Tag Archives: federal government

Albert Mohler: The Stage is Set for Another Drama at the High Court

The Supreme Court has announced that it will take up cases that will determine whether or not sexual orientation and gender identity are included as protected classes under the federal government’s Civil Rights Act of 1964.

During the Obama Administration, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission cited the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevented discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin — and they said that gender identity and sexual orientation should be considered included under “sex.”

But there is no one who can plausibly argue that Congress and the then President Lyndon Johnson had sexual orientation and gender identity in mind in 1964.

They didn’t.

They wouldn’t have even understood what we are talking about.

It’s an effort from the moral revolutionaries to try to further their aims by going around Congress—seeking action by executive order and then support from the Courts.

An ultimate decision in this case, is not likely to come until June of 2020, and that sets the stage for an incredible drama now to follow.

Read More »

Lanhee Chen: Medicare-For-All Myths

This is Lanhee Chen of the Hoover Institution for townhall.com.

Bernie Sanders and his lefty friends are at it again. He’s reintroduced legislation to create a socialist-style takeover of our health care called Medicare-for-all.

Make no mistake: It would do just as much damage to our health care as would previous efforts to install a single-payer system.  Here are the facts:

• First, Medicare-for-all would cost tens of trillions of dollars on top of what the federal government already spends on health care. Even much higher taxes on every American worker wouldn’t pay for the socialist-style system that Sanders envisions.

• Second, Medicare-for-all would mean that many Americans would have to give up the health insurance coverage they currently have.  Like your plan today? Get ready to say goodbye to it.

• Finally, Medicare-for-all could compromise the existing care that our seniors on Medicare already receive by making it harder to gain access to the doctors and hospitals they trust.

Sanders and his allies have a way of making the awful sound great.

Don’t get fooled.

I’m Lanhee Chen.

Read More »

David Davenport: Another Shot Fired in California’s Civil War


California is stepping closer to a civil war with the federal government over immigration. In the latest round, one day after President Trump visited the state to see prototypes of his border wall, the state senate appointed an illegal immigrant to serve on a state commission, a big step in California’s progressive history.

Lizbeth Mateo, an undocumented immigrant from Mexico, was appointed to the state’s Student Opportunity and Access Program Project Advisory Committee.  Perhaps, as a lawyer who advocates for immigration rights, she would have a perspective to share as a witness before a state commission, but as a member? There’s no legal basis for that and it is a further effort by California to tweak the Trump administration.

Unfortunately, the rule of law is rarely raised anymore in debates about immigration policy. Tweaking Trump is just a bad approach to public policy.

Read More »

David Davenport: The Lost Art of Political Compromise

Compromise

Among many lost arts in Washington the most problematic is the lost art of compromise.

The dictionary says compromise includes the root word “com” or together with the word promise:  We make promises by coming together.  America learned this early, with the Constitutional Convention full of compromises.

But now members of Congress vote not to find the best solution for the country but the best platform for their next election.   Democrats threatened to shut the entire government over dreamer immigrants, while Trump was willing to see a shutdown over his wall.  And so it goes, politicians standing firm on one issue or another which they believe will get them reelected, and the whole of the federal government is held hostage.

We need more politicians like Ronald Reagan, who told House Speaker Tip O’Neill, “I will take half a loaf today, but I will come back for the other half tomorrow.”

Read More »

David Davenport: Balancing Religious Rights With Health Care

Compromise

This is David Davenport of the Hoover Institution for Townhall.com.

Public policy is full of difficult dilemmas, tough cases where there are strong interests on both sides.  Such dilemmas are not usually solved as much as they are managed.

That’s why two federal departments recently expanded the rights of religious employers.  During the Obama years, the federal government had required religious employers to provide birth control coverage in their health insurance plans even when contrary to their religious beliefs.  And the government had limited the rights of religious employers to hire or favor people who shared their beliefs.

This action properly swings the pendulum back in favor of religious rights, which are protected by the First Amendment.  Civil rights are also constitutionally protected, which is what creates the tension.  In the end, both rights are powerful, but neither is absolute.

A liberal president pushes too far in one direction and a conservative administration appropriately pushes back.  Ultimately, the Supreme Court may well have to decide how to manage this difficult dilemma.

I’m David Davenport.

Read More »

Michael Medved: Public Opinion and Obamacare

Opioid

In 2010, the health insurance legislation known as “Obamacare” was overwhelmingly unpopular. But Democrats in the White House and Congress pushed it through anyway, and then paid a severe price in the next elections. Today, the health care package known as “Trumpcare” is similarly unpopular, but the Republicans seem determined to pass legislation this summer, even at the risk of serious losses of their own in 2018 Congressional elections.

Does this mean the electorate is confused?—hating Obamacare, and then hating the most serious attempt to repeal and replace it? Actually, public reactions are sensible and consistent—what Americans hate is the whole idea of the federal government making sweeping, bureaucratic decisions, on something as personal and important as medical insurance.

If the GOP made clear that their proposals provide individuals with more choices, and give the states more discretion to shape their own policies, their reforms would win much broader popular support.

[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/329039752″ params=”color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false” width=”100%” height=”166″ iframe=”true” /]

Read More »