Why Won't Bevin Endorse Rand?

I have tried to respect Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment by not criticizing Matt Bevin.  He won the primary, and I will vote for him as our party's nominee.  The fact that I will vote straight ticket will make it easier.

Bevin's recent refusal to endorse Sen. Rand Paul's presidential bid bothers me enough that I will break the 11th Commandment.

Rand is our native son and Republicans here should back him, including Bevin.  It's a matter of loyalty to our own.

I was particularly disturbed that Bevin sought the opportunity to appear with Rand and then, when asked, declined to endorse Rand. It struck me as ungrateful and discourteous.

If Bevin is going to take the position that he will not endorse anyone, including Rand, then don't appear with Rand.  Indeed, I would be surprised if Rand invites him to appear with him again any time soon.

Is Bevin going to turn down endorsements, since he won't give any?

Bevin doesn't want to be beholden to anyone, and to some reasonable extent, that's laudable.  But independence, taken to an extreme, seems prideful.

That's fine that Bevin doesn't need our money; it frees us up to donate to our outstanding down-ticket candidates. However, Bevin refuses to take advice from longstanding Republicans who sincerely would like to help him win.

 Bevin's a smart guy, but he gives the impression that he thinks he is too smart to listen to anyone. That lack of humility may haunt him.  How will he ever get good people to work in a Bevin administration?

Rand Gets His Caucus!

The Central Committee of the Republican Party of Kentucky voted 114 to 37 to hold a caucus in 2016.  It took 98 votes to pass.

That removes the obstacle of Rand Paul's name appearing on the ballot twice, in violation of a Kentucky statute.  At least it removes that obstacle during the primary phase.

RPK Central Committee Requests Secret Ballot

Those members of the Republican Party of Kentucky Central Committee who oppose the caucus should be forced to go on the record. The request for a secret ballot was cowardly.

Leaders don't hid.

Give Rand His Caucus Already

Tomorrow the Central  Committee of the Republican Party of Kentucky will vote again on whether to adopt a caucus format for 2016.  This is necessary to allow Sen. Rand Paul to simultaneously run for president and senator.

Members of the Committee and are muttering about cost. They say they don't want the party to be stuck with the cost of the caucus. (In contrast to a caucus, the party does not have to pay to participate in a primary election.)

The notion that Rand is not good for the money is complete garbage. This is a small state and Kentuckians know Rand.  He is a man of integrity. If he says that he will pay for it and that the party won't get stuck with any costs, his word is his bond. I am appalled that anyone in the party would doubt him on this.

Yes, there was a snafu on the timing of the first round of money being transferred. Nonetheless, he is still good for the money. The party doesn't need the money yet. So why the fuss?

It's true that Rand's fundraising for his presidential campaign has been disappointing recently. That is not true in Kentucky. I went to a fundraiser for him a few months ago that raised $100,000 without the organizers even having to hunt down donors.

As a matter of integrity, Rand will honor his promise to the party. As a matter of political ability, he will be able to raise the money -- whatever the amount. Indeed, some members of the Committee appear intent on exaggerating the potential costs.

I find it very odd that party members want the money up front. When you build a house, you make payments based on the progress of the house; you don't pay the entire cost up front. Similarly, Rand is entitled to make payments as the party demonstrates that it is actually committed to going through with this thing.

It makes no difference whom one is supporting in the presidential primary. Rand Paul is a Kentuckian. Members of his own party should have his back at least to the extent that he can explore his viability as a presidential candidate.

Checking in on Bevin v. Conway

Louisvillians who attended Friday's GLI lunch are still talking about Matt Bevin's stellar performance. Some have said that Bevin is the best extemporaneous speaker they have ever seen.

Bevin contends that if elected, he will be the first Kentucky governor in a generation who is not beholden to anyone. That seems to imply that Bevin is willing to write a significant check to self-fund his campaign.  (He is said to be worth $38 million, $30 million of which is said to be liquid). This explains the curious lack of direct mail solicitations and invitations to Bevin fundraisers.

In addition, the Republican Governors' Association has the opportunity to play a big role in this race given the dearth of off-cycle elections.

That opens up fund-raising possibilites for the down-ticket candidates, who have been quick to seize that opportunity.

At this point, it feels like the race is essentially a toss-up. Bevin could not have asked for a more ideal opponent than Jack Conway. For some reason, the longer that Conway is in the public eye, the more detestable he becomes. He just doesn't wear well.  It's like his expiration date is almost up. Perhaps Conway really hasn't liked being Attorney General or really doesn't like to campaign.

Given the political environment at this point, I'd give the edge to Bevin.

ICYMI: My C-J Column on the Obamacare Tanning Tax

Thanks to the Courier-Journal for giving me permission to print this in its entirety. I chose this topic because it gives people who are not necessarily political -- young women -- a chance to consider the impact of tax policy on their day to day lives. mI was therefore pleased to see that this column was widely-shared on FaceBook. We conservatives need to be on the look-out for issues that appeal to people who don't think of themselves as conservative. That's how we grow the party.

Here's the column;

Democrats could not figure out a way to tax the sunshine, thank God. So they taxed the man-made equivalent: indoor tanning. That tax just turned 5 years old. It has burned consumers and small businesses across the country, including here.

The 10 percent federal tax on indoor tanning was one of the more bizarre inclusions in Obamacare. It generated lots of laughs at the time. Some called it the “Snooki tax” in homage to Jersey Shore. Some speculated that it was a passive-aggressive attack on House Speaker John Boehner’s tawny complexion. One congressman called it “racist” because of its disparate impact on the fair-skinned.

This tax was one of 21 in Obamacare, and one of the first to take effect. It was supposed to do two things: help fund healthcare for the previously uninsured, and reduce skin cancer by deterring indoor tanning. Both of those goals were problematic from the outset.

First, the tanning tax was projected to raise only a fraction of the revenue necessary to pay for Obamacare — pennies on the dollar. Obamacare will cost approximately $2trillion over 10 years. The tanning tax, according to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, was projected to raise $2.7 billion over that period.

It would never have been enough, even if the projected numbers had been accurate. They were not. Indeed, according to Forbes, the tax has generated only one-third of the revenue projected. Whoops! Look for big premium increases to make up for that shortfall.

Second, the goal of deterring people from indoor tanning smacks of paternalism, as do all sin taxes. Anyone who worries that tanning beds or outdoor tanning will cause skin cancer — which the industry disputes — has the freedom to not tan. Those adults who choose to tan have the same liberty interest. Whatever happened to that Democrat mantra: “my body, my choice”? Surely it applies more here than to the recently exposed atrocities of Planned-Parenthood doctors.

Then there is the issue of the government picking winners and losers. This tax was directed against a specific industry that the elite in power at the time disfavored. This tax replaced one that would have taxed Botox injections and breast augmentations. The only reason that indoor sun tanning is subject to a federal excise tax but Botox and breast augmentations are not is that the latter industries won the lobbying battle. That is, access to power rather than sound public policy dictated the tax imposed.

What bothers me most about the tanning bed tax is its disproportionate effect on women. Tanning customers stuck with the tax are overwhelmingly women: 75 percent. Seventy percent of tanning salons are owned by women. These are small business owners. Their employers, too, are overwhelmingly women: ninety-five percent. (Why, why do the Democrats keep waging a war on women?)

As was predicted at the time of its inclusion into Obamacare, the tax is rapidly killing the indoor tanning industry. Since Obamacare’s enactment, more than 9,000 tanning salons have closed nationwide. As a consequence, 76,000 jobs have been eliminated, according to the American Suntanning Association.

The numbers in Kentucky reflect that trend. Nearly 200 salons have closed here; 1,600 jobs have been lost as a result.

Those who oppose indoor tanning as supposed a way to reduce skin cancer must be delighted with the closing of all these tanning salons.

However, that cannot be squared with the stated rationale of the tax as a means to fund Obamacare for the uninsured. The tax is killing the very industry that it was designed to tap as a source of funds. Obamacare’s goals with respect to the tax are mutually exclusive and contradictory.

Congress is considering a one-page bill to repeal the tanning tax. One page: Nancy Pelosi won’t have to pass it to find out what’s in it, provided she’s willing to read the one page. Maybe someone can read it to her.

The bill has bipartisan support. It’s something that all members of the Kentucky delegation should support (and co-sponsor), because a homegrown Louisville-based company, Sun Tan City, needs it to maintain and expand its franchises.

This is no different than recent legislative efforts to help the hemp industry, or the bourbon industry or the coal industry. Our congressional delegation should look out for Kentucky companies and jobs.

Republicans do not have a veto-proof majority. That means we are stuck with Obamacare for the time being. It cannot be repealed anytime soon. What we can do in the meantime, however, is chip away at it. Let’s fix what we can fix now.

