Should We Ignore the Constitution for a Public Good?

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court began to hear arguments in the case against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). The question they took up was whether the penalty used to enforce the individual mandate is a tax or not.  If it is a tax some legal experts say the case cannot go forward until the tax itself has been imposed.  If it is a tax then President Obama has a political problem because he promised that the vast majority of Americans were not going to see any taxes go up from his administration.  If it is not a tax then where is the authority for Congress and the Federal government to enforce the mandate?

According to Websters a tax is a charge usually of money imposed by (an) authority upon persons for public purposes.  Obamacare imposes a fee, to be collected by the IRS through its usual channel on citizens that fail to purchase health insurance.  The purpose of the fee is to force everyone to participate and thereby lower costs to all and guarantee everyone is covered.  The Obama Administration claims this is in the public interest.  It would seem what we have here is a charge by an authority (Federal Government) upon citizens that fail to purchase health insurance for public purposes.  In other words, a tax.

Yes, it does seem like a tax to me.  Frankly though, I do not care.  It really should not matter if it is a tax or not.  I look at my copy of the U.S. Constitution.  I see that Congress has the authority to tax.  However, no matter how hard I look I can find no authority for Congress to compel citizens to purchase any good or service.  (This is the issue being argued today at the Court.) 

The Obama Administration points to the Congressional power (Section 8. Article 8) to regulate commerce.  The Constitution tells us this authority is for commerce with other nations and between the states and with Indian tribes.  This authority has been much abused by Congress to involve itself in every detail of business in the land.  Even with the very loose interpretation of this article you cannot come up with the authority to compel citizens to buy healthcare insurance.

Supporters of Obamacare declare that the individual healthcare mandate is necessary to make the whole act affordable and for healthcare insurance to be  available to all.  Well, since it is necessary for Obamacare to be functional then I guess we should ignore Constitutional limits, right?  Wrong.  This is merely an exercise in justifying the means because the end is seen as a public good.  I learned in elementary school that the ends do not justify the means.

PA is Worst in Business Tax Burden

Did you catch the recent depressing news?  Well, it is depressing if you or your spouse own a business, or work for a business, or count on businesses to offer you reasonably priced goods or services in Pennsylvania.  According to The Tax Foundation, Pennsylvania ranked 50th for imposing the heaviest overall taxes on mature businesses.  For those involved in newly established businesses it is better: Pennsylvania is ranked 49th!

The Tax Foundation unfortunately also ranked Pennsylvania the worst for imposing the heaviest taxes on retailers, R+D centers, and on corporate headquarters.  That doesn't leave us with much.  The problem with the tax structure starts, according to the report, with the second highest corporate net income (CNI) tax in America at 9.99 percent.

For years businesses and business organizations have complained about the heavy CNI tax. Indeed, it has been a priority with the business organizations I have worked with, such as the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, South Hills Chamber of Commerce, SW PA Regional Advocacy Council, and CompetePA.  CompetePA has made it clear that lowering the CNI tax needs to be THE priority for lowering taxes in Pennsylvania.  The rate punishes PA businesses who remain here and serves as an ugly warning flag for any business considering relocating or expanding into the commonwealth.

It is true that the tax structure is only one of the issues in the business environment.  Access to capital, transportation options and costs, energy costs, available and suitable real estate, skilled workers, demographics and demand issues are just some of the factors businesses consider when looking for a place to do business.  Pennsylvania is not bad on some of these, maybe even good for some, but we are so far behind the power curve due to the taxes.

How did we get here?  My observation as a business owner and political observer: time and time again, when the General Assembly has been in a pinch and needs more revenue they go to the apparent bottomless pot of money - businesses. 

We need to reform and reduce the business and job crushing taxes in Pennsylvania without delay.  We can't afford the dubious distinction as worst in the U.S. anymore. May I suggest we start this year with a reduction in the CNI tax?

U.S. Senate Defeats Measure to Restore Religious Freedom

The violation of our religious freedom continues. The U.S. Senate on Thursday (Mar 1, 2012) upheld the Obama Administration's mandate for contraceptives (including abortifacients) to be included in private health insurance plans.  Democrats defeated a Republican bill that would have allowed health insurance plans and employers to refuse to provide or pay for coverage of "specific items or services" if that would be "contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the plan."

One Republican and two independents opposed the bill and three Democrats including Senate Casey and West Virginia's Joe Manchin voted with the Republicans for religious freedom.  Democrats accused Republicans of infringing on women's rights and claimed Senator Blunt's bill would allow any employer or insurer to deny coverage for virtually any treatment!

To elaborate, Barbara Boxer, D-CA objected to a conscience clause. She said insurers "don't have any consciences" and suggested they would have used the conscience exemption as a loophole to deny coverage for anything.  Give me a break.  We are to accept a violation of the First Amendment, which is what the mandate is, because the Evil Health Insurers will deny coverage for anything?  I really don't want to have to come to the defense of health insurers (we all have stories to tell), but the Democrats argument is hyperbole and cover for their real agenda.  That agenda involves government control and abortion on demand.

Let's back up.  These kinds of mandates were inevitable with Obamacare. Obamacare, for all the grandiose claims about healthcare for all, replaces individual choice with government dictates.  Obamacare assumes the feds can make better decisions about we need, or don't need, in healthcare.  If a little thing like the First Amendment needs to be violated to insure that everyone has access to contraceptives so be it.

This brings me to the whole notion about access to contraceptives. We hear from the Left that if the government does not mandate contraceptives (including abortifacients) then women in America will be "denied access."  Really?  Does this sound familiar?  The Left declares a "right" and it soon follows that some people will be denied access if they can't afford it.  Therefore we must pay so the unfortunate can exercise this new right.

You might have heard of the woman law student who testified before Congress last week that if the exemption law was passed then women at her Georgetown law school would have to go without contraceptives (even while they are paying $40,000 for their education).  Well, they do have other choices - ones that we or their institution don't have to pay for.  They could walk to the pharmacy and spend a buck or they could abstain!  And these choices also would not violate others' religious consciences.

One last thing. The Left wants Americans to believe that a small minority is trying to force their beliefs about contraceptives on the entire nation.  They were just minding their own business when the government mandated contraceptives be supplied against their beliefs. This is not a fight about contraceptives. It is a defense of religious freedom.  The actual number of Americans who believe contraceptives to be against God's will IS probably pretty small.  But it is their religious belief.  The First Amendment is theirs too.  We cannot permit this violation of all of our rights to religious freedom.