A few days ago, Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz incorrectly told her constituents, "We actually have not required in this law that you carry health insurance."

She went on to say it's a choice in how you file your taxes, not a requirement.

She either didn't read and understand the law, or she's lying. Section 1501 of the law she voted to pass amends Subtitle D of the IRS Code, adding a new Section 5000A, which is titled, "Requirement to Maintain Minimum Essential Coverage." The very first words of 5000A are, "An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable
individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month."

The law itself, that she voted for and supposedly read, says, unequivocally, that people (unless they are exempted, such as Indians and Amish and incarcerated prisoners) are required to have health insurance.

Ironically, Wasserman Schultz said on her Facebook page a few days earlier: "A FACT Check: Members of Congress and the health insurance reform bill? Apparently some people don't know that the health insurance reform bill we just passed REQUIRES that Members of Congress and their staff to obtain the same health insurance plans created by the law (some states might offer different plans) or through... the Exchange (market or purchasing pool) created in the law."

And, apparently, some people (ahem) don't know that the same bill REQUIRES all non-exempt people to obtain health insurance.

UPDATE: Just after I wrote this, Wasserman Schultz was on Crossfire with Chris Matthews and she repeated the same line: there is no requirement, it's simply a different way to file your taxes. She's an intelligent woman, she's had a few days to fix her error, and she's still repeating this clearly false statement, so I'm calling it: she's not merely ignorant, she's lying.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

The Democratic Senate Campaign Committee (DSCC), of which Senator Patty Murray is the fourth ranking member, and HA Seattle, run by our friend Goldy, have been spreading the inane claim that Dino Rossi has been involved in "shady" dealings and transactions.

Of course, none of it backed up by a single fact, and attorney James Rigby's letter to HA puts all of the "shady" nonsense to rest. The letter can be summed up with: "if you have evidence no one else has, then provide it; otherwise, you're simply making it up." Here's the money quote: "I know more about Maestro and Heide's shady dealings than probably anybody alive. You don't know what you are talking about when you assert that Dino Rossi has any connection to their wrongdoings. Your tactic is guilt by association plain and simple."

Rossi sent a letter to Murray asking her to ask her DSCC to pull back. She didn't respond, and chose to lie instead, saying "This is an issue between Mr. Rossi and the DSCC." If Murray were not highly ranked in the DSCC, that might fly, but she is obviously heavily invovled in what the DSCC is doing.

The DSCC also lied, saying "Significant questions remain unanswered surrounding your business deals, associates and what you have been doing since you last waged a campaign for public office." But no such questions exist, and if they do, the DSCC certainly isn't asking them. Instead they are hoping that by throwing enough insinuations against the wall, something will stick.

And the funniest part is that Rossi has not even announced whether he is running for the Senate against Murray at all, and the only real sign that he might be running is that he hasn't said he isn't. But this is enough for them to be so scared that they have to resort to manufacturing complaints against him. And that they won't back up their lies, but just keep reasserting them as if repetition makes truth, is telling.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

You've probably seen this, but I can't pass up pointing it out. Many liberals hate the rule of law -- and by this, I mean they despise the notion that we should follow the law, and instead they want us to just go by what they think is best at the time (a.k.a., the rule of man) -- but few admit it so clearly as Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL).

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Today Slashdot did a spoof of Chatroulette, that we called Slashroulette. We prerecorded videos of ourselves and others. Here's five of the six I did (the sixth was me tuning the guitar, I didn't post that one on YouTube): video 1, video 2, video 3, video 4, video 5.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

A new bill being introduced today. Read it and weep. Is the new power conferred to Congress to mandate our economic activity a slippery slope? You betcha!

111th Congress

2nd Session

H.R. ____________

To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Rangel introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on _______________

A BILL

To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the "Affordable Health Care for America's Future Act".

SECTION 2. REQUIREMENT FOR SUPPORTING CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:

(1) In general.--The individual responsibility requirement provided for in this section is commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce, as a result of the effects described in paragraph (2).

