Student loan forgiveness: you get to pay more

 

Rick McKee’s cartoon seen on PowerLine’s "Week In Pictures"

The Democrats really do want more of your money.  At American Spectator, David Catron reports on the case before the Supreme Court concerning the cancelation of student debt; he begins:

Last week’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court concerning the Biden administration’s student-loan forgiveness plan predictably focused on arcane legal theories such as the “major questions doctrine.” Relatively little time was devoted to the profoundly inequitable structure of the program. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch did note that it would provide benefits to certain favored persons while ignoring the very real costs it would impose on others, but no one mentioned a fact that will gall most taxpayers — it would cancel student loans for college dropouts.

Remarkably, the Biden administration and most Democrats see this as a selling point for the plan. The White House fact sheet puts it as follows: “Nearly one-third of borrowers have debt but no degree, according to an analysis by the Department of Education of a recent cohort of undergraduates.” The Democrats justify canceling these loans because tuition costs have risen, ignoring evidence that the loans have driven that increase. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) claims: “Up to 4 in 10 people with student loan debt weren’t able to graduate, many because of high costs.… Canceling student loan debt would change their lives.”

The problem is that the $400 billion program would also “change the lives” of millions of Americans for the worse. How? It will raise the stealth tax known as inflation. . . .

Read the rest here.

# # #

Text for your letter to the judiciary & RINOs

 

Yesterday, I scrolled through an article at Citizen Free Press headlined “President Trump Speaks With Ashli Babbitt’s Mother Outside J6 DC Gulag.”  And in the comments I found this:

Here’s a letter to send to your State Appeals Court, State Supreme Court, and U.S. Supreme Court. Also the last sentence isn’t appropriate if you’re sending to a FIGHTER, but it’s very appropriate if you’re sending to a RINO:

PIO@supremecourt.gov

Dear Judge [or name of RINO]

The fact that we have political prisoners being held without substantial charges, without bail, and literally starting to die like neglected animals is a stain on the Judicial System that has seared itself into the minds of the American People.

Now this is what happens when you allow people to openly steal an election. They just move on to the next outrage. We’ve got a real problem now, we’ve got people at the highest levels sick in the head with what they perceive as power.

This is going to stop, I don’t know how but I can assure you it is going to stop. The problem’s going to be how to deal with these “Socialists” while that process is taking place; because with their hearts hardened like Pharaoh’s, they won’t stop. The sooner we address this the better, that’s all we know for sure.

So do something; if you can’t uphold the Oath of Office, don’t take the job.

Sincerely concerned citizen,

Copy. Paste. Send. Share. And thanks to the commenter posting as “Action.”

# # #

Tolerance: It’s a One-Way Street

 

Conservative Michelle Malkin knows first-hand what it’s like to be harassed in public:

Fifteen years ago, when I still lived in the D.C. swamp, I took my elementary school-daughter and toddler son out for one of our regular weekend breakfasts at IHOP. But we couldn’t be left alone to enjoy our meal. As my kids dug into their funny-face pancakes, a fuming-faced liberal marched to our booth and started ranting about my anti-open-borders commentaries on Fox News. The incident occurred not long after Geraldo Rivera told a Boston Globe reporter that I was the “most vile, hateful commentator I’ve ever met in my life” and that “it’s good she’s in D.C. and I’m in New York” because “I’d spit on her if I saw her.”

Fifteen years later, I’m blacklisted by the “fair and balanced” network, while fork-tongued cable news reptile Geraldo Rivera remains a heavily promoted Fox News contributor who regularly attacks everyone else (including his former friend Donald Trump) for inciting violence. File under “chutzpah.”

Fifteen years later, organized mobs in the nation’s capital are targeting Supreme Court justices in their homes.

. . .  

One outlet characterized the latest intimidation campaign against the SCOTUS judges as a “troubling escalation.” But I know from both professional and up-close-and-personal experience that all this ugliness is a continuation of years and years of abuse of, and violence against, conservative public figures in both public and private spaces. See, for example, my 2006 encyclopedia of left-wing loons, “Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild.”

Some of us can’t dine in peace because our simple existence is a threat to the “liberal world order.” If you can’t be controlled, you must be de-personed. “Tolerance” is only for the intolerant. The rules of civility don’t apply to the self-righteous monsters sporting “empathy” bumper stickers on their cars and “love is love” banners in the windows of their homes and businesses that will always be safe from pot-bangers, Molotov cocktail-hurlers and billionaire-funded dissent-crushers. . . .

Ms. Malkin is one of my favorite commentators, and alas, she too is no longer optimistic. Her full column is here. 

# # #

Babylon Bee on Justice Clarence Thomas’s vote

 

Yesterday, The Babylon Bee knocked another one out of the park:

Democrats Argue That Clarence Thomas
Should Only Have 3/5 Of A Vote

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Democrats in D.C. have lashed out at Justice Clarence Thomas following his vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, arguing that he should only get 3/5 of a vote in the Supreme Court.

"This is an illegitimate vote!" shouted AOC to protesters gathered in front of the Supreme Court Building. "Three Justices lied during their appointment hearings—so their votes don't count—and Clarence Thomas should only get 3/5 of a vote. That means Roe was overturned by a vote of 3 to 2 3/5! That's crazy!"

Democrats say they are proposing this historic compromise to restore public trust in the Supreme Court. They argue that since Clarence Thomas is bad, he should have 2/5ths of his vote removed.

"This is what must be done to restore confidence in our democracy," said Senator Chuck Schumer.

At publishing time, Sen Elizabeth Warren had fallen uncharacteristically quiet on the issue. According to sources, she's concerned someone will bring up her Native American heritage and she'll lose a vote in the senate.

A brief summary of the "3/5 compromise," as recited in the US Constitution, is here. 

# # #

Justice Brett Kavanaugh: fashion trend-setter

Their motto: "Fake News You Can Trust."  The Babylon Bee knocks it out of the park again:

Brett Kavanaugh Unveils Updated Supreme Court Robe

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh made a splash in the fashion world Wednesday as he unveiled a new Kevlar judicial robe made by Atomic Defense. A spokesman confirmed the new robe was totally unrelated to recent threats made upon the justice’s life in the wake of an upcoming ruling on abortion rights. 

. . .

In addition to a stylish, slimming look, Kavanaugh’s robe comes with three articulated blast plates, a shockproof helmet and visor, and a zoned armor system guaranteed to meet or exceed current zonal fragmentation protection standards. 

. . .

In unrelated news, Kavanaugh confirmed that his family would be moving from their current home in Chevy Chase, MD to an abandoned underground missile silo somewhere in the Midwest in order to pursue their family dream of not being murdered in their sleep.  

The rest of the text is here.  

# # #

Healthcare Workers Can't Make Decisions About Their Own Healthcare

 

The Babylon Bee nails it again:

SCOTUS Rules Healthcare Workers
Are The Only People Who Can't Make Decisions
 About Their Own Health

In a landmark ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that Biden's vaccine mandate for private businesses is unconstitutional. However, in a split decision, they also determined that healthcare workers are the only ones who should not be allowed to make decisions about their own health.

"Healthcare workers have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to important healthcare decisions. They aren't smart like us," said the group of judges that includes people like Sotomayor, in a ruling in favor of a Federal Government that includes people like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. "The personal health choices of healthcare workers should be left to people more qualified, like us." 

The decision was made based on the timeless legal principle that if the government pays for your healthcare, they own your body, mind, and soul for all eternity. 

Citing this new victory, the Biden administration is looking into other things it can mandate for healthcare workers, such as abortions, sex changes, and maybe some warmer stethoscopes. 

Source: click here. 

# # #

Census citizenship question

image credit: wprl.org

The Trump administration’s proposed question asks, “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” That’s it. 

It’s an important question. In his report “The Census Should Ask About Citizenship to Keep House Representation of Citizens Fair,” Bryan Preston at PJ Media concludes:

The census is at the heart of representation in our republic. The Constitution explicitly connects the census to representation of citizens. Citizenship has been a routine part of the census for most of our national existence, and resuming capturing this data ought not be controversial. Objections to the citizenship question are speculative at best, disingenuous at worst. The citizenship question is only controversial because like nearly everything else in American life, some want to use the census to serve their own political power plays.

I’m no lawyer, but I don't understand why President Trump would need to issue an Executive Order to restore the citizenship question to the census form. The Supreme Court lobbed the issue back to the Commerce Dept. Doesn’t that put the question back on the desk of the Secretary of Commerce? And Trump's administration has precedence on its side.

Here's Amy Howe at the SCOTUS blog:

Although the Trump administration had hoped that the Supreme Court would clear the way for it to include such a question, the justices instead sent the issue back to the Department of Commerce. In a deeply fractured opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s four liberal justices in ruling that the justification that the government offered at the time for including the citizenship question was just a pretext. The decision left open the possibility that the Trump administration could try again to add the citizenship question, but the clock is ticking. . . 

