Sunday, July 26, 2009

Romney, Health Care, Federalism

by Smitty (h/t Powerline)

Fox has a story about the Massachusetts health care plan being a political sea anchor for Mitt Romney:
Massachusetts is struggling to keep the state's groundbreaking coverage program running. Against a massive budget shortfall, lawmakers are planning to cut about 30,000 legal, taxpaying immigrants out of the system, which requires nearly everyone in the state to have health insurance coverage.

Whalen said the state health care plan did not have a sufficient revenue stream from the start, and that Romney could face sharp criticism for that from fiscal conservatives in a 2012 Republican primary.

"He's highly vulnerable on this," he said.

But Ken Blackwell, the former Ohio secretary of state and candidate to be Republican National Committee chairman, said the Democratic "regime" in Massachusetts is to blame since the Legislature changed the plan that Romney originally put on the table. Romney vetoed a number of those changes when he was governor, but the General Assembly overrode him.
Judson Berger and Molly Line, who contributed the story, need to be taken to task for missing the forest while staring at the tree: the Massachusetts plan is how it is supposed to work.
  • A state taking care of her citizens is the Constitutional model.
  • A state legislature making tweaks to fit the local tastes is more responsive and responsible (for better or worse).
  • A socialized program forced to work within actual tax receipts Just Makes Sense.
  • The Massachusetts border being a bulkhead against scatalogical management crapflooding the neighboring states with moronic policy and debt.
  • Keeping the Federal government out of the picture both honors the 10th Amendment and leaves open delegating a useful oversight function to the Fed.
Let's have a debate about health care, and consider very carefully the health of the system itself. Federal entitlements are a Progressive train wreck; it is unclear how running a few more cars of money down the rails and into the heap helps anyone but those managing the rails.

The Federalist concept of delegating exactly the amount of power necessary to Washington, DC, and no more grows increasingly wise over time. Yet we're on the verge of having voted that away.

I care not fig #1 whether Mitt Romney, or Sarah Palin, or Mike Huckabee, or Tim Pawlenty, or Bobbie Jindal, or, *gasp* Ron Paul, or even a freshly-conscious Colin Powell (!) fronts the basic, simple, obvious, transparent, clean, sustainable principles of Federalism inherent in the Constitution.

If Mitt Romney segues from a state governor with some experience in health care implementation to a Federalist warrior bent on restoring state's rights, and implementing the Federalism Amendment, he's got my support.

Conversely, and I don't think it likely, but if Sarah Palin runs a Long Haired Barack campaign, replete with personality cult and paper-thin promises that just moves the country infinitesimally closer to tyranny, then she's lost me. I think the New England, Noonan-approved, Progressive elite could be replaced with a button marked 'Yawn'. We must esteem principle over personality, or we've lost the intellectual battle before even suiting up for combat.

I'd like to thank every American attending Tea Party protests. The fact that so many brave souls are out there, spelling errors on their signs and all, returns "We the People" to hard reality from the memory hole. Posts like this one seem less historical romanticism and wishful thinking and more possible, thanks to those Just Folks.


  1. Umnnnh..yah.

    That's why Paul Ryan (R-WI) wrote a health-care bill which specifies that the several States should govern the 'exchanges.'

    NOT the Fed.

    Subsidiarity: the 9th/10th Amendments in one word.

  2. Great post! All I can say is "Right On!"

  3. "We must esteem principle over personality, or we've lost the intellectual battle before even suiting up for combat." Nicely put, but my best guess we've lost the battle long time ago. About that time when the political campaigns started to be run by PR specialists.


  4. @Julie,
    It's only as lost as you want it to be, lady.

  5. Commented on this posting, and Jimmie's related posting, over at:

    I would be curious to hear what you think.

  6. Oh, my! I disagree with your characterization of current reality. The health care issue is the nail in Romney's coffin, in my opinion. Then there is the lack of trust social conservatives have of him because of his flip-flopping. That lack of trust is palpable, if not glaring.

    I agree that Palin has to come out strong on a wide variety of issues -- WITH DETAILS. You're right on that.....and her slam of ObamaCare was a good start.....but time is short. We need more.

    We're experiencing something of a leadership vacuum right now and, unfortunately, I'm seeing the slogan "Palin/Beck" more and more frequently. I love Palin and totally support her, but Glenn Beck for Vice President??? My point is, if people are touting Beck as an option on the ticket (and they are) it just proves what a leadership vacuum we have.

    I don't think there's any way Romney can beat Obama. I don't know if Palin can but I'm looking at the recent poll at Gallup on party identification and think her decision to go non-partisan was smart. We'll see, but I don't see Romney as viable at all. Right now, I think Palin is the only viable candidate but if she doesn't come out on more issues and with more details, I'm not sure even she can pull it off for 2012.

    Yes, I'm saying we could have Obama for four more if Palin doesn't step up to the plate more. Hope I'm wrong.....but that's the way I'm reading reality right now.

    Just my opinion.

  7. @Lisa,
    I think that BHO is going to commit political seppuku prior to 2012--his brass knuckle style is not the America we want.
    I'm also unsure that Sarah Palin constitutes an Only Hope. Pawlenty, Jindahl, and Cantor come to mind as good possibilities. If her policies are conservative, federalist, and righteous, she's got all possible support from me.
    But voting for Sarah as an historic first female POTUS is as fatuous as voting for BHO just because a historic first black president is somehow meaningful, independent of his craptastic policy platform.