States' Rights as a Sword

States' Rights as a Sword

Representative Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is not particularly nefarious as far as our Congresscritters go.  And he certainly can show intellect, accomplishment, and talent, and can argue with the best of them.  I have not to date had occasion to personally meet him, but would be pleased to do so should the occasion arise.  But he is an African-American Democrat representing a densely-populated urban district.

Since the New Deal era of FDR, the position of the Leftward side of the political spectrum has basically been to impose federal constraints upon the Constitutional rights of States.  Ghosts from the slavery era continue to implicitly drive that Liberal political posture.

I therefore note the irony of Mr. Jeffries's invocation of States' rights, with the objective of facilitating New York's imposition of additional taxes upon residents of other States.  It doesn't fit the stereotype.  But then again, neither does Congressman Jeffries.

 

Making the Mandate Mandatory

The two most notorious (though not necessarily the most nefarious) provisions of the Obamacare law are the Individual Mandate to be covered by healthcare insurance and the Employer Mandate to provide healthcare insurance to employees.  This posting shall not now delve into the exacting details, the rules, the exceptions to the rules, or the perversions of the rules by those who should be enforcing them (i.e., the Obama administration).

It suffices to say that the Obama Administration has unilaterally taken upon itself to delay enforcement of the Employer Mandate, and the Republicans in Congress now seek to impose a commensurate delay in the enforcement of the Individual Mandate.  Conspicuous by its absence is the critical spotlighting by the Republicans of the Obama Administration's double standard in the matter, a publicity campaign along the lines of "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."

Well now, Judicial Watch and Dr. Larry Kawa are doing what the Republicans should have been doing in that regard, except they are taking the opposite approach.  Instead of striving to delay the Individual Mandate, they have filed suit to enjoin the Administration from delaying the Employer Mandate.

The strategy is not only interesting, but also carries a level of integrity that has been missing from the whole process thus far.  Employers are, by and large, elated to have a one year's reprieve from the Employer Mandate.   Dr. Kawa is asking to be treated equitably, even if such equity means he will be deprived of his entitlement privilege.

We shall see how this one develops.  For the Congress.  For the Administration.  For the Employers.  For the Individual Mandate.

And, of course, for the Judiciary, whose integrity is being tested no less in the matter.

Taxing Sleep and Sweat

The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has just complained to the Office of Congressional Ethics regarding various Congresscritters who sleep in their offices and use the House Gym to shower. According to CREW, this is a misuse of House resources for personal purposes, and a violation of the tax laws if the value of this perquisite is not reported as personal income.

I truly have mixed feelings about this.

On one hand, CREW's personnel seem to fall largely into the left-of-center ranges of the political spectrum. On the other hand, CREW does not seem to discriminate on the basis of political orientation when it shoots barbs at Congresscritters and others.

On one hand, the various and sundry self-appointed government ethics watchdogs will invariably start barking and blowing whistles whenever a Congresscritter goes on a travel junket or on a vacation to an exotic place. This time, the Congresscritters complained of are in fact spending more time in their offices, which, one would think, would be where they ought to be spending time.

As for using the House Gym to shower, there are plenty who would complain even louder if the Congresscritters didn't shower. Imponderable: Just how intense a workout must the Congresscritters do at the gym in order to legitimately use the showers? Is three drops of sweat enough, or do they have to be totally farshvitzed?

And as for sleeping in their offices: How does sleeping in their offices at night conceptually differ from putting their heads down on their desks for a 5 or 10 minute nap during lunch break? And isn't the public better served if its legislators can get immediately to work without a long, tiring commute? Or, for that matter, a leisurely commute in the back of a taxpayer-financed limousine?


[Disclosure: I took a 1-hour nap in my office today before teaching my classes. I do similarly at least once per month, and sometimes more frequently.].


On one hand, a Congresscritter's control of his or her own office expenditures redounds to the benefit of the public. On the other hand, shouldn't those Congresscritters who want to ramp up the taxes on the more affluent of American society themselves be taxed for the privileges of office they themselves receive?

I'm pleased to no end that there is a group holding Congress's collective feet to the fire in a politically-neutral manner. But this complaint to the OCE, I believe, has more than a few wasteful and nitpicking aspects.