2009.10.08
Hear them roar
A few days ago, I put up a post about a recent David Brooks' column lamenting that the far-right wing of the Republican Party wields more influence than it deserves. The Limbaugh-Hannity-Beck wing of the party is loud, but small.
Here's some more validation of that theory: Despite all the braying about death panels and a government takeover, health care reform remains very popular. In fact, a public option, among the most contested portion of reform by the far right, enjoys a nearly 2-1 advantage according to a recent poll. Sixty-one percent of those polled favor a government-run insurance option while only 34 percent oppose it.
The rabid outcry from some in the Republican Party is winning few converts. As Washington Monthly's Steve Benen summed up the poll results: "Only 25% approve of the job congressional Republicans are doing; 25% have a favorable opinion of the GOP; 29% believe Republicans are acting in good faith; and 31% trust the GOP to handle health care (16 points lower than the president)."
Benen used those numbers to ridicule Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor, House Minority Whip, for his unsupportable statement that a public option "has been resoundingly rejected by the American people." No, it's been resoundingly rejected by an incredibly small portion of the American people, who by their obstinate behavior and unwillingness to engage in rational discussion, are increasingly becoming irrelevant.
RSS feed 
(golf clap). Irrelevant and obsolete. Why do we pay any attention to those silly individuals. Lets pass it already so we can stop talking about it. eh?
Comment by Uptheriver — October 8, 2009 @ 3:33 pm
I would really have to question those polling numbers. Where are these 61%? Are they all mute? How come no one eems to hear from them?
Comment by Bob H — October 8, 2009 @ 3:52 pm
People are simply not complacent about the rising costs of healthcare which does not mean they want a government option. Realclearpolitics shows that the approval rating of the Democrat-led Congress is 25.8%. This is down from the mid 30's when Obamacare plan was introduced. Obama's approval ratings have dropped precisely because of the public's concern over Obamacare.
The President has no momentum, the Congress has no momentum, and the people do not support a public option. The latest AP poll shows no consensus support for current government healthcare legislation.
Show us where this legislation will not ration people's care, where this bill will not raise our taxes, where this system will not harm private insurers, where this bill will raise our country's world health ranking, where the currently insured will not have to pay more in fees, where we can afford this $0.8 - $1.0 Trillion plan, and where it says that expenses will not grow beyond that for future generations. You can't do it. Oppose it with all your will America because you won't be able to take it back once the they institute this horrible, un-American plan.
Comment by Jim — October 8, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
What about the polls that conclude that the public option is opposed by 65% of the folks?
And what were the questions, the polling sample, etc.? Or do we just take the media's word for this?
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 8, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
Hey Dan! If a poll revealed that 90% of the American people wanted to repeal the First Amendment would you be for that?
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 8, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
Jim:
I'd be happy if they could just show where the Constitution authorizes all this health care "reform". But they cannot, as it is not in there.
This is all about fascism and the control of the people. Health care "reform" is tyranny.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 8, 2009 @ 4:06 pm
Polls = Meaningless numbers used to support whatever agenda you are trying to pass.
Comment by Patrick — October 8, 2009 @ 4:09 pm
#4 - Yes, GFK, we're supposed to take the media's word for EVERYTHING!
Unfortunately, 52% of us did so last November and look where it's gotten us.
Comment by Patrick — October 8, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
#8, well it's gotten us back to the top of the list of the Most Respected Countries in the World.
Comment by WPGHSC — October 8, 2009 @ 4:29 pm
The noise of the rabble always sounds worse than the bite. We need reform, we need Medicare for Everyone (with an opt out provision). The people want it, the irrelevant irreverent don't - let's get on with it. All the talk about fascism, socialism, tyranny - all the other ridiculous diversions - is just that - talk.
Comment by Kurt — October 8, 2009 @ 4:31 pm
@#9 Riiiight, say, lets try and get the Olympics here since we are so well respected
Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — October 8, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
@9 Really - Where is that coming from?
@10 - What's the hold up then?
Comment by Uptheriver — October 8, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
WPGHSC:
I doubt that the US is the most respected country, and even if it is, President obama had nothing to do with it.
But assuming your claim, I would rather that the US be feared, and unfortunately, due to President obama's weakness and indecision, along with his sucking up to our enemies and abandonment of our friends, we are not. Far from it.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 8, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
#9 - I've been to 7 other countries in the last 6 months. Respected? Oh, please...they're laughing at us.
Comment by Patrick — October 8, 2009 @ 6:49 pm
Oh, OK. So it's now October, and the reason Democrats haven't passed 0bamacare yetdespite a supermajority is because they listen to what Rush Limbaugh says and ignore the "2-to-1 majority" that demand health care.
Dan, do you ever stop to listen to yourself?
Comment by Suzie — October 8, 2009 @ 6:51 pm
Glen Franklin Koontz wrote "I'd be happy if they could just show where the Constitution authorizes all this health care "reform". But they cannot, as it is not in there.This is all about fascism and the control of the people. Health care "reform" is tyranny."
-----------------------------------------
Gouverneur Morris, James McHenry, Alexander Hamilton wouldn't agree with you. Nor would Chief Justice John Marshall.
You know, some of the architects of the Constitution, and the Chief justice of the Supreme court of that era. And if one reads Madisons Journals of the Constitutional Convention, it appears that while he publicly reassured contemporaries that the "General Welfare" clause didn't give Congress unlimited power, privately, he was planning on using it to support funding for universities.
The importance given to the General Welfare clause is demonstrated by the fact that it appears,
not once, but twice, in the United States Constitution--first in the Preamble,
as a statement of the purpose of the Constitution, and then again in Article I,
Section 8, which sets forth the substantive powers of Congress
Among those who framed the Constitution, Such as
Gouverneur Morris, James McHenry, Alexander Hamilton it is indicative in their
papers that indeed the General Welfare clause meant to confer the power on the
Federal Government to tax and spend on purposes outside of those enumerated in
the constitution.
See :To Provide for the General Welfare: A
History of the Federal Spending Power By Theodore Sky
Further, in the anti federalist papers, (See Brutus VI-Robert Yates) Yates who was one of the Constitutional framers (as were the
three above)Argues that the General Welfare clause means exactly whatMorris, McHenry, and Hamilton were in Favor of- an unenumerated power for
congress to tax and spend as congress saw fit.He argues passionately in the anti federalist papers for the
Constitution not to be ratified, and himself refused to sign it.
"There are others of the favourers of this
system, who admit, that the power of the Congress under it, with respect to
revenue, will exist without limitation, and contend, that so it ought to
be."
Alexander Hamilton argues in “Report on Manufactures”
A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the
Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but
there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National
Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties,
imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence
and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that
"all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the
United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in
proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the
principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall
be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications
excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite;
and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less
comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the
common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general
Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or
imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the
affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as
comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the
constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have
been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and
because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are
susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.
It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National
Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare,
and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite
and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns
the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures
and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far
as regards an application of Money.
The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which
seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of
money is to be made be General and not local; its operation
extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being
confined to a particular spot.
No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it
would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to
the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is
granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other
thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair
implication
==========================================================================================
The reality is, that at least some of the Framers, as
well as the Signers understood the need for a way to allow for the unforeseen,
the necessary, and for strengthening the Federal government to allow the
country to compete, and remain secure against nations with unlimited revenue
powers, The USA would also need that ability.
=================================================================================
It was later codified by the Supreme Court under Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)
1. The Court argued that the Constitution was a social contract created by the people via the Constitutional Convention.
The government proceeds from the people and binds the state
sovereignties. Therefore, the federal government is supreme, based on
the consent of the people. Marshall declares the federal government’s
overarching supremacy in his statement:
“ If any one proposition
could command the universal assent of mankind, we might expect it would
be this– that the government of the Union, though limited in its power,
is supreme within its sphere of action. ”
2. Congress is bound to act under explicit or implied powers of the
Constitution. Pragmatically, if all of the means for implementing the
explicit powers were listed, then we would not be able to understand or
embrace the document; it would not be possible to write them all down
in a brief document. Although the term "bank" is not included, there
are express powers in the Taxing and Spending Clause. Although not explicitly stated, Congress has the implied power to create the bank in order to implement the express powers.
3. Marshall supported the Court's opinion textually using the Necessary and Proper Clause,
which permits Congress to seek an objective that is within the
enumerated powers as long as it is rationally related to the objective
and not forbidden by the Constitution. Marshall rejected Maryland's
narrow interpretation of the clause, because many of the enumerated
powers would be useless. Marshall noted that the Necessary and Proper
Clause is listed within the powers of Congress, not the limitations.
Comment by joe Mostowey — October 8, 2009 @ 7:21 pm
If those poll numers are close to accurate, then why has n't the Congress passed a bill? And why wait until 2013 (?) if this is so important? If the health care is that good, no fear of reprecussions from the voters in 2010 or 2012.
Comment by Patt — October 8, 2009 @ 9:45 pm
Mr. Mostowey:
Nice citations. Wrong conclusion, but very nice citations.
Read the Constitution. It says what it says, and means what it says. If you want socialized medicine, push a constitutional amendment through the process.
As for myself, I am working with others already on the lawsuit that will kill obamacare in its infancy. I'll send you a copy of the Complaint if you wish.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 8, 2009 @ 10:04 pm
Patt wrote: "If those poll numers are close to accurate, then why has n't the Congress passed a bill? And why wait until 2013 (?) if this is so important? If the health care is that good, no fear of reprecussions from the voters in 2010 or 2012."
In the south, as can be seen within our own governor's race the term "Democrat" is a misnomer.
The proper designation is more likely Republican, and "Republican lite"
Many of the Democrats elected from the Southern States to the Senate, and House, would, ideologically pass to the right of what other states refer to as a "Moderate" Republican.
The "Blue Dog" Democrats would pass ideologically as hard right Republicans in northern states, as moderate Republicans in mid-western States.
Never let Party affiliation or party labels confuse you. Reality is easily seen by actions and philosophies.
In this type of political maneuvering, Bills that appeal to Democrats in Northern and far western states are pure poison to the Democrats from southern states.
Comment by joe Mostowey — October 8, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
If they are so irrelevant, why do you keep talking about them?
Comment by Henry — October 8, 2009 @ 10:17 pm
Glen Franklin Koontz wrote "Nice citations. Wrong conclusion, but very nice citations.Read the Constitution. It says what it says, and means what it says. If you want socialized medicine, push a constitutional amendment through the process.As for myself, I am working with others already on the lawsuit that will kill obamacare in its infancy. I'll send you a copy of the Complaint if you wish."
Glen, You've been proven wrong. You disagree with the Supreme Court, You disagree with the framers of the Constitution, You ignore years of Supreme Court decisions that affirm Congress the powers granted by the seventh and eight sections of the Constitution. You keep saying read the Constitution. I have, the fellows on the court who wrote their opinions disagreeing with you read it. The fellows who wrote the Constitution read it. The folks in congress, the majority of whom are lawyers, that authored the bill, the advisers to the president and the President himself have read the constitution.
And they all come to a different conclusion than you.
When you can come up with something that takes all this into account, and nullifies the decisions of the Supreme Court, then you have a shot a being taken seriously. Right now, your credibility is non-existent based on your arguments and responses.
Note in the following cases it says majority opinion, meaning that not just one man interpreted the General Welfare clause to be an un-enumerated power, but that the court as a whole, like John Marshall's court in 1819 believed it to be so.
As to your impending court case, we need only look at Orly Taitz recent successes in making everyone else accept her beliefs as truth to judge the chances of your narrow interpretation becoming acceptable..
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U. S. Supreme Court first interpreted the clause in United States v. Butler (1936). There, Justice Owen Roberts, in his majority opinion, agreed with Hamilton's view and held that the general welfare language in the taxing-and-spending clause constituted a separate grant of power to Congress to spend in areas over which it was not granted direct regulatory control. Nevertheless, the Court stated that this power to tax and spend was limited to spending for matters affecting the national, as opposed to the local, welfare. He also wrote that the Supreme Court should be the final arbiter of what was in fact in the national welfare. In the Butler decision, however, the Court shed no light on what it considered to be in the national—as opposed to local—interest, because it struck down the statute at issue on Tenth Amendment grounds.
The Court soon modified its holding in the Butler decision in Helvering v. Davis (1937). There, the Court sustained the old-age benefits provisions of the Social Security Act of 1935 and adopted an expansive view of the power of the federal government to tax and spend for the general welfare. In Helvering, the Court maintained that although Congress's power to tax and spend under the General Welfare clause was limited to general or national concerns, Congress itself could determine when spending constituted spending for the general welfare. To date, no legislation passed by Congress has ever been struck down because it did not serve the general welfare. Moreover, since congressional power to legislate under the Commerce clause has expanded the areas falling within Congress's enumerated powers, the General Welfare clause has decreased in importance.
Comment by joe Mostowey — October 8, 2009 @ 10:36 pm
Cantor is an embarrassment to the good citizens of Virginia. Whip him out before he does further damage to our reputation.
