Does The Will Of The People Mean Anything?

Yesterday The Washington Examiner posted an article about the question of asking people if they are citizens on the 2020 census.

The article reported:

Americans by a wide margin agree with President Trump that the upcoming 2020 census should ask a citizenship question.

The latest Economist/YouGov poll found that 53% feel it should ask the question versus 32% who don’t.

The survey asked: “Do you think the federal government should or should not ask people whether they are American citizens as part of the 2020 census?”

  • Should ask 53%
  • Should not ask 32%
  • Not sure 14%

The Supreme Court has rejected including the question in a form the administration proposed but left the door open to another version. And Trump is considering changing the version.

…And it can be done, according to legal expert and George Washington University Law professor John Banzhaf.

“There are several rationales — including one based upon the Constitution itself — which could well still persuade the courts to permit a citizenship question on the census, especially if the explanation were included in the executive order now being considered, rather than in some new declaration by the Secretary of Commerce,” he said in a review of the court’s decision.

Why does this matter? The census is used to determine the number of Representatives a state has in the House of Representatives. Theoretically these Representatives represent American citizens living in their districts. The number of Representatives a state sends to Congress also helps determine the number of votes a state has in the Electoral College.

So if people who are not citizens and may be here illegally are counted in the census, what happens? California, whose population is losing American citizens to other states and gaining illegal immigrants will either retain its current number of Representatives or gain some. States with lower non-citizen populations may be underrepresented in Congress and in the Electoral College. In a sense, when you count non-citizens in the census, you risk taking representation away from Americans. Counting non-citizens will also skew the Electoral College.

Political Healthcare

Healthcare isn’t supposed to be political, but paying taxes or having the right to free speech isn’t supposed to be political either. As more and more information comes out about the use of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to muzzle conservative voices before and during the 2010 and 2012 elections, we need to think about whether or not we want the IRS in charge of America‘s healthcare.

On Thursday, I posted a story (rightwinggranny.com) detailing some of the abuses of the IRS in recent years. These abuses include sharing confidential information with political operatives, unequal treatment of organizations applying for 401C status based on political philosophy, and audits triggered by contributions to conservative candidates or conservative causes. As someone who was audited for the first time ever in 2010 after supporting the Tea Party and some conservative candidates, I take the idea of government intimidation seriously. The audit went on for almost a year, and at the end of the year, not a penny was changed. (It pays to keep good records!)

At any rate, a government that controls healthcare for all Americans is a potential danger to all Americans and to the freedom that we enjoy as Americans. Some observers are beginning to make note of this.

Robert Moffit, a senior fellow in the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, posted an article at Triblive yesterday detailing what ObamaCare is really about.

The article states:

Beginning Jan. 1, government officials will require you to buy a federally approved health plan or pay federal fines or tax penalties. They will define and redefine, at their pleasure, the content of your health benefits package, meaning the medical treatments and procedures you must have; the kind and level of preventive health care services you must have; the level of coverage you must have; the level of cost sharing, deductibles and co-payments that are acceptable — to them, not you.

Writing in the October 2010 edition of The New England Journal of Medicine, Sara Rosenbaum, professor of law at George Washington University and a supporter of the law, perhaps best described ObamaCare’s transformative effect on private insurance: “It will take on certain characteristics of a public utility.” In other words, private insurance will be “private” in name only.

Is this really what we want? The current administration (especially the IRS) has not shown itself to be an impartial enforcer of laws. There are no guarantees that future administrations will be any better–they might be worse. Does it bother you that your doctor now will ask you if you have guns in your house or ask for intimate details about your sex life? Do you want this information in a government data base where confidentiality is not assured? Do you remember the newspaper in New York that published a list of gun owners in an area?

The potential for abuse in ObamaCare is greater than the potential for good. As voters, we probably cannot get rid of ObamaCare right now. However, we can educate people and focus on the 2014 mid-term election. Unless ObamaCare is gone after the 2016 election, it will be here to stay, and that is up to the American people.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta