When acting Solicitor General Neal Kumar Katyal testified in Cincinnati this week at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, he showed no shame in revealing the type of socialist mentality that the Obama administration has in defending Obamacare. The appeals court panel is made up of three judges–two appointed by Republican administrations and one appointed by a Democrat administration.
During Katyal’s testimony, Judge Jeffrey Sutton asked him if he could recall a U.S. Supreme Court case where the court had to consider the use of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution by Congress to make people commit a specific action like buying health care insurance. Katyal couldn’t think of one but attempted to say the 1964 civil rights case of Heart of Atlanta Motel was similar. That case allowed Congress to enact laws against racial discrimination in private establishments like hotels and restaurants.
Judge Sutton then pointed out that if a person in that particular case did not want to abide by Congress’ mandates against discrimination, they could opt out by getting out of a business altogether. Then he pointed out that individuals don’t have that option.
Katyal’s response was, “If we’re going to play that game, I think that game can be played here as well, because after all, the minimum coverage provision only kicks in after people have earned a minimum amount of income. So it’s a penalty on earning a certain amount of income and self insuring. It’s not just on self insuring on its own. So I guess one could say, just as the restaurant owner could depart the market in Heart of Atlanta Motel, someone doesn’t need to earn that much income.” [emphasis mine]
Then Sutton interrupted Katyal and questioned him about that exemption in the new health care law. But there you have it folks. The socialist agenda plain as day as set forth by Obama’s Solicitor General. If you don’t want to be on board with Obama’s agenda you will have to suffer by earning less income. Why would an administration that claims to care about the poor and claims they want to help the poor get out of poverty turn around and argue in favor of a policy that urges people to join the ranks of the poor? This is the contradictory nature of socialism.
This reminds me of a statement I read recently in Atlas Shrugged: “Our culture has sunk into a bog of materialism. …They’re too comfortable. They will return to a nobler life if we teach them to bear privations. So we ought to place a limit upon their material greed,” [Balph Eubank, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, Signet, 50th Anniversary ed., p. 128]. Of course the character Balph Eubank and those like him equated “material greed” with those who were more successful than he was. His verbal attack was to hide his envy, jealousy, and covetousness. This is what socialism is based on. Those who work hard and work smart to reap the seemingly endless rewards of their work ethic are targeted by the covetous to take away what they’ve earned and to re-distribute it to those who are not as successful. Balph Eubank, a university professor, wanted the material wealth of those he hated and tried to manipulate the mindset of his connections and his students to enrich himself at the expense of his enemies.
That’s not to say that there aren’t any corrupt capitalists. Some rich people are devious and don’t care about others. But many capitalists gain wealth by honest means and really want to help others by creating jobs or by donating to worthy organizations.
A government that is run based on envying the successful is a government that will end up targeting the successful for a takedown. When governments target the successful for a takedown, the whole nation will end up suffering and being weakened, even to the point of being conquered by its enemies. Katyal’s statements make it clear that the people running things have certain people in their crosshairs, including the wealthy who aren’t on board with their agenda and the middle class.
Thou shalt not steal. …Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s. [Exodus 20: 15, 17]
–posted by Harry A. Gaylord–