Even some Democrats recognize that the tanning tax was a bad idea that has not lived up to expectations. Kentucky jobs are at stake. Incremental improvement is better than nothing.

A Few Quick Thoughts on the Debate

Carly Fiorina plainly belonged at the Big Boys' table, and she will be there next time as a result of her performance last night. The only question:  whom will she displace?  I like her better each time I see her.  She has an intellectual toughness that surpasses most if not all of the other candidates.

In the prime time debate, Ben Carson gained the most, particularly with his last two or three answers. His comments on race were brilliant.  He explained that he doesn't talk about race much because as a neurosurgeon, he looks at people's brains, which determines who they are way beyond the color of our skin. His comment that he would be fortunate if Hillary Clinton is the Democrat nominee was humorously delivered, as was his closing remark that he was the only candidate to have removed half of a person's brain, with an aside that one would have thought that would have already been accomplished among politicians in D.C.

Time doesn't permit me to amplify, but Carson's comments are well worth a look for those who did not see the debate. The man is freaky smart, but humble.  He projects a decency and a sense of humor.  His personal attributes make up for any short-comings in not knowing the answer to Beltway wonk questions that most Americans wouldn't know either.

I thought Rand Paul won the fourth amendment exchange with Chris Christie. Good for Rand for bringing up The Hug. That needed to be said.  In fact, it should be said at every remaining debate in which Christie gets to participate. His opening salvo against pointing out Donald Trump's self-absorption was effective, coming on the heels of Trump's admission that he could not commit at this point to supporting the ultimate Republican nominee if he/she is not Trump.

The Donald. His exchange with Megan Kelly was unnecessary. His pattern is that he makes a good point that gets some applause or some laughter and he keeps going and going until he has crossed into the terrain of did you really just say that?

I was shocked that the New York Times reported that Ted Cruz had about the median amount of air time.  Cruz disappeared during the debate. There seemed to be an effort to freeze him out. He comported himself very well and yet did not seem to be in the mix.

Huckabee, as usual, was earnest and articulate.  His closing -- describing all the negative qualities that everyone assumed applied to the Donald, but then substituting Hillary for punch line -- was outstanding.

John Kasich was repetitive but had some good themes. His response to the gay marriage question was well formed -- not backing away from his "old fashioned" position, as he point it, that marriage is between a man and a woman, but also expressing unconditional love for others who disagree with him just as God has unconditional love for all of us.

It is interesting how little airplay that LGBT issues received during the debate, even though they ranked as number three on the Facebook poll (after race relations and the economy) as important issues for voters. Huckabee was asked a question about transgenders in the military, which he deftly swatted away with the more relevant point that he is more concerned with the soldiers protecting our nation's security than using them to make a social statement. Other than that remark, I don't recall anything else coming up about the topic that the most famous Republican transgendered spotlighted earlier this year.

The social issue with the most prominence was life. It was a recurring theme of many candidates, who seemed invigorated by the recent Planned Parenthood videos to go on the attack of pro-abortion forces.

I could write much more, but the bottom line is that last night's debate was perhaps the most riveting I have seen and the Republican field -- both in the primetime and "kiddie table" debates -- is quite strong.  I'm looking forward to the next round.

So Did You Go to Fancy Farm?

I took a pass, as apparently a lot of people did. My sense was that neither party was all that excited about going. That's because there is a dearth of excitement about each party's respective ticket.

My kids went, and their take was that Sen.Majority Leader Mitch McConnell gave the best speech.  They loved the selfie he gave to outgoing Gov. Steve Beshear. Payback for Beshear's tacky stunt last year.

As for those seeking office this year, many thought Allison Joy Ball, Republican candidate for Treasurer, gave a very good speech.  Allison is a consistently good communicator. She is also probably the smartest candidate running for state-wide office this year. She is a real conservative, a nice person and a fighter. Treasurer is sort of a dumb office; it is a waste of her talents. But it is a good place for Allison to get some experience in public service to set her up for a more substantive office in the future.

From what my kids and others tell me, the crowd was mystified by Matt Bevin's speech. The Pledge of Allegiance is a beautiful thing. I am all for it. However, requesting everyone to say it -- not at the beginning of the event, but rather at the beginning of Bevin's speech -- is just odd.