(2) Effects on the national economy and interstate commerce.--The effects described in this paragraph are the following:

(A) The requirement regulates activity that is commercial and economic in nature: economic and financial decisions about how and when campaign donations are made, and which candidates are financially supported.

(B) Only members of the Democratic Party voted for health care reform.

(C) Health insurance and health care services are a significant part of the national economy.

(D) The requirement will add millions of new consumers to the health insurance market, increasing the supply of, and demand for, health care services.

(3) Supreme Court Ruling.--In United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association (322 U.S. 533 (1944)), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that insurance is interstate commerce subject to Federal regulation.

(b) In General.--Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new chapter:

"CHAPTER 49--SUPPORT OF CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES

"Sec. 5000C. Requirement for supporting congressional candidates.

"(a) Requirement for supporting congressional candidates.--An applicable individual shall, for each month beginning after 2010 ensure that the individual contributes to an authorized Democratic Party candidate the minimum contribution for such month.

"(b) Shared Responsibility Payment.--

"(1) In general.--If an applicable individual fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months during any calendar year beginning after 2010, then there is hereby imposed a penalty with respect to the individual in the amount determined under subsection (c).

"(2) Inclusion with return.--Any penalty imposed by this section with respect to any month shall be included with a taxpayer's return under chapter 1 for the taxable year which includes such month.

"(c) Amount of penalty.--

"(1) In general.--The penalty determined under this subsection for any month with respect to any individual is an amount equal to 1/12 of the applicable dollar amount for the calendar year.

"(2) Applicable dollar amount.--For purposes of paragraph (1)--

"(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C), the applicable dollar amount is $250.

"(B) Phase in.--The applicable dollar amount is $100 for 2014 and $150 for 2015.

"(C) Mitigation.--The applicable dollar amount shall be increased by 200 percent of the total contributions made by applicable individual to other nonauthorized political or public advocacy groups."

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

I will say up front, clearly, for all to hear: violence, and threats of violence, in response to to the health insurance bill, are wrong. Categorically wrong. And anyone making such a threat, or committing such a violent act, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

That said, however, such threats and even people acting on such threats is not merely unsurprising, but absolutely inevitable. And far from being, as Nancy Pelosi said, against "the American way," they are firmly rooted in American politics from the very beginning of our nation (and I'm not just referring to the Revolution, either).

This is very simple.

Every person has the right to self-defense, to protect their rights from being violated by others. However, if every person acted out in self-defense against every encroachment of rights, we'd have chaos. So if a neighbor poisons your dogs, you don't shoot him or trash his yard. You go to the authorities: the police, the courts, and so on.

That is how we maintain an orderly society.

In this case, however, it's the government that is violating our rights. We entrust a significant portion of our right to self-defense to government, and they abuse that by stealing from us.

Of course, the right thing to do in this case is to work through the political system to fix the problem, to protect our rights from government encroachment. But for very legitimate and rational reasons, many people believe that's no longer a reasonable option. Year after year, more of our rights are taken from us, and with few exceptions, one those rights are gone, they don't come back.

So when the organizations you entrust the defense of your rights to is the organization violating your rights, and you believe you have no recourse left, you're going to consider reasserting your right to self-defense of your rights.

This is inevitable. Not that everyone will do it, of course, but in a nation of 300 million people, some will. Even if people don't think of it in those terms precisely, it's how the reasoning basically goes. It's wrong most of the time -- including in the case of the health insurance debate -- but it will happen, and pretending that it's some anomaly or outside of the American tradition is stupid. It would be nice if it were outside the American tradition, but that's just not reality.

Indeed, such violent reactions as we've seen are so completely and obviously inevitable that I assume the Democrats, long ago, knew the reactions would happen (how couldn't they?) and planned to take political advantage all along. If they are surprised by the reaction, they are, quite frankly, completely incompetent.

And for those who whine about this sort of thing happening more from the right than the left, I don't know if it's true. I've certainly seen many death threats toward Republicans in my days, and even in the last year we've seen many violent acts at health care town halls from Democratic supporters.

