It's Not Hate to Say a Triangle Has Only 3 Sides

But I expect to be told that anyway. The reactionary response to what is in actuality a very balanced editorial by the St. Paul Pioneer Press over the weekend is just the latest example as to why. Not to mention I've been told worse. Much worse.

I first wrote about the definition of marriage six years ago and very little has changed since then. I stand with the Church. In one sense, we shouldn't need an amendment. That there is one is a reaction to judicial and legislative attempts to cease to recognize marriage from the pre-political social institution for normalizing sexual behavior and child rearing it is to redefine it as a civil contract based on the pleasure and preference of adults with a bundle of automatic legal provisions (benefits and responsibilities). Even a self-styled "progressive" can see that and ought to be able to recognize the citizenry is playing with fire.

Today Won't End the Issue

Regardless what the commercials and the yard signs say, this is not about the freedom and fairness. Same-sex couples already have many of the same civil benefits that married couple enjoy. As for the balance, there is a case that given the dynamics and mobility of today's society, there is a compelling need to provide arbitrary social partnerships, which could include same-sex couples, along with, for example, single parent-child relationships, extended family members, or even just good friends. That so many opponents of the amendment reject any sort of "civil union" construct makes it clear that this primarily is about sanction and promotion of a "lifestyle choice" and, as a result, will not go away if the amendment passes.

If the amendment fails and, as expected, there is a successful judicial or legislative challenge, then, among other consequences, religious institutions, groups, and individuals will have their religious liberty attacked in much the same way that it is occurring in other states and is happening via the HHS mandate.

No gang, we're not done after today. So how about ratcheting it down a bit?

Additional Information

See the Marriage Protection Amendment page

BTW, The Stupidest Reason to Vote "No"

While I disagree with those who are opposing the marriage protection amendment today, I understand the perspective of many, if not most, and can even sympathize with them to a certain extent. However, there is one assertion I will not truck that some opponents insist is a point of brilliant political philosophy:

The government should get out of the business of regulating marriage and leave it to adults to decide marriage for themselves.

Privatizing marriage is not going to happen as a result of voting "No." Moreover, the vast majority of those who hold this position with whom I have discussed it base it on the "libertarian" notion that government can only screw it up because it screws everything up and therefore shouldn't be involved. If that is your position, then you ought to be voting "Yes" to leave alone the definition that has been understood for millennia and insulate it from judicial fiat and legislative whim. Otherwise you're just kidding yourself. Just sayin'.

Lest We Forget: Obamacare's War on Faith Has Real Costs [Infographic]

CatholicVote's third infographic in a series is out. This one focuses on the real costs to healthcare, charities, and relief services, see below.

To illustrate the consequences of the HHS mandate and perhaps put things in a little better perspective, let's continue to consider just one type of institution, the case of Catholic schools, in one region.

Making It Real - A Look at Catholic Schools

As mentioned in a previous post, the average size of a Catholic elementary school in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis is around 300 children, with an average operating budget of approximately $1.3 million. Tuition covers approximately $900,000 of this, with the remainder being covered by fundraising, grants, investments, etc.

For argument's sake, if we assume it takes 25 full-time faculty and staff (with benefits) to operate such a school and the school keeps offering health care benefits to full-time employees, but refuses to violate their consciences by providing the mandated services and incurs instead the prescribed penalty of $100 per person per day, that would mean an additional annual cost to the school of $912,500, which is an increase in operating expenses of about 70% and more than what they take in from tuition.

That means, even if operating expenses and staffing were directly proportional to enrollment (which they are not), and fundraising and the like could be maintained at a fixed dollar level (which would be unlikely in the extreme), they would have to turn away more than 200 of their 300 students (209 to be exact in this scenario). The other options would be to more than double the price of tuition to cover the "conscience tax," or increase fundraising and other revenues by 225%. That's a lot of wrapping paper, magazine subscriptions, marathon pledges, silent auctions, ...

