Responsible - or... How to sell Snake Oil to an Obama Supporter

Thursday's Rush Morning Update:

"In testimony this week before the House Budget Committee, Obama's new Budget Director, Peter Orszag, claimed that President Bush's tax policies "transferred too much wealth to the rich." Now, even if you're a liberal, stop and think about that.

The Congressional Budget Office says that even after the Bush tax cuts, the top 1 percent of taxpayers pay 29 percent of all taxes. The top 5 percent pay half of all taxes. So how in hell have these people gotten wealth transfers?

You see, my friends, this is the kind of idiocy being passed off as economic analysis from camp Obama. Orszag also said: "We have lived through an era of irresponsibility," and, "looking forward, we must change course."

Okay, how are we "changing course?" House Democrats are expected to vote today on a bill to give bankruptcy judges the authority to rewrite homeowner mortgages -- not for those who actually pay on time, mind you, but for the 6 percent who don't.

"Responsibility" now means the courts force lenders to rewrite legally binding contracts for the irresponsible. But even that isn't enough for Maxine Waters -- Democrat, California -- because before going to court, delinquent homeowners must try to work out a deal with the lender. Waters says it's impossible for people to complete a call to their lender; she doesn't think people "ought to have to go through that mess" before getting relief from the courts.

What can you say to that? This is the era of Democrat "responsibility". In other quarters, it's simply called: insanity -- stupidity!"

Rush's References:

AP: Administration Unveils Details of Housing Plan
AP: White House Copes With Wall Of Bad News

If this isn't a classic example of looters fleecing people at the point of a gun, all the while telling them its for their own good. First, its overwhelmingly apparent that IN SPITE of Peter Orszag's sheepskins from some rather impressive, but whoppingly liberal schools to build an education in economics... it never ceases to amaze how people will so blindly sell themselves out in favor of an ideology inspite of what the math tells them. "I know a square peg doesn't fit in a round hole, we'll just get a bigger hammer"... Einstein would refer to this as insanity... or perhaps closer to home... stupidity. Goes to show that six-figure educations really don't buy you much. Thomas Jefferson educated himself with a library's worth of books and a little mentor time... eventually founding a university of his own. I think he learned his lessons far better than Mr. Obama, or Mr. Orszag. BUT, we digress...

Inspite of the rhetoric and disgust resulting from the "Snake Oil" being sold by the Obama Administration to attempt to convince the masses with 15 second soundbites, it begs the question, do these judges REALLY have such authority and do they pass Constitutional muster? Frankly, they don't in my book, and I don't need to be a lawyer to figure this one out...

The US Constitution Article I, Section 10 states:

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

The problem is the Supreme Court in its desire to legislate from the bench gave the government total power over private contracts in defiance of precedent to the contrary since the founding (Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell 290 U.S. 398 (1934)), in the form of one of three tests required to determine whether the government can invoke a police power to modify contracts (as defined in Energy Reserves Group v. Kansas Power & Light 459 U.S. 400 (1983)) "...must have a significant and legitimate purpose behind the regulation, such as the remedying of a broad and general social or economic problem." Now it begs the question, WHO makes that determination?... The Judge? Congress? Any political situation can then be twisted into law thus abrogating any contract, and in the case of mortgages or credit cards, on a massive scale and with what possible negative impact? This leads to a follow on question... what good are contracts if judges and politicians can twist them to their own ends? For the good of a few briefly, but to the detriment of many overall.

This is just the situation the Contract Clause was meant to prohibit... another example of the Constitution being circumvented. Having the government determine what is a "social or economic problem", is like having the government determine what rights you can and can't have.

(Ok that was my $1.50's worth cost adjusted for $2T in inflationary effect from printing worthless government paper... we comment.. you decide... Comments welcome anytime.)