free trade. Free trade is appropriate in certain circumstances, but not as a universal principle. And is there such a thing as free trade anyway? The EU didn’t actually establish free trade between European nations; it established a system in which German banks and exports were enormously privileged over those of southern economies simply by virtue of existing. Free trade is only free when power relationships are equal–which they almost never are.

  • Cincinnatus

    I just thought I’d pop in to support the protectionist cause of sg, if only to demonstrate that one can be both anti-free-trade and conservative.

    I felt physical pain when Frank Sonnek shared his ode to NAFTA the other day. Once was I too a cheerleader for unrestricted trade, open borders, the glories of globalization. No more. By social-scientific estimates, NAFTA directly caused the destruction of nearly 700,000 American jobs (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/12/nafta-job-loss-trade-deficit-epi_n_859983.html), a process that is still ongoing. Not to mention the chaos created in the Mexican agricultural sector, among other problems.

    We can disregard those jobs as “redundant” or “inefficient” or whatever, but I’m no longer comfortable in my Christianity or in my conservatism in such a flippant dismissal of the livelihoods of millions of fellow-citizens. A political decision destroyed those jobs. I have no use for such a political decision. Plus, I’m a localist, so why would I endorse anything that advances the march of globalization?

    NAFTA, of course, is serving as a placeholder for other notions proffered by the prophets of free trade. Free trade is appropriate in certain circumstances, but not as a universal principle. And is there such a thing as free trade anyway? The EU didn’t actually establish free trade between European nations; it established a system in which German banks and exports were enormously privileged over those of southern economies simply by virtue of existing. Free trade is only free when power relationships are equal–which they almost never are.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    free trade is not so cut-and-dried as to be on one political side. Bill Clinton was for it; Pat Buchanan was against it.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    free trade is not so cut-and-dried as to be on one political side. Bill Clinton was for it; Pat Buchanan was against it.

  • DonS

    Protectionism is a tough issue. We wouldn’t have been in the position of needing to be so protectionist if our labor force hadn’t become so uncompetitive in the world marketplace. That’s the fault of taking the labor union movement too far and also of our penchant to over-regulate U.S. manufacturing. So, the real solution to protectionism is to make it less of an issue by putting our domestic manufacturers on a level competitive playing field — low taxes, fewer regulations, right-to-work laws, policies that encourage abundant low-cost energy. Government efforts should be devoted to improving highways and other infrastructure which furthers manufacturing, rather than to regulating, anti-business energy policies, and transfer payments.

    If the government were truly to care about and promote good middle class manufacturing jobs here in the U.S., NAFTA would be a non-issue.

  • DonS

    Protectionism is a tough issue. We wouldn’t have been in the position of needing to be so protectionist if our labor force hadn’t become so uncompetitive in the world marketplace. That’s the fault of taking the labor union movement too far and also of our penchant to over-regulate U.S. manufacturing. So, the real solution to protectionism is to make it less of an issue by putting our domestic manufacturers on a level competitive playing field — low taxes, fewer regulations, right-to-work laws, policies that encourage abundant low-cost energy. Government efforts should be devoted to improving highways and other infrastructure which furthers manufacturing, rather than to regulating, anti-business energy policies, and transfer payments.

    If the government were truly to care about and promote good middle class manufacturing jobs here in the U.S., NAFTA would be a non-issue.

  • kerner

    Well, it was not my intention to hijack this thread, but I may have done that.

    Cinn @ 35:
    The Huffington Post? Really? For a more balanced analysis, take a look at Wikipedia (not a bastion of accuracy maybe, but at least people are throwing competing studies at each other.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA%27s_Impact_on_US_Employment

    The upshot of which is that the ratification of NAFTA was followed by a 14 year period of expansion of GDP and low unemployment during which things improved for American workers. This period of growth was cut short by factors that were unrelated to free trade; specifically the housing market crashed because Fannie May and Freddie Mac were handing out mortgages like candy to people who could not pay them. Thie Obama administration’s solution to that problem was to spend aproximately $1 trillion on a “stimulous” plan that amounted to proping up government jods and ignoring the private economy.

    But the point is that free trade was making The USA more prosperous and more employed until unrelated issues intervened.

    Another interesting point, at least to me, is that the ebiggest winner from NAFTA appears to be Canada:

    http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/nafta-alena/nafta5_section04.aspx?lang=en&view=d

    Maybe we should stop worrying about those pesky hispanics and pay more attention to the economic raiders from north of the border . ;)

  • kerner

    Well, it was not my intention to hijack this thread, but I may have done that.

    Cinn @ 35:
    The Huffington Post? Really? For a more balanced analysis, take a look at Wikipedia (not a bastion of accuracy maybe, but at least people are throwing competing studies at each other.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA%27s_Impact_on_US_Employment

    The upshot of which is that the ratification of NAFTA was followed by a 14 year period of expansion of GDP and low unemployment during which things improved for American workers. This period of growth was cut short by factors that were unrelated to free trade; specifically the housing market crashed because Fannie May and Freddie Mac were handing out mortgages like candy to people who could not pay them. Thie Obama administration’s solution to that problem was to spend aproximately $1 trillion on a “stimulous” plan that amounted to proping up government jods and ignoring the private economy.

