The American government has been
under much financial duress for the past decade. Between the Great Recession,
irresponsible Federal spending, and a whole host of other deficiencies, the
economy has struggled mightily, weighed down by the Federal government’s
carelessness. One particular conflict, namely, the full implementation of the
Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare), came to a head on September 30th,
as the House Republicans shut down funding for the Federal government as a
result of President Obama’s perceived lack of cooperation on the law and an
attempt to slow down its inception.
As with any significant political
issue, there has been a great deal of finger pointing and blame-shifting
regarding who is responsible for this whole fiasco. Today’s Americans have some
sort of political bias about them, so I think it might be a good idea to
consult our friends Adam Smith and Karl Marx about this subject and who is
truly to blame. Adam Smith, who was typically a proponent of small government,
would disapprove of the Affordable Care Act in general, but in terms of the
conflict that has arisen as a result of its inception, he would likely blame
the poor planning done by the House Republicans to keep President Obama and his
administration from implementing what is essentially socialized medicine. Marx,
on the other hand, would blame the American people as a whole for its political
polarization, claiming that we ought to live communally and provide for each
other.
Though this inevitable government
shutdown mess has caught national attention and is something to be reckoned
with, I believe the origin of this issue lies a couple of years in the past. When
the Supreme Court ruled the Obamacare constitutional is when this fiasco began.
Though it is directly unconstitutional to tax a small minority to subsidize a
large majority—which, by my evaluation of the program, is what it
essentially does—the Supreme Court gave it its stamp of approval. It is foolish
to leave such significant financial responsibilities in the hands of a small
group of political elites—regardless of allegiances or political orientations—and
this issue should have been prevented entirely by killing the Affordable Care
Act at its roots.
Cullen, you say "it is directly unconstitutional to tax a small minority to subsidize a large majority." Obviously, the Supreme Court disagreed, and they are the official arbiter of such things. The issue at hand, though, was not really redistribution. It was what is the individual mandate. The latter works by finding individuals who do not sign up for healthcare. The thinking is to encourage individuals to sign up before they get sick. The individual mandate tax penalty was ruled a tax by the supreme court, and congress has the power to tax according to the constitution (for any purpose, redistribution included). But the mandate is not primarily what funds the program.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, many would argue that the real problem is that we are even talking about healthcare right now. The Democrats argue that tying budget fights to healthcare is an illegitimate tactic. In Presidential systems that allow for divided government, consensus is very important, and the lack of consensus about what norms should govern this process is the primary cause of it.