Nothing Stops Overspending Better Than a Tax Hike

The following is an excerpt from OpinionJournal.com’s “Best of the Web” written by the editor, James Taranto.

Nothing Stops Overspending Better Than a Tax Hike
“Mitch Landrieu to Propose Raising Property Taxes, Trash Fee to Correct Years of Overspending at City Hall”–headline, Times-Picayune (New Orleans), Oct. 14

Uh-Oh, It’s the Constitution
A federal judge in Florida has rejected the government’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare, Politico reports:

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson allowed two major counts to proceed: the states’ challenge to the controversial requirement that nearly all Americans buy insurance and a required expansion of the Medicaid program.

In his ruling, Vinson criticized Democrats for seeking to have it both ways when it comes to defending the mandate to buy insurance. During the legislative debate, Republicans chastised the proposal as a new tax on the middle class. Obama defended the payment as a penalty and not a tax, but the Justice Department has argued that legally, it’s a tax.

“Congress should not be permitted to secure and cast politically difficult votes on controversial legislation by deliberately calling something one thing, after which the defenders of that legislation take an “Alice-in-Wonderland” tack and argue in court that Congress really meant something else entirely, thereby circumventing the safeguard that exists to keep their broad power in check,” he wrote.

Vinson ruled that it’s a penalty, not a tax, and must be defended under the Commerce Clause and not Congress’s taxing authority.

For a comprehensive discussion of the constitutional arguments against ObamaCare, see our interview with Randy Barnett. To see what some of our elected representatives think of the constitution they’re sworn to uphold, check out this video of Rep. Jan Schakowsky, an Illinois Democrat:

Adam Sharp, SharpElbows.net: Where in the Constitution does it give Congress the authority to mandate that I purchase health insurance?

Schakowsky: You know, if you–well–

Schakowsky attempts to wave Sharp off, and a teenage girl standing behind her says, “Yeah, it’s time to go,” and attempts to escort the congresswoman away. But Sharp persists:

Sharp: Could you tell me where in the Constitution it gives you that authority, to mandate that I purchase health insurance?

Schakowsky: I don’t see where it is in the Constitution that it says that we can build a national highway system. I don’t see in the Constitution–

Sharp: Well, actually, the Constitution says “post offices and post roads,” ma’am.

Schakowsky: I don’t see where it says that we can do, uh, civil rights legislation.

Sharp: I asked you about the health-care bill, ma’am.

Schakowsky: I don’t see where it says Medicare, Medicare and Social Security.

Sharp: I asked you about the health-care bill.

Schakowsky: If we can do Medicare, if we can do Medicaid, I would say that it’s pretty well-established that the United States of America can address health care.

At this point,the teenager succeeds in pulling Schakowsky away. Schakowsky doesn’t seem to have thought about the Constitution at all, but her theory seems to be that since Congress has already exercised vast powers, its powers must be unlimited–or, in the more refined formulation, that the power to “address health care” is plenary. The actual reason we have a constitution is to make clear that lawmakers do not have the power to do whatever they please.

For more “Best of the Web” click here and look for the “Best of the Web Today” link in the middle column below “Today’s Columnists.