    But the point is that free trade was making The USA more prosperous and more employed until unrelated issues intervened.

    Another interesting point, at least to me, is that the ebiggest winner from NAFTA appears to be Canada:

    http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/nafta-alena/nafta5_section04.aspx?lang=en&view=d

    Maybe we should stop worrying about those pesky hispanics and pay more attention to the economic raiders from north of the border . ;)

  • kerner

    Further, The Huffington Post article is largely based on a study conducted by the EPI, which is basically a Labor Union think tank. For its board of Directors, see here:

    http://www.epi.org/about/board/

    A big proponent of free trade is the Cato Institute, which ties Individual Liberty, Free Markets and Peace together in its basic philisophy. See one of the Cato Institute’s articles on NAFTA:

    http://www.cato.org/publications/free-trade-bulletin/nafta-10-economic-foreign-policy-success

    I would have thought that the Cato Institute’s espousal of individualo liberty and peace, which I know to be near and dear to you, would get them some credence.

    On the other hand, you may have no faith in the libertarian philosophy of the Cato Institute, or you may argue that they are just wrong on this particular point. And I may be wrong for trusting them. But I will have a lot more faith in the Cato Institute that the EPI and the Huffington Post until somebody can prove the Cato Institute wrong.

    I also realize that it could be argued that NAFTA itself has not been that big a factor in the economic expansion the USA enjoyed 1994-2008. But I think that NAFTA at least generally enhanced a trend that was moving toward free trade already, and I have to say that all the economic expansion and low unemployment that occurred after NAFTA went into effect has not been explained away. But if someone can explain it as the result of something completely different, I’m all ears.

  • kerner

    Further, The Huffington Post article is largely based on a study conducted by the EPI, which is basically a Labor Union think tank. For its board of Directors, see here:

    http://www.epi.org/about/board/

    A big proponent of free trade is the Cato Institute, which ties Individual Liberty, Free Markets and Peace together in its basic philisophy. See one of the Cato Institute’s articles on NAFTA:

    http://www.cato.org/publications/free-trade-bulletin/nafta-10-economic-foreign-policy-success

    I would have thought that the Cato Institute’s espousal of individualo liberty and peace, which I know to be near and dear to you, would get them some credence.

    On the other hand, you may have no faith in the libertarian philosophy of the Cato Institute, or you may argue that they are just wrong on this particular point. And I may be wrong for trusting them. But I will have a lot more faith in the Cato Institute that the EPI and the Huffington Post until somebody can prove the Cato Institute wrong.

    I also realize that it could be argued that NAFTA itself has not been that big a factor in the economic expansion the USA enjoyed 1994-2008. But I think that NAFTA at least generally enhanced a trend that was moving toward free trade already, and I have to say that all the economic expansion and low unemployment that occurred after NAFTA went into effect has not been explained away. But if someone can explain it as the result of something completely different, I’m all ears.

  • SKPeterson

    NAFTA is managed trade not free trade. If you had truly free trade, i.e., no restrictions on the flows of goods, capital and labor, then the local becomes global. Protectionism does not protect labor – it protects the firms that seek to exploit it.

  • SKPeterson

    NAFTA is managed trade not free trade. If you had truly free trade, i.e., no restrictions on the flows of goods, capital and labor, then the local becomes global. Protectionism does not protect labor – it protects the firms that seek to exploit it.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    What SKP said.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    What SKP said.

  • fws

    what kerner and skp both say.

  • fws

    what kerner and skp both say.

  • fws

    further..

    NAFTA was a boon not only to the economy but to the rule of Law in Mexico. How?

    for the oligarchy that controls Mexico to get a piece of the NAFTA pie, they had to transact in ways that were more transparent, open, and would allow others access.

    What has resulted: we now have a negative flow of immigrants from mexico. more imigrants are returning to mexico then are coming here. Part of this is our own economic downturn. Part is that we have clamped down and made it harder to enter and then to work here. But part of it is that , in relative terms, live can be better for mexicans, or almost as good as, there in mexico than it is here.

  • fws

    further..

    NAFTA was a boon not only to the economy but to the rule of Law in Mexico. How?

    for the oligarchy that controls Mexico to get a piece of the NAFTA pie, they had to transact in ways that were more transparent, open, and would allow others access.

    What has resulted: we now have a negative flow of immigrants from mexico. more imigrants are returning to mexico then are coming here. Part of this is our own economic downturn. Part is that we have clamped down and made it harder to enter and then to work here. But part of it is that , in relative terms, live can be better for mexicans, or almost as good as, there in mexico than it is here.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X