Keep in mind that each child forced out of the Catholic school increases Minnesota's public education cost by about $10,000. Statewide this translates to $600 million in additional annual education expense to cover Minnesota's 60,000 Catholic school students. $600 million. That would be like adding more than half to the amount of the projected deficit for the state government's next fiscal year. But it's every year.

Therefore, in less than two years, the alleged benefit that Minnesota will receive in increased federal money to cover the newly eligible participants under the Medicaid expansion provision of Obamacare would be wiped out completely from the perspective of the taxpayers. (They will have to pay more somewhere, someway, whether at the state, or county, level.) Even in these days, $600 million per year in public funds is still real money. But, of course, we are supposed to believe this won't affect the middle class.

To what end? All that to support Obamacare, which by the government's own estimation will fail to do what it ostensibly is intended to do in covering all the uninsured. That's a pretty lousy trade for limiting our ability to live out our first freedom. Again, social justice my foot. Obamacare puts politics ahead of children.

Image: CatholicVote

For more information and the statistics on Catholic schools in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, visit AimHigher.org

Other Posts in the Series

Lest We Forget: Obamacare's War on Faith Affects Millions

Lest We Forget: Obamacare's War on Faith Hurts the Disadvantaged [Infographic]

CatholicVote's second infographic in a series is out. This one focuses on the underprivileged, see below.

To illustrate the consequences of the HHS mandate and perhaps put things in a little better perspective, let's continue to consider just one type of institution, the case of Catholic schools, in one region.

Making It Real - A Look at Catholic Schools

The average size of a Catholic elementary school in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis is around 300 children, with an average operating budget of approximately $1.3 million. If this small school is forced to close because it is unable to operate under the debilitating penalty, which could easily exceed 50% of it's operating budget, that's an additional $3,000,000 burden on Minnesota taxpayers (more than a half billion dollars total for all the Catholic school students across the state), and the children affected in just this average school will include:

• 12 students who receive Title I services (more than 1,100 in just this archdiocese)
• 14 students who receive special education services (1,300 total across the archdiocese)
• 75 students who receive need-based financial aid (7,500 across the archdiocese)
• 150 students who receive subsidized transportation (15,000 across the archdiocese)

More public education cost and less student achievement, including for many children who are underprivileged. Social justice my foot.

Image: CatholicVote

For more information and the statistics on Catholic schools in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, visit AimHigher.org

Other Posts in the Series

Lest We Forget: Obamacare's War on Faith Affects Millions

Lest We Forget: Obamacare's War on Faith Affects Millions [Infographic]

CatholicVote has launched a series of infographics describing the ill effects of Obamacare's assault on religious liberty. The first installment is below.

Making It Real - A Look at Catholic Schools

To make it even easier (I hope) to get your head around the consequences of the HHS mandate and put things in a little better perspective, let's consider just one type of institution, the case of Catholic schools, in one region.

In the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis alone, the Catholic Church educates 30,000 students in grades K-12 in 93 schools.

Set aside that it costs a local Catholic school about 60% what it does to educate a child in the average Minnesota public school. And set aside the improved effectiveness of Catholic schools to educate as measured by test scores, graduation rates, and college/military placement rates. Ignore that. Now what would that mean to the state's residents?

It would cost Minnesota taxpayers an additional $300,000,000 per year to educate these children if their Catholic schools were forced to close and they had to attend public schools, not to mention the additional children from the Dioceses of Crookston, Duluth, New Ulm, St. Cloud, and Winona, thereby affecting the bottom lines of millions of Minnesotans. Because families of Catholic school students are already paying taxes to support their local public schools, this $300 million is an unfunded additional burden to be carried. Please tell me again how Obamacare does not affect middle class taxes.

Image: CatholicVote

For more information on Catholic schools in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, visit AimHigher.org

The Fortnight for Freedom is Still Rolling

Just in case anyone forgot, I am Catholic.

For the Freedom of the Church

From the Orationes Diversae in the 1962 Missale Romanum, “Pro Ecclesiae libertate”:

Ecclesiae tuae, quaesumus, Domine, preces placatus admitte: ut, destructis adversitatibus et erroribus universis, secura tibi serviat libertate. … We beseech You, O Lord, having been appeased, receive the prayers of Your Church, so that once all adversities and errors have been destroyed, she, secure, may serve You in freedom.

