Governors Matter Again, Thank God
Kim Strassel’s column in the Wall Street Journal slipped past me Friday, but even a little late it’s well worth noting:
In the age of Obama, Republican governors and candidates are redefining their role to become defenders in chief against an overweening federal government that is siphoning away states’ power and crushing them with new costs.
That’s why 20 states are suing for the constitutional overthrow of ObamaCare. It’s why Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal threw in with a lawsuit to kill the federal drilling moratorium. It’s why Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is challenging federal immigration policies. It’s why 18 governors in March signed a letter demanding the Senate protect their states against EPA climate rules.
The last governors who played roles of national importance? Orval Faubus of Arkansas, Lester Maddox of Georgia, and George Wallace of Alabama. They were up to no good, obstructing civil rights—and discrediting the very doctrine of states rights on which they sought to make their stand.
Today? Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Mitch Daniels of Illinois, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Jan Brewer of Arizona, and Haley Barbour of Mississippi—each has promoted economic growth, kept state spending in check, and pursued school reform. Although elected less than a year ago, Bob McDonnell of Virginia and Chris Christie of New Jersey have both proven impressive—Christie remarkably so, closing New Jersey’s deficit without raising taxes. No one can accuse any of these governors of mere obstructionism. No one can get away with calling them knuckle-draggers or throwbacks. Each stands on a record of substance and accomplishment. And—critical point—in opposing Obama and the liberal onslaught, they’re not discrediting federalism but reviving it.
You know what? This could all end up working out okay after all.
- Comment (7)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Governors Matter Again, Thank God
In normal times, maybe not when the economy is collapsing, I think any wise US President would concentrate on foreign policy and security issues, and let the Governors lead the way on domestic policy. The President should basically meet with Governors and say, "how can I help?" The system would work much better that way.
May '10
Re: Governors Matter Again, Thank God
Peter vs Pessimism, et al
Mr. Robinson is searching for his rainbow in the storm that is tossing the nation. Unfortunately, it still all boils down to the courts, doesn't it. The Federal Judiciary vacated the Tenth Amendment decades ago. Can we really hold out hope that they will suddenly find it relevant again?
The only way governors matter is if the courts find that unfunded mandates and other burdens placed on the states are unconstitutional. Believe that and I have some land in Florida I'd like to talk to you about...
Jul '10
Re: Governors Matter Again, Thank God
closing New Jersey’s deficit without raising taxes.
This is using liberal's rhetoric; it assumes maybe that raising taxes is a way to reduce the deficit. That may be true, depending on what side of the Laffer curve you're on.
You should perhaps say "closing New Jersey's deficit by freezing spending."
May '10
Re: Governors Matter Again, Thank God
On another Firefox tab, I'm presently reading PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, from the 20-State suit challenging ObamaCare Mr. Robinson referenced above. It was filed just yesterday, and its about about 80 pages (60 pages without the table of contents, authorities, etc.)
Looks good to me, but I wonder if Mr. Epstein and Mr. Yoo would weigh in on its virtues and/or deficiencies. The brief includes, not just the more familiar arguments that the federal government cannot regulate inactivity (or mandate economic activity) via the Commerce Clause or the Taxing and Spending Clause, but also:
1) An individual rights, Due Process argument (citing cases like Glucksberg, Cruzan, and the 1920's cases Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Meyer v.Nebraska) on pages 43 - 45,
2) The argument that the feds cannot coerce or exercise compulsion over the States outside the bounds of the Taxing and Spending Clause (citing South Dakota v. Dole) at 45 - 50, and,
3) An anti-State-comandeering argument (citing Printz v. United States and New York v. United States) at 51 - 54.
It is fun, and inspiring, to see the States fight back.
Re: Governors Matter Again, Thank God
Brian, I don't know whether yours is a real name or a pen name, but the last name does capture at least one view of the attacks on ObamaCare: Quixotic.
I suspect that that will not turn out to be the case. Here is one reason. The efforts at implementation require fancy footwork, and the more than is done, the more unwieldy and the more coercive the entire exercise turns out to be. In December, I flagged the medical loss ratio as the key driver of the regulation of the private health care sector.
The grandfathering provisions were a political stunt with no independent substantive bite. Everything would be taken over by politics. But the steepness of the cuts needed in some undefined class of administrative expenses could easily bankrupt all private plans unless there was some tolerance. There are not literally hundreds of definitional issues before various government committees, and no sign of relief. The concretization of the case makes it stronger. [1/2]
Re: Governors Matter Again, Thank God
The encroachment issues, Brian, will become more potent as well, when they intersect with the looming crisis in public funding of government worker pensions. There is not enough money to provide for both, and huge choices have to be made. Oddly enough, it is the commerce clause challenge that I think will prove the hardest road, because it only goes to the scope of federal jurisdction, which is unpardonably wide even before the current case arose. So stay tuned, the path to implementation will give more ammunition and more credibility to the challenges. [2/2]
May '10
Re: Governors Matter Again, Thank God
Thanks for your response, Mr. Epstein. (Where else can a guy like me - writing under a pseudonym - get a response from Richard Epstein?) I'm looking at your article in Medical Progress Today now.
I'm afraid of the Commerce Clause argument; all we need is for the Supreme Court to replace Raich as the outer limit (no limit?) of the Commerce Clause. But if the legal case gets better as we deal with the concrete issues of implementation, I wonder how much damage will be done to the health care economy in the meantime - and how long it will take for rational health insurance arrangements to emerge - after we clear away the wreckage caused by the emerging system of quasi-private insurers that function as arms of the federal government. I don't know who will still invest billions in competing health insurers with the omnipresent uncertainty that that the feds - at the Congressional level or at the regulatory level - will assert themselves again and destroy that investment.
I think there is actually a concrete answer to this question (this is not just rhetorical melancholy) for those who better understand health care economics, which excludes me.