But I will say that because of how the parties break down philosophically, with the left being much more likely to take away the rights and property of other people, a violent response is therefore more likely in that direction. But we see the same thing from the left, too: the man in Bellingham who last year threatened violence because he saw his rights as a gay man being violated; radical blacks in the 60s fighting for their actual civil rights as human beings; and so on.

Their violent acts and threats were not justified either. But that some people will respond violently when government, the institution sworn to defend people's rights, are the ones violating their rights. It makes them feel helpless, which drastically increases the liklihood that they will lash out violently in reaction.

It's the way the world works and we shouldn't act surprised, and, when appropriate -- such as now -- we should point out that if government didn't steal from us, it wouldn't be getting that sort of reaction in the first place.

Of course, some on the left are going to say I am condoning violence, even though I'm clearly not. Just as broad government theft of rights inevitably results in violence, so too does speaking candidly about it inevitably result in lies.

It's the way the world works.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

On KING 5 News tonight, Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna pointed out that the obvious fact that the policy of the health insurance bill is irrelevant to whether or not it's legal. He was asked, if the provisions in the bill are thrown out by the courts, won't that gut the bill? But that can't possibly be relevant to the lawsuit, which is just about whether or not those provisions are legal.

Our system, in theory, follows the rule of law, not an ends-justifies-the-means consequentialism that ignores what the law says if the people in charge happen to like the result.

But when his Governor, Christine Gregoire, had her turn to speak, she refused to actually explain why she thought the bill wasn't unconstitutional. She asserted it without explanation, and instead devoted her entire time to explaining why she thinks the bill is a good idea.

The bill could be the best idea in the world, but if it violates the Constitution, it cannot stand as it is. That's how our system works, as a former attorney general should know. And as any lawyer should know, the government has no authority to force people to buy a product just because those people happen to be alive. That not only violates the First, Fourth, Fifth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, as well as Article I, Section 8, but it subverts the entire nature of limited government established by the people of the United States of America. And worst of all, it denies the self-evident and unalienable human rights noted in the Declaration of Independence.

That Gregoire tries to divert attention away from the obvious constitutional questions involved, and focus instead on the completely irrelevant notion of whether it's a good bill, is prima facie evidence that she doesn't even care whether the bill violates the Constitution.

While I am on the subject, I draw your attention to a letter to the editor I had published in the Seattle P-I way back in 2007, on this very subject:

Hillary Clinton wants to force everyone to pay for health care insurance, especially those who need it the least. The less you use it, the more you help pay for everyone else.

You have a tax on your property, on your sales, on your income, but this is worse. Those other taxes are based on things you do; this is a tax on just existing, on breathing. The government forces you to pay money for that.

Clinton and the Democrats want to tax you for being alive, tax you when you die, and use that money to kill you before you're even born.

Boy, I got vision, and the rest of the world wears bifocals.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

The health insurance reform bill should be opposed on many grounds. The most obvious to those of us who put a priority on liberty is that it violates our rights: our right to not buy insurance, our right to buy whatever insurance products we want, our right to not offer certain benefits as employers, and more.

Another big problem, if you're pro-life, is that the bill pays for abortions. The Democrats have been saying all along they would not pass a bill that pays for abortions, but they lied. This bill does precisly that, because it pays for insurance coverage that pays for abortions. There's no wiggling out of this lie.

Speaking of big lies, the Democrats have been saying their health insurance reform would cut the deficit. Obama said he wouldn't vote for it unless it did. But it only cuts the deficit because they cut out the Medicare "doctor fix" ... which they are going to pass separately later. So no, this bill -- combined with the portion they cut out of the bill, which they say they will pass this summer -- increases the deficit.

Of course, Democrats will say "we were talking about THIS bill, not the separate 'doctor fix' bill," but letting them get away with that argument would allow any Congress to make any major legislation reduce the deficit: just cut out the parts that increase the deficit, pass them separately, and surprise! You saved money!

Democrats who vote for this because it reduces the deficit are lying ... unless they plan to vote against the "doctor fix." But we know that the Democratic leadership and Obama plan to support it, so at the very least, we know they are lying about deficit cuts.

For most people, though, the biggest problem is that it simply doesn't do anything good for most Americans, becase costs don't come down. The CBO says premiums stay essentially static, with or without this bill. Literally, the Democrats have been touting a bill to address the high cost of health insurance, without actually reducing the cost of that insurance.

Anyone who votes for this bill is voting for deficit increases, tax increases, and a complete absence of actual cost-cutting.

There's a lot more that can and has and should be said about this bill, but these are the primary reasons why the Democrats are killing themselves in the elections this November.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

To most people, it's obvious that the White House line -- that people should like the health insurance bill because it has something in it that they like -- is idiotic.

It's entirely intuitive that just because you like one thing, doesn't mean you'll like something else that happens to include it. I've drawn the analogy that just because a bill that kills cute puppies cuts taxes, doesn't mean people who like low taxes will also like the puppy-killing bill.

George Will, on Sunday, used the analogy that he likes sauerkraut and ice cream, but doesn't like sauerkraut ice cream. I think that analogy isn't bad, but the point would be made better if he didn't like sauerkraut (as I don't): it's not that we like individual mandates and tort reform, but just not together; it's that we don't like individual mandates at all, and they end up ruining anything they're mixed with.

Will's analogy prompted a friend to quote: "It's got raisins in it. You like raisins." If you don't know what that refers to, watch this clip.

Mr. President, we see your health insurance plan as a big pile of green goo that comes alive after you've given it to us, and no amount of raisins is going to make us like it. The more we look at your plan, the less well we feel, and we'd really like to be excused.

This serves as both a perfect analogy to the White House line on their health insurance reform bill, and a chance to encourage people to see Better Off Dead again, or for the first time.

Oh and while I am talking about movies and the health insurance bill, recently, pundit Torie Clark compared the film Ishtar to the health insurance bill, saying "they spent millions and millions and millions of dollars on it you heard so much about it and when people actually started seeing it they said that this is terrible."

But it's not true. People who actually saw Ishtar -- except for people in "the business," including professional critics -- pretty much liked it. If you haven't seen it, you should. It's quite funny, though harder to find than Better Off Dead.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

It's a little hard to find -- since it's not yet on the bill's page -- but the proposed substitute for the income tax bill is available under that page's Committee Materials link.

It's not an amendment, but a completely different bill. You'll want to look at Section 401 ("For income earned on or after January 1, 2011, a tax is imposed at the rate of four and five-tenths percent on all taxable income of resident individuals and on all individuals deriving income from sources in Washington for each taxable year.") and Section 504 ("There is allowed from taxable income the following standard deductions. ...").

However, there is no severability clause: so if that's the case and Section 504 is found to be unconstitutional, the whole thing would get thrown out. That is made explicit in Section 1202. That's the only good news here. Perhaps they changed the severability clause from last year's version because of exactly this criticism: that it would end up as a tax on everyone if the standard deductions were found unconstitutional, which is likely, if the Court follows longstanding precedent.

As a refresher, our State Constitution, in Article VII, Section 1, says, "All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax. ..." And our Court has consistently ruled that money is property (having found this because, I presume, it is obviously true). So without overturning many decades of precedent and finding that money is not property, the only way to make this fly would be to rule that different levels of income are property, which would be even more twisted than finding that money isn't property.

Or they could just completely take leave of their senses and find that a standard deduction that is, by the words of the people who authored it, explicitly designed to target specific taxpayers (thus violating the spirit and letter of the Constitution), is nevertheless "uniform" because "the tax is on everyone, but it just exempts certain amounts for everyone."

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Recession. Massive unemployment. Tax increases. Higher health insurance costs. Property values in the toilet. Loans impossible to get for most people. And today the WA Senate announces that they want to force car insurance rates higher, for an auto theft surcharge (makes you wonder who the actual thieves are).

And students who have never had a job or paid taxes -- along with teachers who have never worked in the private sector -- are protesting that we aren't giving them enough free money for college educations most of them probably won't use and don't need.

If you really want a college education, I am highly in favor of it. A college education can be a great way to prepare you for the real world. You know what's another great way of preparing for the real world? Learning how to pay for things yourself, if you really want them.

