Romney's Campaign Slogan Should Be 'War is Good'

Yahoo! had this piece up this morning sparking a little dialogue in me:

Romney has embraced the Paul Ryan budget, which by many factors will explode the deficit by giving the rich and wealthy more tax breaks and cutting essential services that the poor and middle classes depend on, including Social Security, Medicaid, benefits for veterans, environmental regulations (by cutting the EPA), and many, many more. What Romney however has no intention of cutting is the military budget, pledging to expand the Pentagon's budget, even more than most deficit hawk GOPers would do. I think Mitt Romney should unveil his new campaign slogan, 'War is Good,' because that's the only slogan that seems to fit with his campaign plan.

Even though most Americans oppose broad cuts to the above mentioned items, as well as a quick exit from Afghanistan - Romney has been on record several times saying he would stay in Afghanistan and would use military force to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon - he still maintains these highly contentious points at odds with public opinion. But for the life of me, I can't understand why so many people still say they'll vote for him.

And it also raises and oft repeated line from the Occupy Wall Street protests, and the Occupy movement in general: "Why is it we have money for War, but nothing for Education?" I'd like to ask Mr. Romney that question some time.

The New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin: "Heavy Burden"

Jeffrey Toobin doesn't think the 'heavy burden' of defending the Affordable Care Act should fall on Donald Verrilli Jr, Solicitor General, who argued for the government last week that the individual mandate in the bill was constitutional. Toobin believes the 'heavy burden,' in light of judicial precedent for the last 70 years, lies with the States in proving the mandate is unconstitutional.

"Consider, then, this question, posed to Verrilli by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy: “Assume for the moment that this”—the mandate—“is unprecedented, this is a step beyond what our cases have allowed, the affirmative duty to act to go into commerce. If that is so, do you not have a heavy burden of justification?” Every premise of that question was a misperception. The involvement of the federal government in the health-care market is not unprecedented; it dates back nearly fifty years, to the passage of Medicare and Medicaid. The forty million uninsured Americans whose chances for coverage are riding on the outcome of the case are already entered “into commerce,” because others are likely to pay their health-care costs.

"Kennedy’s last point, about the “heavy burden” on the government to defend the law, was correct—in 1935..."


Read more http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/04/09/120409taco_talk_toobin#ixzz1qvlrQc94