United Liberty

If the Supreme Court decides to overturn the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, they may make President Barack Obama angry, but according to a new Washington Post/ABC News poll, Americans will be happy.

While the White House and Democrats continuing to claim that the public will benefit from ObamaCare, the poll, which is heavily skewed towards Democrats, shows that a majority of Americans oppose the law and two-thirds believing that the Supreme Court should throw out at least the individual mandate:

Fifty-three percent of Americans now oppose the law overall, while just 39 percent support it – the latter the lowest in more than a dozen ABC/Post polls since August 2009. “Strong” critics, at 40 percent, outnumber strong supporters by nearly a 2-1 margin in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates.

Two-thirds continue to say the high court should throw out either the entire law (38 percent) or at least the part that requires most individuals to obtain coverage (29 percent) or face a penalty; just a quarter want the court to uphold the law as is. Those numbers, like views on the law overall, are essentially unchanged from a month ago.

Again, this is a poll that is tilted toward Democrats and they still can’t find substantial support for ObamaCare, which is the most touted domestic achievement of the administration. Here’s hoping the Supreme Court does the right thing in overturning the law, regardless of the empty threats from Obama.

Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock the last few days then you’ve heard that Ozzie Guillen, manager of the Miami Marlins (Florida Marlins!), was suspended by his employer after making controversial comments about Fidel Castro. In case you missed the specific comments, here is what Guillen told Time:

I love Fidel Castro. I respect Fidel Castro. You know why? A lot of people have wanted to kill Fidel Castro for the last 60 years, but that son of a bitch is still there.

If you know anything about Miami, a city with a large number of Cuban exiles and their families, then you can understand why those comments were so controversial. Boycotts of the team were immediately announced and the Marlins were scrambling to condemn, not just the remarks, but also the Castro regime.

Guillen, who came up with and eventually managed the Chicago White Sox (he also played for the Atlanta Braves for two seasons in the late 90’s), is well known for making controversial remarks and statements, so the Marlins should have known what they were getting when they hired him. But looking at everything in context, David Harsanyi notes that Guillen is hardly a fan of Castro. Back in 2008, Guillen said of the Cuban dictator:

Fidel Castro. He’s a bull—— dictator and everybody’s against him, and he still survives, has power. Still has a country behind him. Everywhere he goes they roll out the red carpet. I don’t admire his philosophy. I admire him.

Last month, Charles and David Koch filed a lawsuit against the Cato Institute over the shares owned by the late William Niskanen. They insist that the shares were not transferrable to Niskanen’s widow and should have been made available for purchase.

In the days since the lawsuit was filed, scholars employed by and supporters of the Cato Institute have taken to the Internet, explaining that the lawsuit is nothing more than a hostile takeover of one of Washington’s premier, independent think tanks.

Unfortunately, the battle for the heart and soul of the libertarian movement was escalated yesterday when the Koch brothers filed a second lawsuit against Cato. They’re claiming that a recent election to expand the Institute’s governing board should be invalidated:

According to court documents filed Monday and obtained by The Washington Post, the Kochs are asking the court to invalidate the results of an “improper election” held recently by Cato’s board—an action the Kochs refer to as a “Board-packing scheme.”

On March 22 Cato’s board voted, by a narrow margin of 9-7, to increase the number of seats on the board and to fill those seats with four previous members whom the Kochs had removed earlier in March by exercising their shareholder rights in the organization.

According to the documents, the Kochs argue that, in accordance with Cato’s by-laws, the board has neither the power to expand its size, nor the power to fill the seats.

Despite the fact that the so-called “Buffett Rule,” a proposed tax for top income earners, will annually bring in what amounts to half a day of spending in Washington, the White House and Senate Democrats are still planning to push ahead for a vote.

They insist now that there deficit reducation argument for the tax has been debunked that it is a matter of “fairness.” Of course, our tax code is already very progressive. The same higher income earners - some 400 people — that are being targeted by Obama already pay more as a share of their income than lower quintiles, shouldering over 39% of the income tax burden.

Over at Forbes yesterday, economist Josh Barro explained why the “arbitrariness” of Buffett Rule is bad tax policy, using a few different scenarios to emphasize his points:

Tax reform is supposed to be about making the tax code simpler, less distorting, and less arbitrary. Yet, as I’ve written before, the Buffett Rule moves in the wrong direction on all of those measures. Here are some examples that show why.

Just because you live in a country does that mean you’ve consented to everything the government of that country has done or is doing? When you say the pledge of allegiance are you pledging to uphold the ideals of liberty, peace and free trade or are you pledging your loyalty to an entity that lies, steals and kills on a regular basis?

Consent.(Synonym: Acquiesce): To give assent or approval

I’m sure you’ve hear of government resting on the “constent of the governed”. I think that is a theory created to justify the existence of tyrannts and our current over bloated, over regulating, war machine of a federal government. I like the phrase “acquiesence of the governneed” to more accurately describe what is happneing in this country. Most individuals including myuself acquiese to the power of the state and more accurately the power of the shifting majority whose only purpose is to extract wealth from some individuals and give it to others. If there was no government force or just extermely limited government force which stuck to the constitutional limits than ”consent of the governed” maybe applicable in that situation, because what man will consent to a government that lies to him, steals from him and can execute him if it deems appropriate at the drop of a hat?

As you know, Rick Santorum suspended his presidential campaign yesterday, ostensibly handing the nomination over to Mitt Romney, who has been the target of ire from many conservatives during the race. Santorum’s decision doesn’t come with the best of circumstances due to his daughter’s recent hospitalization — and we may disagree with him, we do wish the best for he and his family.

But with his exit, let’s take a look back at some of the issues we had with Santorum, ranging from his statism on economic issues to his candidacy being a last resort for the anti-Romney faction of the GOP electorate.

Not a Fiscal Conservative: This has been a oft-repeated criticism of Santorum at United Liberty. While tried to pass himself off as a fiscal conservative, his record indicated otherwise. Santorum vigoriously defended his earmarks, supported tariff hikes, voted for Medicare Part D, was supportive of labor unions, and voted for every bloated budget passed under George W. Bush.

BREAKING: ObamaCare won’t reduce the deficit. Of course, you already knew that. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress still insist that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) will be good for taxpayers.

But a new report from Charles Blahous, a Medicare Trustee and senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center, once again exposes ObamaCare as a boondoggle for taxpayers, what opponents of the law have been saying since before it was passed, that will add $340 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years.

Here’s the story from the Washington Post:

The study [released yesterday] by Charles Blahous, a conservative policy analyst whom Obama approved in 2010 as the GOP trustee for Medicare and Social Security. His analysis challenges the conventional wisdom that the health-care law, which calls for an expensive expansion of coverage for the uninsured beginning in 2014, will nonetheless reduce deficits by raising taxes and cutting payments to Medicare providers.

In a great new video from Learn Liberty, Professor Antony Davies explains that, while minimum wage laws are passed with the best intentions, it generally hurts those that it’s intended to help because it forces employers to either cut hours or staff, leaving only the more productive workers with a job:

In his latest video, Jack Hunter takes up President Barack Obama’s comments last week on the Supreme Court and ObamaCare, which looks likely to be struck down. Hunter notes that former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Obama believe that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is constitutional simply because they believe it’s a good law. However, as Hunter points out, if ObamaCare is constitutional “because it is necessary,” than a law like the PATRIOT Act, which liberals tend not to support, is constitutional “simply as a matter of perspective”: