Tag: hillary clinton

On Supreme Court Nominations, ‘Recovering Lawyer’ Hillary Clinton Making Stuff up for Partisan Advantage

Under the header, “Obama is president until January 20, 2017. It’s his job to nominate a justice, the Senate has a responsibility to vote,” Hillary Clinton’s Facebook page issues the following statement:

Nearly everything Clinton says here is either misleading or just untrue.

Congress Can Deny Barack Obama the Power to Replace Justice Scalia

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) responded to the sudden death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia with a press release saying, “this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.” Republican presidential candidates Ben Carson, Sen. Ted Cruz (TX), and Sen. Marco Rubio (FL) agree. Hillary Clinton spoke for many Democrats: “The Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail who are calling for Justice Scalia’s seat to remain vacant dishonor the Constitution. The Senate has a constitutional responsibly here that it cannot abdicate for partisan political reasons.” Conor Friedersdorf says the no-vote stratagem is “illegitimate” because “the Senate does have an obligation to fulfill its ‘advice and consent’ obligation….A preemptive rejection of any possible Supreme Court appointment is self-evidently in conflict with that obligation.” Clinton and Friedersdorf are wrong. Senators have every right to advocate not holding a vote on an Obama appointment, and not to hold a vote.

Clinton and Friedersdorf are overlooking the “consent” part of “advice and consent.” Consent means the Senate is under no obligation whatsoever even to hold a vote on any presidential appointment. The Senate’s obligation is to do what the Senate wants, and only what the Senate wants. Those are the rules. To try to hold senators to a different rule is to try to change the rules on them–and people tend to resent that. Everyone is free to disagree with the positions individual senators or the Senate as a whole take on individual nominations or prospective nominations. But there is no question that senators individually or collectively can deny their consent to any actual or prospective nomination for any reason–just as the American people can vote for whomever they want, for whatever reason they want.

Indeed, President Obama isn’t even entitled to nominate a replacement for Justice Scalia–or at least, Congress can deny him that right. The Constitution gives Congress the power to decide how many seats there are on the Supreme Court. In 1789, there were only six. Given sufficient congressional support (i.e., veto-proof majorities in both chambers), Congress could reduce the number of Supreme Court justices from the current nine to eight. McConnell, Cruz, and Rubio could propose doing so right now. It seems strange to criticize senators who are merely expressing in what circumstances they will withhold their consent when Congress has the power to deny the president the ability to fill this vacancy entirely by itself eliminating this vacancy.

At the same time Democrats turn a blind eye to President Obama repeatedly ignoring constitutional limits on his power, they claim Republicans would dishonor the Constitution if they use powers the Constitution clearly grants them. That is unlikely to dissuade Senate Republicans from delaying a vote on Scalia’s successor until 2017. Nor should it. For more on this topic, please read this by my colleague Ilya Shapiro at Forbes.

Scalia’s untimely passing was a gut punch. I didn’t agree with him all the time. But I agree with Trevor Burrus about him. RIP.

The Biggest Loser In The Democratic Debate Wasn’t Hillary or Bernie, It Was ObamaCare


Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders participate in a Democratic primary debate in Charleston, South Carolina, on Jan. 17, 2016.

In their final debate before they face Democratic primary voters, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders traded sharp jabs on health care. Pundits focused on how the barbs would affect the horse race, whether Democrats should be bold and idealistic (Sanders) or shrewd and practical (Clinton), and how Sanders’ “Medicare for All” scheme would raise taxes by a cool $1.4 trillion. (Per. Year.) Almost no one noticed the obvious: the Clinton-Sanders spat shows that not even Democrats like the Affordable Care Act, and that the law remains very much in danger of repeal.

Hours before the debate, Sanders unveiled an ambitious plan to put all Americans in Medicare. According to his web site, “Creating a single, public insurance system will go a long way towards getting health care spending under control.” Funny, Medicare has had the exact opposite effect on health spending for seniors. But no matter. Sanders assures us, “The typical middle class family would save over $5,000 under this plan.” Remember how President Obama promised ObamaCare would reduce family premiums by $2,500? It’s like that, only twice as ridiculous.

Clinton portrayed herself as the protector of ObamaCare. She warned that Sanders would “tear [ObamaCare] up…pushing our country back into that kind of a contentious debate.” She proposed instead to “build on” the law by imposing limits on ObamaCare’s rising copayments, and by imposing price controls on prescription drugs. Sanders countered, “No one is tearing this up, we’re going to go forward,” and so on.

