The New Republic

The New Republic

Page 1 of 3

Scroll to Top

Refusing Medicaid funds: Stupid decision, or stupidest decision? “Basic decency ought to be reason enough for all states, even those with Republican governors, to participate in the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid. The well-being of literally millions of low-income Americans is at stake. But if the humanitarian aspects of the Medicaid expansion don’t appeal to Rick Perry, Rick Scott, and their allies, then economic self-interest really should. As many of us have been saying, the Medicaid expansion an incredibly good deal, with the federal government picking up nearly the entire cost of the expansion, including 100 percent of the bill for the first three years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, participating in the expansion would require states to increase Medicaid spending by less than 3 percent between 2014 and 2022.” — Jonathan Cohn, “Turning Down Medicaid: Even More Stupid Than It Seems”
Zoom

Refusing Medicaid funds: Stupid decision, or stupidest decision?

“Basic decency ought to be reason enough for all states, even those with Republican governors, to participate in the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid. The well-being of literally millions of low-income Americans is at stake. But if the humanitarian aspects of the Medicaid expansion don’t appeal to Rick Perry, Rick Scott, and their allies, then economic self-interest really should.

As many of us have been saying, the Medicaid expansion an incredibly good deal, with the federal government picking up nearly the entire cost of the expansion, including 100 percent of the bill for the first three years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, participating in the expansion would require states to increase Medicaid spending by less than 3 percent between 2014 and 2022.”

— Jonathan Cohn, “Turning Down Medicaid: Even More Stupid Than It Seems”

Why do news networks care so much about being first? “Has any publication ever received a Pulitzer for being the first to report a major announcement? Is there some secret reward at stake—free cookies for a year? A trip to Hawaii? Do colleagues buy you a drink to congratulate you on beating the other networks by ten seconds? Because if this is just about bragging rights, it needs to stop. Now. And not just because it can lead to some outlets rushing to report incorrect information, as CNN and FOX did with the recent Supreme Court decision on health care reform. But because the race to be first is no longer just a feature of news coverage but often the main factor driving it.” — Amy Sullivan, “Who Reported It First? Who Cares?”
Zoom

Why do news networks care so much about being first?

“Has any publication ever received a Pulitzer for being the first to report a major announcement? Is there some secret reward at stake—free cookies for a year? A trip to Hawaii? Do colleagues buy you a drink to congratulate you on beating the other networks by ten seconds?

Because if this is just about bragging rights, it needs to stop. Now. And not just because it can lead to some outlets rushing to report incorrect information, as CNN and FOX did with the recent Supreme Court decision on health care reform. But because the race to be first is no longer just a feature of news coverage but often the main factor driving it.”

— Amy Sullivan, “Who Reported It First? Who Cares?”

Timothy Noah on the GOP’s misdirected Obamacare anger “Republicans would rather kick up a fuss about a pipsqueak tax on health-insurance-shirkers, most of them probably lower-income, which means they’re an unlikely bet to vote Republican. Maybe it’s because they don’t really think of payroll taxes as taxes. (Grover Norquist has said he has no problem with raising them.) Maybe it’s because they got burned fighting with Obama over his payroll (i.e., OASDI) tax cut late last year, which possibly left them never wanting to speak the words “payroll tax” ever again, even if it’s to point out that Obama is now raising them (albeit only on people in the top 5 percent of incomes nationwide; but it wouldn’t be unprecedented for Republicans to leave that part out). For whatever reason, the GOP is spending remarkably little effort on fighting Obamacare’s most significant tax hike. As a liberal, I find this pleasing. As a journalist, I find it puzzling.” –– Timothy Noah, “The Real Obamacare Tax Increase”
Zoom

Timothy Noah on the GOP’s misdirected Obamacare anger

“Republicans would rather kick up a fuss about a pipsqueak tax on health-insurance-shirkers, most of them probably lower-income, which means they’re an unlikely bet to vote Republican. Maybe it’s because they don’t really think of payroll taxes as taxes. (Grover Norquist has said he has no problem with raising them.) Maybe it’s because they got burned fighting with Obama over his payroll (i.e., OASDI) tax cut late last year, which possibly left them never wanting to speak the words “payroll tax” ever again, even if it’s to point out that Obama is now raising them (albeit only on people in the top 5 percent of incomes nationwide; but it wouldn’t be unprecedented for Republicans to leave that part out). For whatever reason, the GOP is spending remarkably little effort on fighting Obamacare’s most significant tax hike. As a liberal, I find this pleasing. As a journalist, I find it puzzling.”

