Democracy Never Lasts Long

I am tired of people repeating the phrase that "our immigration system is broken". It's not. What's broken is our enforcement system - it's as simple as that. We have an immigration system that allows over 1 million people to emigrate legally.We have an immigration system that allows for 250,000 guest workers and work visas.

That is not a system that is broken. What's broken are our "leaders".

I'm not even going to begin addressing the substance of the executive order, because I don't acknowledge it's validity. To address the executive order on its substance gives it more respect that it is due.

Quite simply, the President was unhappy that the Legislative Branch was not enacting his policy preference, so the President decided rather than to advocate for his policy preference, he was just going to enact his policy in direct opposition to the will of the Legislative Branch.

What's sad is that so many people support the President's policy, they're willing to just cast aside our well-settled checks and balances to achieve their goal. And there's a whole bunch of other people who are ready to use this new precedent to enact other policies, and push the boundaries just a little bit further.

Interesting Times.

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." - John Adams

The NFL and the Nature of Large Organizations

By now, everyone has seen the horrible video footage of Ray Rice knocking his then fiancee (now wife) out cold in an elevator during an argument. It's an absolutely horrible thing to watch.

The big story now is not the domestic violence itself, but rather, how the NFL handled the issue. Originally, the NFL suspended Rice for two games. Now, after the release of this video, the Ravens have cut (fired) Rice, and his football career is all but over - permanently.

Of course, there are now all sorts of stories with the point of The NFL Knew About Ray Rice....And Did Nothing!

This morning, I was watching knuckle-head Joe Scarborough and company talk about how large organizations (like the NFL) always cover up bad things, and how horrible that is. You're going to see these stories everywhere. People are going to pile on the NFL and condemn the NFL for essentially sweeping this all under the rug, circling the wagons, and trying to cover up a horrible event. You're going to see stories about how private entities are only self-interested! Eleventy! For the most part, all that's true, but you know what?

The NFL covering up a player beating his fiancee pales in comparison to all of the things that the Obama Administration has done over the past six years and covered up...and no one gives a damn about it. Yeah, this is kind of politicizing sports, but who cares? I'm pointing out all the hypocrisies in our country.

Everyone is upset about Ray Rice. You know what I'm still upset about? Susan Rice going on national television and blaming a terror attack on a YouTube video. Do any of these people shrieking about the NFL give a damn about that? Nope. It's just laughable that so many people get worked up about the NFL, but they can't seem to muster any outrage when a government official comes on television and just lies to us like we're stupid little children. But that's what happens in politics. People just overlook things like that nowadays, because they don't want "their team" to look bad.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not sticking up for the NFL or Ray Rice. They both deserve shame, but you know who else does? Your President who covers up everything. How can you care about one and not the other? It's wildly inconsistent.

The IRS was used to target conservative organizations in an effort to squash one side of a political point of view, and then all the e-mails from everyone are just magically gone? Yeah, nothing to see there folks. Zero outrage. No big deal. People who get subpoenaed in a Congressional investigation just happen to delete all the evidence of their conspiracy and....crickets. The VA puts veterans on secret waiting lists and then covers up their own cheating? Eh, just give them some more money.

Once again, leftists see large private organizations like the NFL as self-interested and willing to cover up problems that should see the light of day. And they're not totally wrong. They're right to be skeptical. However, their distrust of skepticism of people's motives completely disappears when applied to government organizations, because apparently, everyone just magically becomes an angel with completely altruistic motives when they work for the government.

Right.

So before you tell me how large organizations like the NFL circle the wagons to avoid bad publicity, and before you tell me how horrible that is, tell me how upset you are about your own government doing the same damn thing.

Otherwise, you're a hypocrite and hack.