Such rhetoric obscured the fact that the candidates’ differences are purely tactical. Clinton doesn’t oppose Medicare for All. Indeed, her approach would probably reach that goal much sooner. Since ObamaCare literally punishes whatever insurers provide the highest-quality coverage, it therefore forces health insurers into a race to the bottom, where they compete not to provide quality coverage to the sick.  That’s terrible if you or a family member have a high-cost, chronic health condition—or even just an ounce of humanity. But if you want to discredit “private” health insurance in the service of Medicare for All, it’s an absolute boon. After a decade of such misery, voters will beg President (Chelsea) Clinton for a federal takeover. But if President Sanders demands a $1.4 trillion tax hike without first making voters suffer under ObamaCare, he will over-play his hand and set back his cause.

The rhetoric obscured something much larger, too. Clinton and Sanders inadvertently revealed that not even Democrats like ObamaCare all that much, and Democrats know there’s a real chance the law may not be around in four years.

During the debate, Sanders repeatedly noted ObamaCare’s failings : “29 million people still have no health insurance. We are paying the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, getting ripped off…even more are underinsured with huge copayments and deductibles…we are spending almost three times more than the British, who guarantee health care to all of their people…Fifty percent more than the French, more than the Canadians.”

Sure, he also boasted, repeatedly, that he helped write and voted for the ACA. Nonetheless, Sanders was indicting ObamaCare for failing to achieve universal coverage, contain prices, reduce barriers to care, or eliminate wasteful spending. At least one of the problems he lamented—“even more [people] are underinsured with huge copayments and deductibles”—ObamaCare has made worse. (See “race to the bottom” above, and here.)

When Sanders criticized the U.S. health care system, he was criticizing ObamaCare. His call for immediate adoption of Medicare for All shows that the Democratic party’s left wing is simply not that impressed with ObamaCare, which they have always (correctly) viewed as a giveaway to private insurers and drug companies.

Clinton’s proposals to outlaw some copayments and impose price controls on prescription drugs are likewise an implicit acknowledgement that ObamaCare has not made health care affordable. In addition, her attacks on Sanders reveal that she and many other Democrats know ObamaCare’s future remains in jeopardy.

Seriously, does anyone really think Clinton is worried that something might “push[] our country back into that kind of a contentious debate” over health care? America has been stuck in a nasty, tribal health care debate every day of the six years since Democrats passed ObamaCare despite public disapproval. Or that Republicans would be able to repeal ObamaCare over President Sanders’ veto?

Just Say No to Socialism, Hillary

This week Hillary Clinton became the second prominent Democrat to refuse to answer the question, “What’s the difference between a socialist and a Democrat?”

In July MSNBC host Chris Matthews stumped Democratic national chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) with the question. Asked three times, Wasserman Schultz first looked blank, then evaded: “The relevant debate that we’ll be having this campaign is what’s the difference between a Democrat and a Republican….The difference between a Democrat and Republican is that Democrats fight to make sure everybody has an opportunity to succeed and the Republicans are strangled by their right-wing extremists.”

On Tuesday Matthews asked Clinton the same question. Clinton could see it coming, and she did say of socialism, “I’m not one.” But pressed to explain “What’s the difference between a socialist and a Democrat?” she too retreated to boilerplate:

I can tell you what I am, I am a progressive Democrat … who likes to get things done. And who believes that we’re better off in this country when we’re trying to solve problems together. Getting people to work together. There will always be strong feelings and I respect that, from, you know, the far right, the far left, libertarians, whoever it might be, we need to get people working together.

Hey, thanks for the “libertarians” plug, Madam Secretary! But seriously, why is this a hard question? Here’s a clear answer:

“Socialists believe in government ownership of the means of production, and Democrats don’t.”

Would that be a true statement? If so, why don’t Clinton and Wasserman Schultz just say it?

Presidential Candidates Who Led the Polls in January Entering the 2008 and 2012 Primary Election Cycles Didn’t Win

RealClearPolitics provides a useful tool to compare the Republican and Democratic nomination races today to similar points during the 2012 and 2008 primary cycles. Those nominating contests show that the candidates ahead at this point in the election cycle did not take home the nomination. This suggests that despite Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s persistent leads throughout the summer and fall of 2015, their primary victories remain uncertain.

Averaging across recent December polls, Donald Trump holds the lead among national Republican voters (not necessarily likely primary voters), at 35 percent. Trump holds a 15-point lead over Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in second place at 19.5 percent and an over 20-point lead over Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) in third place with 11.5 percent. Trump’s support took-off in July and, for the most part, he’s remained ahead and increased momentum. 

Does Trump’s lead entering into 2016 portend his eventual win? Not necessarily.

Snowden, Surveillance, and Democrats: Debate Observations

The first debate among Democratic presidential contenders was more than half over before moderator Anderson Cooper of CNN got around to asking a question about the biggest intelligence scandal in more than 40 years. You can read the full transcript here but the exchanges between Cooper and the candidates on Edward Snowden (via Ars Technica) is what’s worth the read:

COOPER: Governor Chafee, Edward Snowden, is he a traitor or a hero?

CHAFEE: No, I would bring him home. The courts have ruled that what he did—what he did was say the American…

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Bring him home, no jail time?

CHAFEE: … the American government was acting illegally. That’s what the federal courts have said; what Snowden did showed that the American government was acting illegally for the Fourth Amendment. So I would bring him home.

COOPER: Secretary Clinton, hero or traitor?

CLINTON: He broke the laws of the United States. He could have been a whistleblower. He could have gotten all of the protections of being a whistleblower. He could have raised all the issues that he has raised. And I think there would have been a positive response to that.

COOPER: Should he do jail time?

ClINTON: In addition—in addition, he stole very important information that has unfortunately fallen into a lot of the wrong hands. So I don’t think he should be brought home without facing the music.

COOPER: Governor [Martin] O’Malley, Snowden?

(APPLAUSE)

O’MALLEY: Anderson, Snowden put a lot of Americans’ lives at risk. Snowden broke the law. Whistleblowers do not run to Russia and try to get protection from Putin. If he really believes that, he should be back here.

COOPER: Senator Sanders, Edward Snowden?

SANDERS: I think Snowden played a very important role in educating the American people to the degree in which our civil liberties and our constitutional rights are being undermined.

COOPER: Is he a hero?

SANDERS: He did—he did break the law, and I think there should be a penalty to that. But I think what he did in educating us should be taken into consideration before he is (inaudible).

Clinton’s Debt-Free Tuition Plan Seems Likely to Flunk

Over the next couple of days, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will be playing up her new, $350-billion proposal primarily intended to make paying public college tuition a debt-free experience.

Beware “free”!

According to early information about the plan – I couldn’t find details on Clinton’s campaign Web page yet – under the proposal the federal government would spend $200 billion over ten years on public colleges and universities, with a condition that states also increase their higher ed outlays. The goal would be to make paying public college tuition debt-free for all. In addition, the plan – called the “New College Compact” – would give $25 billion to historically black colleges and universities, and other schools with low endowments, over ten years. Next, the proposal would allow all current student debt holders to refinance loans at lower interest rates and sign up for income-based repayment plans capping monthly payments at 10 percent of discretionary income and forgiving whatever remained after 20 years. The loan-term plan is estimated to cost $125 billion over ten years.

Of course, as with any politically good plan, it seems details on how all this would be paid for – other than to say the rich will cover the $35-billion annual price tag – will be announced at some later, likely quieter date. Ditto details on how the plan will ensure colleges spend all the new, forced taxpayer largesse on instruction rather than fluff like climbing walls and water parks that students demand and schools, increasingly, deliver. Putting off these latter details could be especially important politically because while colleges love money, they do not love strings. To keep maximum support from the Ivory Tower – typically a welcoming edifice for Democrats – you’ll want to keep the downside hazy.

Of course, the estimated price tag is just the most immediate, obvious cost of the plan. The more hidden cost would be the plan’s deleterious effects: encouraging yet more people to spend more time in programs even less tethered to real-world needs. Quite simply, when someone else pays your bills you are more likely to consume, and less likely to think efficiently about what you are consuming. That’s been the higher education problem for decades, and this plan would have someone else foot even more of the bill.

Already we see massive overconsumption of higher ed: About a third of bachelor’s degree holders are in jobs that don’t require the credential. Lots of employers seek people with degrees for jobs that don’t appear to need college-level learning. And “college-level learning” has come to mean less and less actual learning. In other words, thanks largely to third-party funding, we appear to have a vicious cycle of credential inflation that would almost certainly get even worse as more and more people saw college as “free.” And no, it does not appear that spending more on higher education automatically increases human capital and, hence, economic growth. Indeed, government college spending may well hamper growth by taking money from the individual taxpayers who earned it – and would have used it for their real needs – and giving it away to colleges regardless of what people need.

“Free” always sounds so good. Until, that is, you think through how costly “free” can be.