–– Timothy Noah, “The Real Obamacare Tax Increase”

“Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court’s four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama’s health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations. Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy - believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law - led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.” — Jonathan Cohn, “Did Roberts Change His Vote?”
Zoom Info

“Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court’s four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama’s health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.

Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy - believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law - led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.”

— Jonathan Cohn, “Did Roberts Change His Vote?”

What does it mean to be a successful Chief Justice? “As Roberts recognized, faith in the neutrality of the law and the impartiality of judges is a fragile thing. When I teach constitutional law, I begin by telling students that they can’t assume that it’s all politics. To do so misses everything that is constraining and meaningful and inspiring about the Constitution as a framework for government. There will be many polarizing decisions from the Roberts Court in the future, and John Roberts will be on the conservative side of many of them. But with his canny performance in the health care case, Roberts has given the country a memorable example of what it means to be a successful Chief Justice.” -Jeffrey Rosen,”Welcome to the Roberts Court: How the Chief Justice Used Obamacare to Reveal His True Identity”
Zoom

What does it mean to be a successful Chief Justice?

“As Roberts recognized, faith in the neutrality of the law and the impartiality of judges is a fragile thing. When I teach constitutional law, I begin by telling students that they can’t assume that it’s all politics. To do so misses everything that is constraining and meaningful and inspiring about the Constitution as a framework for government. There will be many polarizing decisions from the Roberts Court in the future, and John Roberts will be on the conservative side of many of them. But with his canny performance in the health care case, Roberts has given the country a memorable example of what it means to be a successful Chief Justice.”

-Jeffrey Rosen,”Welcome to the Roberts Court: How the Chief Justice Used Obamacare to Reveal His True Identity”

One can only speculate about Roberts’ motives for proceeding as he did. It is certainly possible that, like Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes in the mid-1930s, he had one eye focused on jurisprudence and another on the standing of the institution he heads. This may be another “switch in time” that saved the Court from becoming embroiled in a full-fledged confrontation with the executive and legislative branches. “What is beyond speculation is that this comes as a massive disappointment to movement conservatives who have spent decades strengthening their position in the judicial branch with the ultimate objective of halting and reversing the growing reach of the federal government. Expect recriminations and accusations alleging that, once again, a pivotal conservative has yielded to liberal elite opinion.” -William Galston, “Conservatives’ Long March Through the Court Hits a Wall” Image via Forbes.
Zoom

One can only speculate about Roberts’ motives for proceeding as he did. It is certainly possible that, like Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes in the mid-1930s, he had one eye focused on jurisprudence and another on the standing of the institution he heads. This may be another “switch in time” that saved the Court from becoming embroiled in a full-fledged confrontation with the executive and legislative branches.

“What is beyond speculation is that this comes as a massive disappointment to movement conservatives who have spent decades strengthening their position in the judicial branch with the ultimate objective of halting and reversing the growing reach of the federal government. Expect recriminations and accusations alleging that, once again, a pivotal conservative has yielded to liberal elite opinion.”

-William Galston, “Conservatives’ Long March Through the Court Hits a Wall”

Image via Forbes.