Thoughts on Halbig, the ACA, and Suing the President

Had an interesting post bring up some thoughts over at Brad's blog. This is what got my train of thought rolling:

"I think what he [The President] did was react to criticism and complaints, and try to make the implementation less onerous and painful to those complaining, or likely to complain. To give the law a chance to start working, if only partially. Whether he had the authority to postpone implementation of parts of the law is something I don’t know enough to judge." -Brad

Complaints and criticism of a law do not convey authority to the executive branch to delay enforcement of existing law. I hope that's a fairly non-controversial statement. If you disagree with that proposition, then you'll be happy to know that in a Caskey Administration, I may choose to simply delay enforcement of the capital gains tax, or delay enforcement of the minimum wage laws. How does that sound? Not so great, right?

The executive (on multiple occasions) has unilaterally delayed the enforcement of the employer mandate. That's a fact. No part of the ACA allows this.

I think it's fairly obvious that he did it solely for political purposes, but I would certainly concede that to be my opinion. Nevertheless, the motive for delaying enforcement of the law is irrelevant for our purposes here.

Some more history: The Republicans do not like this law. They have never liked this law. Not one Republican voted for this law. In fact, the law had to be pushed through Congress using arcane rules to avoid a conference committee after the election of Scott Brown, on the platform of opposing the ACA.

Congress basically ignored the will of the people and did an end run around the normal procedures of legislation to produce this law. It's now the law, after surviving a constitutional challenge ending at SCOUTS, on a 5-4 decision.

So here we sit. The supporters of this law are now so dedicated to holding onto it, they are willing to chuck principles aside to keep it.

For instance, people are willing to simply let the executive pick and choose what parts of the law he wants to selectively enforce so as to not subject the public to the full force of the law as written - which would arouse the anger of the public, and be politically negative for Democrats. This is short term political gain, for long term bad precedent. It's bad precedent to allow the executive to selectively enforce any law. If you think selective enforcement of the law is OK, then you really haven't thought it through.

Additionally, the Halbig suit: The relevant statutory language says that only state exchanges get the subsidy. It's clear. That's what the text of the law says. However, if you do that, then the law essentially collapses, as a significant number of states didn't set up exchanges.

Obviously, the people who wrote the law never considered that states might simply refuse to set up exchanges. (To quote Rick Perry: "oops") The non-lawyer defenders of the ACA are now reduced to saying "Hey, man, it was a typo" while their lawyers are saying "Ummmm yeah....this text is ambiguous, so we need to rely on Chevron Deference to the IRS in it's rule-making authority here" (What the Fourth Circuit did.) To me, the first argument is laughable, and the second argument is weak to the point of being almost laughable.

Now, Brad may not have heard about this lawsuit, but people have been talking about it for a long time. Pretty much since the law was passed, and as Nancy Pelosi said "We learned what was in it". This isn't new.

Halbig only became a problem now that lots of states have refused to set up exchanges. But normally, issues like Halbig aren't a problem, because the executive just goes back to Congress and they pass a new law to make some changes. However, the executive doesn't want to do that, because that would mean negotiating with the Republicans, and that's apparently not on the table.

Accordingly, rather than openly acknowledge the problem and concede that the law needs additional legislation, you have the executive defending a tenuous legal position and hoping the Courts will hold their nose and bail him out, since he doesn't want to involve the legislative branch in the legislative process and involve the will of the people again.

Keep in mind, Halbig isn't a constitutional question. It's simple statutory construction. The Supreme Court has pretty consistently ruled that statutory construction pretty much starts and ends with WHAT DOES THE FOX TEXT SAY? We write down laws with words, with a commonly understood meaning for a reason, sports-fans.

It's the job of courts to read statutes as written. If they need fixing rather than reading, that's the job of Congress. I really don't think that SCOTUS is going to bail out the administration on this. I can bore you with some law on this, but just take my word for it that this isn't a controversial issue when you boil it down to the statutory construction. If SCOTUS grants cert, my guess is they'll uphold the statute as written and basically tell the government to go fix it on their own - using the legislative process. That's just my guess. Anything's possible. (By the way If you don't believe judges should be originalist/textualist, then I don't see how you can also want them to be life-tenured & unelected, but that's a whole 'nother debate.)

Now....why are the Republicans doing this? They want the law enforced as written to highlight how horrible it is and to highlight the bad precedent being set here. Ulysses S. Grant said: "I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution."

That's basically the premise here. You want the ACA? Then take it. Take it good and hard.

Having said that, I think the Congressional suit against the President is stupid. Congress doesn't need to sue the President. Congress is the most powerful branch of government. They are just refusing to flex the muscle. It's called the power of the purse. (Stuff Madison Said, Vol. II)

Why Accountability is Important

Warning. This is a long post. I've put most of it below the jump.

As a private practice lawyer with a litigation practice, I have a staff. It's not large, but I have a paralegal and a legal assistant. They follow my directions and take care of things that don't necessarily need a lawyer to handle. They help with filing documents, scheduling hearings, and coming up with first drafts of documents for my review.

However, if a deadline is missed or a document isn't filed correctly, that's my fault. I'm the one who signs the pleadings, and I'm the one who is in charge. The buck stops with me. As a hypothetical: even if the mistake is that my legal assistant forgot to call the court reporter for the deposition, I would take the responsibility when I talk to either the client or opposing counsel. I don't say: My assistant forgot to arrange for the court reporter. Instead, I tell the client: I didn't arrange for the court reporter; that's my fault.

No one likes a leader who blames their subordinates for mistakes. It looks weasel-y, and I think that my staff works well to know that I have their back. Now, even though I take responsibility to the client or the opposing counsel, I'm still going to have a serious conversation with my assistant. I'm going to let him/her know that they screwed up, and they should have called the court reporter. However, I handle that privately; in house.

That's how accountability works in my office. It works well for me. Clients and opposing counsel know that I am ultimately responsible for what goes on. It ensures that when I delegate, I make sure that things are getting done. My staff knows that I'll go to bat for them outside the office, but they also know that I am there to make sure they are doing things correctly.

Now, that's contrasted with what I see going on in the government. In the parade of problems that we see with government, the one common denominator is a lack of accountability. Let's go through some specific examples:

Government Shutdown Now Affecting SC Breweries

The ATF isn't approving any new licenses for breweries during the shutdown.

“Our permits are just sitting on someone’s desk right now,” said Mike Tourville as he watched his tall, conical stainless steel fermenting tanks being installed in the new River Rat brewery at 1231 Shop Road. “Every week it stays shut down, we lose a week. We can’t even do test runs. Until the feds say so, you can’t brew alcohol.”

Yes, that's right folks. The government shutdown is now preventing local Columbia breweries from opening up, because the federal government has to stamp a piece of paper. I wonder if the enforcement side of the ATF is still working.

Maybe the fact that the the federal government has anything to do with a local South Carolina brewery needs to be re-examined.

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2013/10/08/3027852/government-shutdown-puts-stopper.html#storylink=cpy

Rep. Sanford on House Floor in T-Shirt and Shorts

Hey, at least he wasn't taking pictures of his junk and sending it around to random strangers.

SC Gas Tax Increase?

The SC Legislature is considering raising the gas tax by tying it to inflation. The tax money would (allegedly) be used to maintain roads and bridges here in South Carolina.

It may surprise some of y'all, but I would actually be ok with raising the gas tax if the funds were only used on actual infrastructure projects. Maintaining the roads and bridges is one of the core functions of our government, and I don't mind paying for that.

What I do object to is tying the tax to inflation.That's a cop-out way for the tax to go up in the future passively. You want the tax to go up in the future - fine. Take a vote. That's what the legislature is there for. Each time you want to raise or lower a tax, the legislature should have to take an affirmative vote. Tying the gas tax to inflation is going to result in the tax going up (or maybe down) without our legislature actually doing anything, and that's neither smart nor responsible. No tax should automatically move around.

In short, ensure the money isn't going to be diverted to other stuff, and make the tax a hard number.

Your Taxes Are Going Up in 2013

The GOP controlled House didn't have enough votes to put through the Plan B, that would keep the current tax rates in place for everyone up to $1M in annual income. Accordingly, the vote has been cancelled.

The GOP is definitely the party of dumb. I know enough to know that having the tax rates go up those who earn $1M and more is a better deal than having them go up on everyone. Apparently, the TRUE conservatives just decided that principle is more important. They're wrong. You retreat and take what you can get when you don't have the strength to win a battle. Failing to recognize this is what led to Pickett's Charge. Enjoy your "principle" now boys, you're about to get slaughtered.

If the House had passed "Plan B", the onus would have been on the Senate and Executive to fall into line. However, having DONE NOTHING, the Republicans play right into Obama's hands here. 

Merry Christmas you "True Conservatives". Thanks for being the party of stupid, once again. So, bottom line: Everyone's taxes are going up in 2013. Happy New Year.

Robin Hood Explained

If you've been following politics lately, you may have noticed that the political campaign for the President of the United States of America has devolved into name-calling. The current President has called his opponent "Romney Hood", and the response has been that this is "Obamaloney".

Leaving that aside, there's a huge error here, and I want to take a moment to correct the record on Robin Hood.

The presidential race is a dirty, negative affair, and I don't want to see a celebrated figure like Robin Hood tarnished. For some background on this, Obama said that Romeny's policy was to raise taxes on lower income earners to offset the lowering of taxes on higher income earners. This taking from the poor and giving to the rich, Obama said, was "Robin Hood in reverse" ergo, "Romeny Hood". Let's leave the politics out of it and focus on Robin Hood.

Robin Hood didn't take money from the rich people and give the money to the poor people. That's not what happened at all.

Does anyone remember who Robin Hood's enemy was? It wasn't rich landowners, or nobles, it was The Sheriff of Nottingham. The Sheriff, as the official agent of the government, was levying extreme taxes on the people of Nottingham in order to enrich himself and expand his power. Robin Hood repeatedly fought the Sheriff's men (i.e. government tax collectors) and he stole the tax money, then gave it back to the people who were taxed so highly to begin with.

Robin Hood didn't steal private property from the rich landowners to give to the poor; he stole tax money from the government and gave it back the poor people who couldn't afford to be taxed that much.

I just wanted to clear that up for our President, since he appears to be a little fuzzy on the whole Robin Hood story.

Businesswoman Fails to Give Credit to Government

It's a wonderful small business success story in the lowcountry.

She employs 11 people in Mount Pleasant, another 11 sales representatives across the country and 16 more at a site in Indonesia. The 85 factory workers who stitch together are contractors.  

Some of her local employees do market research as well, working months ahead for next year’s fashions. 

She’s always looking for talented people to add to her work force, saying if she finds the right person, she would create a job for them. 

This lady is so ungrateful, right? Nowhere does she give anyone else any credit for her business success. As much as Castillo is smart to spot trends and works hard to grow her own little business, we all know who should really get the credit for her business succeeding.

George Bush Returns to White House

Today, George W. Bush will be heading back to the White House for his portrait unveiling. Since President Obama has blamed President Bush for the unemployment rate, the housing market crash, the pollution levels, Iraq, Iran, Russia, terrorism in general, mosquitos, sunburns, and pretty much everything wrong in the world, I'm sure that this day won't be awkward at all.

I'm sure they'll play nice today. Right?

USPS to Delay First Class Mail Delivery (Who Cares?)

The US Post Office, which has been losing money for years, is finally deciding to cut back. Now it may possibly take four days instead of three to get mail. Does anyone even care?

Think about what you send/receive in the mail these days. 95% of what I receive is catalogs and junk mail. Very little comes in the mail that is actually important correspondence. Almost all of our bills are paid electronically. Accordingly, the USPS has simply become a provider of direct advertising. Therefore, I don't really care if my catalog gets here on Wednesday or Thursday. It usually goes directly into the trash. (Oh, and where are the environmentalists on this issue? Isn't all of this junk mails a huge waste of trees?) Admittedly, it will affect some:

Netflix - one of the Postal Service's biggest customers, with expenses of up to $600 million a year - has repeatedly warned in regulatory filings that any Postal Service cutbacks that delay its DVD-by-mail deliveries will make it more difficult to keep subscribers happy. And, with encouragement from Netflix, customers are already abandoning mail service for movies delivered online.