Go ahead. Read it again and say it like you mean it.

(HHT: Fr. Z)

The Day After

I have been fighting my inner Krauthammer since my initial posts yesterday (here, here, and here -- with updates!) on SCOTUS' Obamacare decision, and I have decided I can only hope to contain it.

There's plenty of analysis out there as to what John Roberts' behind-the-scenes motivations might be, what does the decision mean for healthcare, or the economy, what do we do next, ...

Jonah Goldberg's G-file newsletter today captures my view on the whole the-chief-justice-is-a-genius-who-just-maneuvered-the-president-into-his-very-own-Marbury-v.-Madison bit:

"Why do you keep calling it a tax?" Justice Breyer asked the solicitor general during the oral arguments for Obamacare last March.

The whole room burst into laughter.

But apparently not Chief Justice Roberts.

Despite the fact that pretty much every lower court found this tax claim laughable; despite the fact that President Obama indignantly insisted it wasn't a tax; despite the fact that the administration largely ignored the tax question in its defense of the law; despite the fact that the Congress made every effort to insist the mandate penalty was not a tax -- short of carving "this is no tax" with a potato peeler into their collective foreheads . . .

Justice Roberts concluded it is, in fact, a tax. ...

[M]y problem with this is that this is b.s. ...

Yes, yes: I know. Already numerous people I respect are praising Roberts for playing the "long game" (See: Jay Cost, Sean Trende, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, et al.) I get the argument: The decision rolled back the Commerce Clause; it created new political limits on expanding government (in effect, everything the nanny state wants to do now has to be called a tax to get over the constitutional plate); it restored the reputation of the Court so that future conservative decisions will be more readily accepted; it showed Roberts is the tortoise and Obama the hare.

Meh.

Look, I'll be delighted if all these things turn out to be true. But as a conservative, I'm skeptical of these three-carom-shot approaches to politics. I remember all of the people who wondered whether it would be better if McCain lost in 2008 (including me!). It turns out Ed Koch's mother was right when she told him, "It's always better to win than to lose." Everyone hailing Roberts's brilliance is in effect congratulating Jack for bringing home the magic beans -- before they grow into a giant stalk. He traded the cow of overturning Obamacare now for some "long game" beans that might one day grow into something cool. It is an un-conservative tendency to credit one man with being able to plan that far out into the future.

The argument you hear a lot is that Roberts was a genius for figuring out how to gut the Commerce Clause while still preserving the Commerce Clause. But you know what else he could have done? He could have gutted the Commerce Clause and overturned Obamacare! How? By simply ruling what he believes and signing on with Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, and Thomas. Instead we're being told that win-lose is better than win-win. Not. Buying. It.

Moreover, what Roberts did is not in his job description. Whatever his motivation -- whether it was to defend the Court's reputation or his own, or if it was to deliver some ingenious slow-acting poison to the Nanny State -- that's not what justices are supposed to prioritize. If he's the umpire he claims to be, he should be umping.

(emphasis added)

And as for what's next, that one is simple for me. Obamacare is worse than you think it is.





And the threat to religious freedom is real. I'll go so far to say I think the law is not only wrong, it is immoral beyond repair. It may even be evil in its application, which has only just begun. That means the path is repeal and start over. There will be more to come on that (hey, we have until November now), but, in the mean time, my focus is on the Fortnight for Freedom, which continues apace.

And for those who are wondering, here is the wikipedia link to Marbury v. Madison.

Now That Obamacare is Just a Political Issue UPDATED

Here are three takes that summarize things fairly well.

From CATO@Liberty:

The Supreme Court ruled that ObamaCare’s individual mandate is not constitutional under the Commerce Power, which was how Congress framed the mandate to avoid a political backlash from calling it a tax. Congress and the president swore up and down that the mandate was not a tax. Yet the Court upheld the mandate as a valid use of that disavowed taxing power. What Congress said the individual mandate is, the Court said is not constitutional. What Congress said the mandate is not, the Court ruled is constitutional. Everybody got that?

Where does that leave us?

The Supreme Court just enacted a law that Congress never would have passed.
The Court just told Congress it is okay to lie to the people to avoid political accountability.

From Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List:

“From the outset, Obamacare is fundamentally flawed legislation because it makes American taxpayers complicit in the deaths of countless unborn children,” said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “Today’s decision to uphold the individual mandate to force individuals to purchase health care plans that offend their conscience is incredibly disappointing.

“Over the last four years, President Obama has revealed his loyalty to the abortion industry. At no time was this clearer than during the health care reform debate, when he fought tenaciously for the largest expansion of taxpayer funding of abortion on demand since Roe v. Wade. As the presidential race heats up, the Susan B. Anthony List will continue to remind American voters where the President’s allegiance truly lies. We will not stop fighting until every U.S. taxpayer is freed from under-writing the abortion business.”

And, finally, Obamacare has become the largest tax increase in the history of the world (I don't think that's hyperbole). During one of the nation's largest recessions--possibly double-dipping now. If you think that will support the middle class, you are a moron. Literally. From the Greek (not the Joe Biden sense of "literally").

Update:

The USCCB sent out this text message as the bishops renew plea to repair Obamacare:

After today's ruling, the contraception mandate still remains. Keep up your prayers and action for religious freedom!

Update 2:

From National Right to Life:

“All voters who care about the value and dignity of human life must do everything they can to elect Mitt Romney and a Congress who are committed to repeal of ObamaCare,” said National Right to Life President Carol Tobias. “If President Obama wins re-election, it will mean massive abortion subsidies and it will put the lives of millions at risk through systematic government-imposed rationing of lifesaving medical care.”

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding most of the ObamaCare law is a call-to-action for the right-to-life electorate to work to elect a Congress and president this November committed to repealing ObamaCare in 2013, in order to prevent a future in which abortion insurance will be heavily subsidized by federal taxpayers and federal bureaucrats will be authorized to ration life-saving medical treatment.

Update 3:

From my congressman, Rep. John Kline:

Update 4:

From Larry Kudlow on the impact to the economy:

Twenty new or higher taxes across-the-board are bad for economic growth, bad for job hiring, bad for investors, and bad for families.

A tax is a tax is a tax, according to Judge Roberts. But he forgot to say that if you tax something more, you get less of it. ...

Obamacare is not just a huge tax hike. It’s also a major new spending entitlement that’s already pegged at $2.5 trillion and will increase the federal debt burden much faster than the GDP expands.

In other words, tax, spend, regulate, borrow. The Obama mantra. ...

Bankrupting the economy is not exactly a job-creator.

What This Morning May Bring UPDATED

Update (bumped to top)

Obamacare appears to have been upheld as constitutional in the main. Now it gets interesting... Expect potential nullification challenges from several states (although the limitations on Medicaid expansion may prevent them), and, of course, repeal just joined the economy as a primary issue for the fall. Welcome to a long, hot summer.

Original Post

I am not one for predicting what the Supreme Court will do, but my growing unease since the Arizona decision on Monday is reflected in the Intrade market regarding the question of the individual mandate being declared unconstitutional by it's drop of 10% in the last two days since that decision was announced.

The individual mandate is, of course, at the center of the legal challenge, but it is not all that is wrong with a law that I find to be bad, bad, bad. To review the bidding...

As I noted following the passage of Obamacare:

If I have to buy insurance to drive a car, that's fine. I don't have to drive. I can walk, ride a bike, take the bus, whatever.

If I have to pay an airport tax to help defray the costs of the TSA, that's fine, too. I don't have to get on an airplane. I can walk, ride a bike, take the bus, whatever.

This bill says that I have to purchase health insurance. I don't have to drive or fly, but I do have to live.

There's a world of difference in coercing the execution of a private contract simply because you exist vs. usage requirements for public goods/services (driving), or engaging in potentially exploitive (pornography or prostitution), or dangerous behavior (public narcotic use or recklessness). But my objection to this law goes beyond the individual mandate. It violates the principle of subsidiarity at both the state and individual levels. It doesn't provide for conscience protections (or has very limited ones). Its costs have been obfuscated and when fully implemented will be nearly 3x what was advertised at its passing. The promise of my getting to keep my insurance, if I liked it at the time of passage, is patently false. It will create dislocations in reimbursements to service providers, or access to services. In the end, it actually still won't ensure everyone has coverage because of the incentives built in for adverse selection. I could go on.

On a more personal level, my self-insured employer has already started taking compliance steps that have increased my out of pocket costs by thousands of dollars, with less coverage and fewer plan options. I've been able to hold my job (and had to hold my job), so I haven't had to face the issue of pre-existing conditions, deniability for which is a real problem in today's "market." Yes, the current law's guaranteed issue provision works to that situation. However, beyond my incomplete list above, I just don't think such relief will be anything but temporary, i.e., the situation will be unsustainable before I reach retirement age because of costs, or unacceptable because of rationing--I just don't buy it; I don't think it will work and it will cost a lot of people a lot more money. There are alternate remedies that better address the underlying problems.

Regardless any elements of noble intent and desirable features, I think it is a bad law that addresses the wrong problem. The health care problem in need of reform is insufficient (a term I'll stipulate) access to needed and affordable health care services. Congress' remedy here is to coerce the execution of private contracts in a derivative market, namely the health insurance market that serves the health care services market. To what end? To correct problems that Congress itself created through price controls, anti-competitive constraints, and guaranteed service requirements. Yeah, that's not gonna work.To apply general tools to specific problems is to fail.

Solve the problem. And that means starting over.

Isn’t it Wrong for Churches to be Involved? What about Separation of Church and State?

The HHS mandate isn't the only religious freedom question on the table.



Link to video.

Minnesota For Marriage Releases New Marriage Minute Video:

Shrouded in the widely misunderstood concept of separation of church and state, some secular groups want to confine religious viewpoints to the four walls of the church. This is as un-American as it is unconstitutional.

All churches have a right and a duty to speak out on important issues like the Marriage Protection Amendment no matter their position on the amendment itself.

7 Quick Takes

I know, I know. You don't want to make a bad first impression, and here I am, being late with my first ever 7 Quick Takes. I've heard it all before: Punctuality ___________ (is a common courtesy, is a sign of respect, shows how interested you are, etc.). Whatever. My retort is this:

Punctuality is the virtue of the bored  - Evelyn Waugh

Get over it, and here goes...

On the heels of last week's religious liberty rallies, oral arguments on Obamacare are set to run  before the Supreme Court Monday thru Wednesday, so there's little doubt what will dominate the news this week. So this round is focused on seven things for the individual to do about Obamacare (of which the HHS mandate is a part).

-1-

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in 2009 (CNS photo/Reuters)

Pray for the justices of the US Supreme Court to have wisdom (and use it). You would hope that with six Catholics on the bench this would be a walkover for overthrowing the law based on the principle of subsidiarity alone, but a 5-4 vote swinger is almost certain.

-2-

Check out resource sites for reference information on Obamacare and the HHS mandate like the USCCB and the Minnesota Catholic Conference.

 
-3-

Read and consider signing the Manhattan Declaration and the Stop HHS Mandate petition.

-4-

Join the Rosary Across America 54-day novena prayer movement.

-5-

Contact your state and federal representatives' offices to let them know your opposition to Obamacare and the HHS mandate.

-6-

Support candidates who will oppose the implementation of Obamacare. At the federal levels, that would be candidates who are committed to its repeal. At the state level, those who advocate nullification. If you're not sure, ask.

Rick Santorum in 2011 (Gage Skidmore photo)

 -7-

On Friday, the bishops of Iowa joined those of Pennsylvania in declaring Friday, March 30th, as a day of fasting, prayer, and abstinence for the cause of religious liberty. Sunday, from the pulpit, we were instructed that St. Paul and Minneapolis will also participate, as will I expect the rest of the Minnesota conference and much of the nation. Regardless your local church's level of involvement, you can join certainly your prayers and fasting to others' across the country.