Comment by NRV Citizen — October 8, 2009 @ 10:49 pm
GFK - You would rather we be feared than respected? Have you ever been on the end of either? Being respected gives one the ability to influence others much more easily than being feared.
Comment by ernie — October 8, 2009 @ 10:55 pm
The populace by a wide majority supports a public option. But their representatives in Congress do not. That suggest Limbaugh-Hannity-Beck-Levine have and outsized influence upon the legislative process. Plus, some other factors, too -- like 6 Washinton health care lobbyists for every member of Congress.
Comment by Dan Casey — October 8, 2009 @ 11:37 pm
This is what the left has been reduced to.
Dan's claim that the public option enjoys support by a 2 to 1 margin from the poll is stretching it. The phrase PUBLIC OPTION doesn't appear in the polling question. Secondly, it asks if you support a gov run option that will COMPETE with insurance companies. This is a bogus question because we know the playing field will NOT be level for meaningful competition and in fact competition will be phased out over time.
Those showing up at townhall meetings were independents, dems and GOPers who know what the prez and congress were/are cooking up in the form of a massive healthcare overhaul will not improve things but only take the nation further in debt. The fact that the senate will have to go "nuclear" to pass legislation only proves support is a mile wide and a quarter inch deep.
Comment by BUD — October 9, 2009 @ 7:12 am
Yes, Bud, it's quite a stretch for a poll question to actually describe the proposal as it exists rather than the distorted view of what opponents of the proposal think it might eventually become ... some day.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 9, 2009 @ 7:21 am
Dan..History compels us to do just that. We must look backward and learn, to deal with what's in front of us. Back in the mid 1970s our current food stamp program was implemented nationwide with some 14 million participants. The intentions laudable, people need help from time to time, none should go hungry in a nation great as ours. Today we have some 34 million participants(^150%) while the population has increased 50% in the same time period. Didn't see THAT coming.
Legislators pass laws mandating insurance companies pay for various treatments. They go home patting themselves on the back only to find insurance companies had to increase premiums to cover the new mandate. Didn't see THAT one coming either.
Pardon our skepticism cuz it's a b---- when someday comes.
Comment by BUD — October 9, 2009 @ 8:22 am
Dan,
I don't think any sane person believes any poll that says 61% of americans want this plan, want the government option, want government run health care- however you want to word it- has any credibility and is of suspicious abd dubious political nature.
I would add to this that with the same statement that almost no one believes this bill is going to end up as a deficit reducer. Clearly dubious number scrunching there. And yes, I question the motives of those producing these results as the results may be driving the means.
The real polls, the ones congress should be listening to, are back home saying if you vote for this you are not going to be re-elected. And apparently they run like 67% the other way....
To have posted this information on the Blog and for the source to put it out there as if anyone with any common sense would believe it as a piece of meaningful information, was a disservice to all.
Comment by Bob H — October 9, 2009 @ 8:27 am
Bob,
You might not like the results either of this Quinnipac poll (reported in The Wall Street Journal) or the recent Congressional Budget Office report on the Baucus bill. That you do not like the results, however, does not make them suspect.
You liked the CBO just fine when it reported that early versions of the House bill would result in massive increases in the deficit.
And I'm sure you'd be the first to cite a Quinnipac poll that showed Obama's numbers dipping.
The fact remains that both Quinnipac and the CBO are very legitimate, very respected sources of information and analysis. Reporting what they say only does a disservice to those who do not want to hear facts that disagree with their predetermined conclusions.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 9, 2009 @ 8:34 am
If there is such overwhelming support for the bill with a public option, why didn't the Dems pass it a month ago? They have the numbers.
Comment by John R — October 9, 2009 @ 8:55 am
Dan,
You assumption is wrong. My liking the numbers has NOTHING to do with it. I agreed with numbers that concurred with what I have observed.
These numbers do not agree with what I am observing. Henceforth I question their validity. Where are these 61% of the populace screaming "We want government run health care"?
Realistically, how would such a dramatic change in the overall country mood about government run health care and this legislation have changed that quickly?
Of course, I am old enough to still remember when the polls showed Reagan/Carter too close to call.....
Comment by Bob H — October 9, 2009 @ 10:02 am
#24: The latest AP poll shows 40% for and 40% against government healthcare. Where's the consensus? And the majority do not want to raise taxes to pay for any healthcare reform. Just say "NO!" to expanding government.
Comment by Jim — October 9, 2009 @ 11:27 am