Honestly, it's sad that Netflix is one of the USPS's largest customers because in a few years, Netflix will probably be exclusively done on an instant basis through your internet connection. If the USPS is counting on Netflix to keep them going, they're living on borrowed time.

Also, the real money drain on the USPS isn't the current operating costs of delivering the mail or keeping locations open - it's their pension obligations. All of the retired postal workers have a sweet benefits package that is the lion's share of the USPS's yearly budget. The USPS could probably close all of their offices and stop delivery altogether, and they wouldn't even cut their budget in half.

My prediction is that even with this "drastic cut" in operations, we'll see postage increases soon.

Change You Aren't Allowed To See

The meeting on Government Transparency is closed to the press. Oh, and don't forget, there's no fighting in the War Room, either.

Being Unemployed is Better Than Being Non-Union

According to Nancy Pelosi, she would rather see the Boeing plant in Charleston shut down rather than be a non-union employer. Clearly, she has never been unemployed.

In an interview late last week, House Minority Leaeder [sic] Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told CNBC that Boeing should either unionize its production facilities in South Carolina, or shut them down entirely.

“Do you think it’s right that Boeing has to close down that plant in South Carolina because it’s non union?” asked host Maria Bartiromo. Pelosi’s reply: “Yes.”

The minority leader quickly added that she would rather it simply unionize and stay open. But barring unionization, by Pelosi’s reasoning, it should simply shut down.

This is nonsense. Does Pelosi even listen to herself? Would you rather work for Boeing or be unemployed? Hmmm....tough question. Oh wait, I would rather have a job. Also, maybe someone should tell her that the workers themselves voted to be non-union. The. Workers. Don't. Want. A. Union.

So let's add up the math here: The company decides to relocate to South Carolina because (in part) of our employment laws. Check. The workers themselves don't want to be in a union. Check. But the plant should now close down if it's not unionized? Plenty of non-union manufacturing jobs have high pay, great benefits, and happy employees. I know that Pelosi's core constituency is comprised of union folks, but at some point she needs to tell her California constituents that other people (way across the country in South Carolina) can do what they want.

[H/T Drew at Ace's Site]

#OccupyColumbia

So, we've got about 75 people sleeping on the front lawn of the capital here in Columbia. Awesome. Why are they there? Are they upset about unemployment? Are they upset about our foreign policy? Or maybe it's one of those controversial social issues like abortion or gay marriage.

The protesters are part of demonstrations taking place across the country that criticize the influence of corporate money in politics, tax policies that favor the wealthy and policies that don’t show good stewardship of natural resources. -The State

 Well, isn't that special. Let's take these three issues in turn:

1. The influence of corporate money in politics. Corporations are groups of people working together to make money. They donate money to candidates who support their agenda. This has happened since the dawn of democracy. It's not a new phenomenon. Read your history books, kids. If you don't like it, you're not going to get very far by protesting the corporations. They should be protesting at Capitol Hill and at the White House.

It's like this. If you have a friend who drinks too much, you don't go protest the liquor store for selling him booze. You try to convince your friend not to drink too much. There's always going to be someone who will sell him alcohol. It's the same thing with money in politics. If you don't like it, hold the politicians accountable. They are the ones you vote for, not the donors. Finally, if you're really upset about the contributions of big Wall Street banks, guess who the #1 recipient of money from Goldman Sachs is? Also, if you don't like the bank bailouts, maybe you should join the TEA Party, bro.