“Pretext” doesn’t seem to square with the history of the census citizenship question that dates back to Thomas Jefferson (see Preston’s full article here). But in any event, if the issue is now back at the Commerce Dept., why doesn’t Secy. Wilbur Ross just restore the question on the census form? Just asking . . .

# # #

Kavanaugh sworn in

The Fox headline: 

Kavanaugh sworn in as 

114th Supreme Court justice, 

hours after Senate votes to confirm

# # #

President Trump on Kavanaugh

Everyone was riveted to the hearings today, especially prepared remarks from Judge Brett Kavanaugh, and surprisingly (at least for me) Sen. Lindsay Graham.

Here's President Trump's tweet (h/t Sundance):

# # #

Internet Sales Tax: a proposed solution

image credit: blog.dawog.net

Yesterday Scott French and Elizabeth Slattery at The Daily Signal reported further on the horrible SCOTUS decision to permit sales tax on Internet transactions across state lines. They also suggested a solution. Unfortunately, they identify Congress as the branch of government that can legislate that solution. Here’s the gist of it:

Unfortunately, small businesses will suffer the most from the ruling. [Chief Justice John] Roberts explained:

One vitalizing effect of the Internet has been connecting small, even ‘micro’ businesses to potential buyers across the nation. People starting a business selling their embroidered pillowcases or carved decoys can offer their wares throughout the country—but probably not if they have to figure out the tax due on every sale.

Most small businesses are not equipped to handle being subject to every taxing authority in every location where they have a customer. There are more than 10,000 state and local taxing jurisdictions in the country. And these jurisdictions have different tax rates, rules governing tax exemptions, product category definitions, and standards for determining whether an out-of-state seller is subject to sales tax in the first place.

Roberts pointed to a few examples of how confusing state taxes can be:

New Jersey knitters pay sales tax on yarn purchased for art projects, but not on yarn earmarked for sweaters … Texas taxes sales of plain deodorant at 6.25 percent but imposes no tax on deodorant with antiperspirant … Illinois categorizes Twix and Snickers bars—chocolate-and-caramel confections usually displayed side-by-side in the candy aisle—as food and candy, respectively (Twix have flour; Snickers don’t), and taxes them differently.

Further, the cost of compliance is beyond the means of most small businesses. Implementation and integration of software to calculate taxes in all these jurisdictions alone is estimated to cost up to $250,000.

The good news is that, under its authority to regulate interstate commerce, Congress has the power to fix this problem. Congress is the branch of government best able to consider the competing interests at stake, not unelected federal judges.

Congress should codify the physical presence rule to protect small businesses from being subject to mandates from states where they have no physical connection and whose policymakers face no accountability for the tax and regulatory costs that they impose on out-of-state businesses.

If state borders truly do matter, Congress must limit states’ ability to reach beyond their borders to place regulatory burdens on out-of-state businesses.

Sounds feasible on paper. But perhaps so many small businesses will suspend sales that Congress will have to respond to their constituents – for once. We’ll see. (The full report is here.) 

# # #

Is a Convention of States a good idea?

art credit: redmillenial.com 

The three decisions made this week (on Obamacare, gay marriage, and the Texas "disparate impact" case) by the Supreme Court of the United States have left many of us depressed and wondering what can be done. Can anything be done?

My own e-mailbox brings a daily flow of messages from organizations, political groups, and politicians, most of which are looking for money, most of which offer conservative talking points, and most of which propose solutions based on conservative talking points. Yet we have all become aware that conservative talking points are the stock-in-trade of not only groups, but also – and especially – politicians who have no intention of voting on the basis of conservative values once they are in office. That goes for politicians in Ohio and in DC.

One suggestion that has been gathering support from politicians such as Tom Coburn and Sarah Palin, is the Article V Convention of States. Mark Levin wrote a book about it entitled The Liberty Amendments in which he lays out a case for eleven Constitutional amendments to "restore the Constitution’s moribund chief components: federalism, republicanism, and limited government." 

It all sounds good and promising. But I don’t think it is going to make any difference, and the project is already diverting time, energy, and resources away from everybody’s backyard.

Back in December 2013, someone writing under the name of Suzanne Hamner wrote a piece, “Convention of the States – Good or Bad?,” for her website, Freedom Outpost, and here are two points that got my attention [emphases added]:

Our current government is operating so far outside the Constitution, ignoring basic tenets of the Constitution regarding presidential eligibility, enumerated powers, and restrictions placed on it, that another amendment is just more words for them to ignore.

. . .

It boils down to one thing and one thing only; there is no way to legislate values and principles. Yes, the Constitution provides a remedy for our current situation in Article V; however, every tenet of government is so corrupted with the atmosphere of “the flavor of the month” causes that the risk of further damage outweighs the benefit until the people reclaim their local and state governments, then work up to the federal level. That is, if we can at this point.

Read the whole thing here.

An Article V Convention of States can pass all the Amendments it wants. They will be no substitute for citizens taking daily action in their community.

# # #

Photo ID law in Wisconsin is upheld

Earlier this week, Cleveland Tea Party Patriots learned about the initiatives to require Photo IDs in order to vote. Chris Long addressed the issue as it concerns voter fraud as opposed to voter integrity. Ohio voters can take a look at a recent development on a voter ID law in Wisconsin, via Hot Air:

Surprise: SCOTUS upholds Wisconsin voter-ID law

POSTED AT 12:01 PM ON MARCH 23, 2015 BY ED MORRISSEY

Or maybe not such a surprise after all. The path to today’s Supreme Court decision to refuse an appeal by the ACLU against Wisconsin’s voter-ID law has been strewn with appellate decisions that supported its implementation, although a last-minute stay by SCOTUS kept it out of play for the midterms. The law will fully take effect for the 2016 election, which may complicate efforts by Democrats to keep the state blue:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday left intact a new Republican-backed law in Wisconsin that requires voters to present photo identification when they cast ballots.

The court declined to hear an appeal filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the law. …

A federal judge blocked the state’s voter ID law in March 2012 soon after it took effect and entered a permanent injunction in April, finding the measure would deter or prevent a substantial number of voters who lack photo identification from casting ballots, and place an unnecessary burden on the poor and minorities.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the decision and subsequently ruled in October that the law was constitutional. Wisconsin’s Supreme Court upheld the voter ID law in a separate ruling.

The SCOTUS stay in October had more to do with the timing of the law, thanks to the scheduling of the challenges through the courts. Regardless, the election still went in favor of Scott Walker and the GOP, preventing Democrats from repealing the voter-ID provision before it could come into effect.

This will put a huge dent in the Obama administration’s efforts to squelch voter-ID laws in other states. In order to grant certiorari, the ACLU would have needed four justices to vote to add it to the docket. The fact that they couldn’t even move the liberal wing to unite against a voter-ID law shows that the justices consider the issue settled. Requirements for identification at polling stations are legitimate, in the eyes of the court, as long as enough options for no-cost qualifying ID exist to keep the poor from being disenfranchised.

The dismissal of this challenge to the law will also help boost Walker’s efforts outside of Wisconsin. He’s known for reforming the public-employee unions, balancing the budget, and most recently for signing Right to Work legislation even if he advised the Republican-controlled legislature to move more slowly on the latter. Some forget that Walker backed the voter-ID legislation as part of his reform package that got him elected in 2010, and then reconfirmed in 2012 and re-elected again in 2014. It gives Walker an argument to position himself as the reformer who has a real track record of conservative change in a purple state, change that could turn the state red for good.

However, the Supreme Court decision isn’t keeping the ACLU fromdemanding yet another delay, on the same basis as the last one:

The Wisconsin state elections board says it is awaiting direction from the state Department of Justice about what comes next now that the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear a challenge to the state’s voter identification law.

The American Civil Liberties Union asked a federal appeals court to block implementation of the law for the April 7 election.

If the ACLU gets its waiver, it had better enjoy it — because it will be its last.

Update: It’s more accurate to say that the refusal to grant cert in this case upholds the law rather than approves it, although functionally it’s the same thing. I’ve changed the headline from “approves” to “upholds.”

# # #

When Government Makes Your Business Theirs

From Tea Party Patriots --

For those who believe in personal freedom, Tuesday’s oral arguments at the nation’s highest court hold significant value. The outcome will have profound implications on the government’s say in private businesses. Through Obamacare, Washington has sought to tighten its grip on companies through higher taxes and more regulations. Never before has the government made such an effort to force owners to comply with laws contrary to their religious convictions.

The two high-profile cases – Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius – have stirred the Right and the Left to action, resulting in thousands of people to brave the cold, snowy weather and rally outside the Supreme Court.

The Left, remaining true to their political playbook, turned the issue into a rally cry for women’s rights. Their theme: it’s “not my boss’ business.” What they fail to recognize is that it isn’t government’s business either. If we believe in choice, then we must afford Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties the right to choose what’s best for them and their businesses.

To help put this issue into proper perspective, we asked those within Tea Party Patriots to share why it was important to be at the Supreme Court on Tuesday and stand with Hobby Lobby.

“The First Amendment states, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ Hobby Lobby has all the right in the world to express their beliefs, and they can do that in their business and in their private lives. It’s not up to government to determine how they express their beliefs,” stated Bill, who oversees Tea Party Patriots’ Constitutional training.

Chris, who is part of the organization’s national healthcare working group added, “Religious liberty is foundational. If you go back and look at the history of freedom and how we got to be a free society, a self-governing people, you will find that the major fight was over religious freedom. It’s why the Settlers came to these shores.”

If our constitutional rights are subverted at the whim of government, the impact will go far beyond the loss of personal freedom as Gregg, a member of Tea Party Patriots’ national support team, pointed out.

“If the Supreme Court rules against Hobby Lobby and Conestoga, then in essence they are destroying the incentive for citizens to pursue their American dream. Why would anyone be compelled or have hope to start their own business, if the government is going to mandate how they spend their money or run their company?”

For the last five years, Tea Party Patriots has championed the cause of personal and economic freedom; however, this newest court case over the mandate hits close to home.

“We have seen firsthand what happens when the First Amendment is trampled on and infringed with the IRS targeting that has happened to us. We wanted to make sure we were here today as Hobby Lobby is inside the court standing up for the First Amendment and for their right to freely exercise their religion,” explained Jenny Beth, co-founder of Tea Party Patriots.

As the Justices decide on the two cases, we hope they will realize that there is no place for an overreaching government that seeks to violate businesses and individuals’ First Amendment rights. There is only freedom, which should be equally enjoyed by all.

OBAMACARE, THE SCOTUS DECISION, AND STATES' RIGHTS

It’s not over till it’s over. The 5-4 SCOTUS decision upholding Obamacare is prompting a wide range of reactions. According to Dov Fischer at American Thinker:

There is now a formal United States Supreme Court opinion on the books, overdue by nearly a century, holding that the federal government may not wield the Commerce Clause to impose on American citizens the obligation to buy health insurance or anything else we do not want. . . .

What is the point here? If the “federal government may not wield the Commerce Clause to impose on American citizens the obligation to buy health insurance or anything else we do not want,” under this ruling, they may instead wield the authority of Congress to impose a tax to coerce Americans to buy things they don’t want.

It’s actually worse than that. Andy McCarthy makes the case that

the Supreme Court decided that Americans have no right to due process. Indeed, the Court not only upheld a fraud perpetrated on the public — it became a willing participant. …

Chief Justice Roberts & Co. . . . said the American people are not entitled to an honest legislative process, one in which they can safely assume that when Congress intentionally uses words that have very different meanings and consequences — like tax and penalty — and when Congress adamantly insists that the foundation of legislation is one and not the other, the Court will honor, rather than rewrite, the legislative process. Meaning: if Congress was wrong, the resulting law will be struck down, and Congress will be told that, if it wants to pass the law, it has to do it honestly. . . .

Further, it shielded the political branches from accountability for raising taxes, knowing full well that, had Obama and the Democrats leveled with the public that ObamaCare entailed a huge tax hike, it would never have had the votes to pass. . . .

The ObamaCare mandate was enacted as a penalty flowing from Congress’s Commerce Clause power. It has been upheld as a tax flowing from Congress’s power to tax-and-spend under the General Welfare Clause. As the dissent sharply demonstrates, the contention that the mandate could have been enacted as a tax is frivolous.

State Governors, such as Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal (Louisiana) are already stepping up to the plate by refusing to to “establish a federally mandated health care exchange in his state.” So has Democrat Governor John Lynch (New Hampshire). Media Trackers reports that Gov. John Kasich has announced that Ohio will not “create a health insurance exchange” with the federal government. It's an opportunity to call Kasich's office with words of solid support. PH (614) 466-3555 or e-mail him here.

Fischer further commented on the potential political consequences of the SCOTUS ruling:

Congress has a massive new mess awaiting it, all as voters prepare to vote for a new Congress and for 33 Unite States Senate seats, 23 now held by Democrats and their two “independent” allies. House Republicans solidly will vote symbolically to overturn the legislative monstrosity, and they will find endangered House Democrats breaking ranks with their leadership to vote with them. Senate Democrats facing reelection will be caught in a vise. Harry Reid will be trying desperately to prevent a vote on ObamaCare repeal from reaching the Senate floor, even as national news coverage focuses on the two national parties’ conventions.

Politico reports that "House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Thursday that the Republican-led House will vote on repealing the health care law soon after the July 4 recess.” It’s not too early to call the representatives from Ohio. Republican contact info is here.