Gridlock Lives. Great Examples Of The Benefits Of Gridlock.

[ 0 ] February 2, 2011 |

We have been discussing the benefits of GRIDLOCK on the site since the summer of 2010. Below are a few great examples of its benefits, and the result of this can equate to a repeal of, or major changes to Obamacare.

The worldwide surge in manufacturing reflects rising confidence in the economy as well, offsetting the high level of uncertainty about 7 months ago, right about the time the market bottomed in July 2010. In the summer of 2010, Lange Financial Services explained to us their definition of GRIDLOCK, and the extremely beneficial effects for the markets and economy that they were looking for as a result. We therefore then began discussing GRIDLOCK in detail on the site, and the expectation that it would become a positive market force. We expect this expansionary trend to continue into at least 2012.

This and more strengthens our bullish market scenario.

O’s House of Cards

By MICHAEL A. WALSH NY POST

February 1, 2011

Monday’s ruling by federal Judge Roger Vinson that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — a k a ObamaCare — is unconstitutional is a signal event in modern American history. For the first time since FDR browbeat the Supreme Court into accepting most of his New Deal, the Leviathan known as the federal government has been rocked back on its heels.

If the administration and the Senate Democrats had any sense, they’d take Judge Vinson’s ruling as a gift, not a setback. Because, whether they know it or not, the judge just handed them an opportunity to get health care right.

The House Republicans took a dramatic step forward last month when they passed repeal, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell announced yesterday that he’ll attach a repeal amendment to a bill authorizing funding for the Federal Aviation Administration as the Senate’s next order of business.

Good for him. It’s imperative that the Republicans keep the momentum going; whether the fate of ObamaCare is eventually decided by the Supreme Court is secondary to deciding its fate in the proper venue — the legislative branch.

Judge Vinson’s lucidly written and cogently argued decision, which approvingly cited the Federalist Papers, John Marshall and the Tenth Amendment, seized upon the Democrats’ arrogant decision to not include a “severability clause” in the legislation — which would’ve allowed the rest of the 2,000-page law to stand even if parts of it were to be found unconstitutional.

Vinson brought down the whole house of cards when he found that a) the coercive “individual mandate” that would have required every citizen to purchase health insurance was unconstitutional and b) that without the mandate, as the administration itself argued, the law would be unworkable.

“Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void,” he wrote.

Yet the 78-page opinion isn’t just the beginning of the end of ObamaCare on the judicial front. It also represents a significant blow to the fantasy of a “living constitution” — which means, no constitution at all, just an ever-shifting set of political programs.

In finally containing the infinite elasticity of the Commerce Clause, Vinson has laid down a marker about how far the text of the Constitution can be stretched before it becomes meaningless.

“This case is not about whether the act is wise or unwise legislation, or whether it will solve or exacerbate the myriad problems in our health-care system,” the judge wrote. “In fact, it is not really about our health-care system at all. It is principally about our federalist system, and it raises very important issues regarding the constitutional role of the federal government.”

For more than a half-century, both Congress and the Supreme Court have treated the Constitution as a series of suggestions to be “interpreted,” rather than the supreme law of the land. The game has been to grab some hapless phrase in the text and then use it as a rationale for the expansion of federal power.

But on which planet do the words, “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes” mean the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?

Now the game is up. Vinson’s ruling has unhorsed the shoddy thinking and the aggressive, statist agenda behind ObamaCare. He has also stripped away the emotional protective shield from the legislation by properly framing the issue as one of law, not compassion.

He wrote: “Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health-care system.”

In other words, having made this mess in the first place, it’s now up to congressional Democrats to get on the right side of the issue, vote for repeal and then come together with their Republican brethren in a grand bargain that makes everybody heroes.

But they probably won’t. As a turn-of-the-century Tammany congressman once said, “What’s the Constitution among friends?”

Share

Tags: ,

Category: Economics, Markets and Trading