“Part of Roberts’ decision, joined by the dissenters, limited the federal government’s ability to dictate how states use Medicaid funds—and in a way that could have serious effects. Roberts and the conservatives accepted the argument that the federal government effectively coerced the states by threatening to withdraw existing Medicaid funds if they do not expand the program, as the Affordable Care Act calls upon them to do. This makes the expansion of Medicaid essentially voluntary. The federal government is picking up most of these costs, so most states will take the deal anyway. But states could decline to expand if they chose—and it’s not clear (to me) what happens then. In addition, that part of the ruling could limit the federal government’s leverage over states in the future.” -Jon Cohn, “Supreme Court Rules, Obamacare Can Go Forward”
Zoom Info

“Part of Roberts’ decision, joined by the dissenters, limited the federal government’s ability to dictate how states use Medicaid funds—and in a way that could have serious effects. Roberts and the conservatives accepted the argument that the federal government effectively coerced the states by threatening to withdraw existing Medicaid funds if they do not expand the program, as the Affordable Care Act calls upon them to do.

This makes the expansion of Medicaid essentially voluntary. The federal government is picking up most of these costs, so most states will take the deal anyway. But states could decline to expand if they chose—and it’s not clear (to me) what happens then. In addition, that part of the ruling could limit the federal government’s leverage over states in the future.”

-Jon Cohn, “Supreme Court Rules, Obamacare Can Go Forward”

On Mandates and Precedent “Altogether, this means that, if it is to be consistent, the Supreme Court has no choice but to uphold the constitutionality of Obamacare’s purchase mandate. Not only are such purchase mandates not unprecedented, but a purchase mandate with a strikingly similar rationale has affirmatively been approved by all but two members of the current Court.”— Emily Bass and Einer Elhauge, “Even the Most Conservative Supreme Court Justices Have Already Declared Mandates Constitutional” Photo courtesy of Forbes.
Zoom

On Mandates and Precedent

“Altogether, this means that, if it is to be consistent, the Supreme Court has no choice but to uphold the constitutionality of Obamacare’s purchase mandate. Not only are such purchase mandates not unprecedented, but a purchase mandate with a strikingly similar rationale has affirmatively been approved by all but two members of the current Court.”

— Emily Bass and Einer Elhauge, “Even the Most Conservative Supreme Court Justices Have Already Declared Mandates Constitutional”

Photo courtesy of Forbes.

A Theory to Crush Conservative Jurisprudence “Einer Elhauge of Harvard Law School, for example, pointed out that the Founders had explicitly endorsed the concept of a health care mandate when the first Congress passed legislation in 1790 requiring shipowners to buy health insurance for their sailors. This law was signed by President George Washington. Taking a different angle, Jack Balkin of Yale Law School argued that the mandate is clearly authorized by Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, which permits Congress to “lay and collect taxes.” Rather than getting tangled in the wonky particulars of exactly when individuals enter the health care market, these scholars were locating a justification for the law in the text of the Constitution and the historical understanding of the men who wrote and ratified it.” -Jeffrey Rosen, “Constitution Avenue”
Zoom

A Theory to Crush Conservative Jurisprudence

“Einer Elhauge of Harvard Law School, for example, pointed out that the Founders had explicitly endorsed the concept of a health care mandate when the first Congress passed legislation in 1790 requiring shipowners to buy health insurance for their sailors. This law was signed by President George Washington. Taking a different angle, Jack Balkin of Yale Law School argued that the mandate is clearly authorized by Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, which permits Congress to “lay and collect taxes.” Rather than getting tangled in the wonky particulars of exactly when individuals enter the health care market, these scholars were locating a justification for the law in the text of the Constitution and the historical understanding of the men who wrote and ratified it.”

-Jeffrey Rosen, “Constitution Avenue”

Pencil Icon

President Obama Makes an Empirical Case for Re-Election

“The difference between Romney’s vision, rather than Obama’s, would be many fewer people with health insurance, into the tens of millions; less money for a variety of federal programs, including ones that help young people pay for college, enable poor people to get food, and provide public safety; fewer dollars for repairing broken down bridges, upgrading public transportation and other infrastructure investments; and much, much lower taxes for wealthy Americans.”

- Jonathan Cohn, “Yes, Romney’s Vision for America Really Is That Scary”