But I have enough to pay for already without covering your Higher Ed Fantasy Camp.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Did the Democrats give any signal, at all, that they would be willing to take out any significant provision of their health care bill?

It seems to me that if not, it's hard to make a claim they were trying to compromise or be bipartisan.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Many people, in both parties, think that the legislative act is one of buying votes. From beginning to end.

They make sure you vote for the bill by putting something in it you want, whether it's a Bridge to Nowhere, the "Cornhusker Kickback," the public option, individual mandates, or whatever.

They don't seem to consider that some people will vote against the bill for what is in it, rather than what is not in it.

We saw this in display all day long with Obama and the Democrats saying over and over again that they have and would put in the bill what the Republicans want, and all the Republicans need to do is accept what the Democrats want. In this way, we have compromise, and there would be peace in the land.

But if what the Democrats want is something the Republicans are philosophically opposed to, then it's not compromise: it's surrender. And the Democrats know this. They know the Republicans cannot support an individual mandate, for example.

Real compromise involves subtraction, usually moreso than addition.

If the Democrats really cared about bipartisanship they would not try to add things to the bill to buy Republican votes, but they would offer to remove things from the bill that prevent Republicans from supporting it.

I am not implying the Republicans are perfectly principled and wonderful people. You wouldn't respect me if I did. I wouldn't respect myself. But there are lines they won't cross; the Democraic proposal has some of them; the Democrats know this; and they insist on Republican agreement anyway.

Now, I do accept the idea that this all could be part of the process, and the Democrats will eventually work with the Republicans by dropping the things that the Republicans will not support. But it doesn't look like it that's going to happen.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

When a "compromise" "bipartisan" proposal includes ideas the Republicans cannot possibly support, according to their principles -- most obviously forcing everyone to buy health insurance, but also forcing people and businesses into a new "health insurance exchange," punishing people for buying services the government doesn't think they should have, and so on -- then it's not bipartisan. It's not a compromise.

The White House is going through great pains to say, "hey look at all the Republican ideas we included in our plan!" But that's not enough. They could include everything the Republicans want, but if it also includes things Republicans cannot support, then Republicans will oppose it.

For those who don't get it, try this analogy: a bill that cuts taxes, but that also forces dog owners to kill the cutest puppy of every litter, won't get support from conservatives. They like the tax cut; they don't like forcing people to kill cute puppies.

The individual mandate cannot be supported by the Republicans. Period. Adding in Republican ideas to a bill Republicans cannot support doesn't make it bipartisan: cutting out the things Republicans cannot support makes it bipartisan. And the White House has shown no willingness to do that.

Also, I'd like to point out that Obama is still making the claim, "Nothing in the proposal forces anyone to change the insurance they have. Period." But that's a lie. An individual mandate does precisely this. A mandate sets a minimum level of coverage, and forces people under that level -- through punishment of hefty fine, up into thousands of dollars per year for many people -- if they don't meet it. If you have insurance that does not meet that minimum standard, you are being forced to change it. Period. Obama is lying.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

The Mackinac Center predicts that the cigarette tax will make half of all cigarettes illegally smuggled in to Washington State.

I don't know if that's true or not, but what I do know is that over half of Gregoire's proposed $605m tax increases are "sin taxes" (on candy, gum, bottled water, carbonated beverages, and tobacco); I know that these "sin taxes" will serve -- and are designed -- to discourage the behavior being taxed; I know Gregoire knows these things; and, therfore, I know that Gregoire's prediction of $345m in revenue from these taxes is dishonest.

I also know, by the way, that if our state hadn't abandoned Priorities of Government, they couldn't lie to the people and say they need these taxes to fund "vital services": they would have to be honest and say they can already fund "vital services" with the money they have, because PoG would require them to fund those things first. Instead, they choose to fund non-vital things first, so they can strengthen their case for tax increases for "vital services."

And while I'm at it, I also know that if Gregoire and the Democrats had kept spending to 10-15 percent in her first term, instead of the 33 percent we actually had, we would not have to raise taxes to fund anything today.

As usual, this whole thing is just long-term scheming to get bigger, and bigger, and bigger government. "Never let a crisis go to waste."

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.