2. Tax policies that favor the wealthy. Currently, our main federal tax system is based on your income. The more you earn, the higher your marginal rate. However, the tax code is full of deductions, loopholes, and exemptions that are the result of the government trying to encourage or discourage certain types of behavior. Example: The government wants people to own homes (for some reason) so they encourage it by making your mortgage interest deductible. Same with having kids, same with donating to charities, and so on and so on....If you don't like this system of taxation, what do you propose? Simply raising the marginal rates? That's not really going to change much since you'll still have the swiss cheese of the deductions and exemptions. If you really want to change the system, you need to make the tax code simple.

3. Policies that don't show good stewardship of natural resources. All three of these points are broad, but this point is really vague. I'm not sure what they're upset about. Are they upset that the internal combustion engine is the most efficient way to power a car? Are they upset that America is too large and spread out for efficient mass-transportation? Are they upset that the wind doesn't blow all the time, or that it's not sunny all the time, making wind and solar pie-in-the-sky ideas at this point? We have an EPA that seems more worried about CO2 levels than anything else. Also, what does Wall Street have to do with this? Doesn't the guy over at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue have a small role on what America does as far as natural resources are concerned? I think you're protesting the wrong people, bro.

It' a Great Day in South Carolina! Did You Get That Memo?

Apparently, our Governor has decided to issue a "directive" to state employees to answer the phone with the phrase "It's a great day in South Carolina."

This is idiotic. I kind of understand where she's coming from on this - she's always trying to market South Carolina to companies and get them to bring jobs here, so it's never bad to put your best foot forward. So I guess I can kind of see what her thinking is here, but it's not very well thought-out. The problem is that this doesn't move the needle at all. No company is going to think: "Gee, I just heard how great it is in South Carolina; let's open a factory there."

Worse, it smacks of the syrupy greetings that you hear at fast-food restaurants: "Welcome to Moe's!" and the like. It's just a style thing with no substance. On a practical side, if I was a state employee, I would HATE this. Nothing is as soul-crushing as having to say a canned line that has absolutely no meaning every time you answer the phone. It's also the thing that inept managers are going to harp on because they can. It's going to turn into this.

I know that our Governor wants to run our government "like a business" but this is something that she can leave out.

Why a $16 Muffin is Significant

At first, I thought the $16 muffins that our Department of Justice was buying was just a funny anecdote. The problem is, it would be funny if it wasn't my money. My taxes pay for this nonsense, and no one even thinks to say: 

"Hey man, our bad. We'll try to spend your money a little more wisely going forward". No apology. Nothing. They're not really even sorry.

And now you want tax increases? Quit wasting my money on crap, and then we can talk about raising your allowance.

Most of my readers are pretty savvy when it comes to money – i.e. you don’t go blow your money on worthless crap. That’s because it’s your money and you worked your ass off for long hours to earn it. That’s pretty much how everyone feels…I hope.

But anyway, one of the big problems with a big government in general (among many others) is that the government bureaucrat sees his account as just numbers on a page. He didn’t work for the money, it’s not his. It was just magically given to him from Congress, and he’s not going to spend it as carefully as you or I would – and that’s just human nature. It doesn’t make him a bad person, it’s just how it is. When I hear about folks at the DOJ spending $16 on muffins I think “WTF, would they spend $16 of their own money on a muffin”? Obviously, the answer is no.

So now the President is saying that we need to raise taxes. This is insanity. It’s like having a friend who spends all his money on cocaine and then doesn’t pay his mortgage comes to you for some extra cash. You know he’s a cocaine addict. Do you just give him more money in hopes that he does the “right thing” and pay his mortgage? You certainly don’t want him to be homeless. But you also know that if you give him a thousand dollars in cash, he’s just going to go buy an eight-ball on Friday night and still skip his mortgage payment. What does a good friend do?

You check him into a rehab clinic. Our entire Federal government needs to go to rehab. The spending is so over the top it’s really starting to piss me off.    

Too Big To Fail...

...but not too big to sue? The US Government is suing the banks. Let me make sure I understand this: We had to save the banks, but now we want our money back for saving them?

Maybe we should have just let them fail.

Playing Semantics

It's not the "Federal Government", it's the "Federal Family".


Great, now they're probably going to want to come over for the holidays.