It was also peculiar, and rather petulant, for Bevin to come to Fancy Farm and complain about the coarseness of politics, the silliness of the attacks, and otherwise lecture his audience like he's Miss Manners. Does Bevin think we don't remember his speech last year?   If he's had an epiphany about what should constitute the tone of political discourse, than why go to Fancy Farm at all?

Jack Conway continues his downward spiral as a candidate. The most remarkable thing about Conway is that his talent for campaigning is getting worse over time, with each passing election. That said, he may still win.

I will vote for Bevin. Indeed, I will vote straight ticket. But as I look at our choices for governor, I am reminded of all those many lists in which Kentucky comes in near the bottom. (Thank God for Mississippi).  I am hoping that Bevin can step it up and generate some enthusiasm and a sense of optimism that Kentucky can do better.

Dumbest Ad Ever

The Kentucky Democratic Party is running an ad against candidate for Attorney General Whitney Westerfield that is far and away the stupidest political ad I've ever seen.

Ostensibly it's about Westerfield's record as an assistant commonwealth attorney. In reality, it is an assault on his manhood because he gets an occasional pedicure.  That's supremely hypocritical, coming from the party that claims to be all about inclusiveness and tolerance for every iteration of lifestyle.

Democrats brought us the Metrosexual; a dude can't get much more Metrosexual than getting a pedicure.

Any ad that includes close up shots of a man's feet is just wrong on so many levels.  Feet are gross. Male feet are particularly gross, pedicure or not. That's why "mandals" are never a good idea.

Voters didn't need to know that Westerfield gets pedicures. It is too much information. They will not reward the Democrats for the revelation.

For Democrats to comment on someone's choice of personal grooming shows how weak on substantive ideas that party has become. They are utterly vacuous.

RIP. David Roth

Kentucky Opera General Manager David Roth's untimely passing is a huge loss to the Louisville arts community and to those of us who were privileged to count his a friend.

David was an artist entrepreneur. He exposed us to new operas that had never been performed here, balanced with old favorites. With his background in accounting, David squeezed quarters from nickels. He demonstrated that an arts organization, through careful stewardship, can stay in the black. This made us want to dig deeper and work harder to help him build Kentucky Opera into the outstanding regional company that is his legacy.

Most importantly, David was a wonderful human being. He had the remarkable ability to make me feel like he was overjoyed to see me. That wasn't specific to me:  I knew that he made everyone he met the feel the same way, and that is a rare attribute.

He and Bryce and his family and friends are in our prayers.

Congrats Mike Biagi

Mike Biagi has been named Chair of the Republican Party of Kentucky, replacing Steve Robertson (who is going to work in Frost Brown Todd's lobbying arm).

Mike was a McConnell Field Director, and is a great guy. He has a good political instinct and strikes me as easy to work with.  I expect big things of him in his new position and wish him all the best.

And thanks to Steve for all of his hard work over the years. The state of the Kentucky Republican Party is much improved over when we first arrived here in 1996, though much work remains.  Onward!

Latest C-J Column: Obama and the KY Clerks

Today's column makes an unexpected analogy:  Obama and the KY clerks who won't issue licenses for same sex marriages.  Here's the link. Below is the online version, reprinted with permission of the C-J.  Note that the online version contains several paragraphs towards the end that got cut from the print version;

They have more in common than either would expect: President Barack Obama and those Kentucky clerks who refuse to issue licenses for same-sex marriages. In refusing to do their jobs (Obama with respect to immigration), both are behaving lawlessly. Both are violating the oaths they took.

Oddly, the people who applaud Obama's refusal to enforce our immigration laws are irate at the county clerks who refuse to issue the marriage licenses to gays. However, a refusal to do one's duty as an elected official is lawless, regardless of the issue or reason. Maybe the clerks should change their messaging and declare their offices "sanctuaries."

I am slightly more sympathetic to the county clerks; the Supreme Court's pronouncement of a new constitutional right to gay marriage fundamentally changed the nature of their duties. Arguably some of these clerks might not have run for their position had they known that they would be compelled to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples. But the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodgespercolated for years. Those who were surprised at the outcome certainly knew that it was a possibility.

THE COURIER-JOURNAL

Bridget Bush | Keep Alexander Hamilton on bill

Going forward, however, no candidate for county clerk can claim unfair surprise. Like it or not, gay marriage is now the law of the land. Those who feel it would violate their conscience to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple should not seek the office.

In refusing to perform their duty but accepting their salary, the recalcitrant clerks are exercising their religious beliefs on the cheap and easy. The more honorable course would be to resign.

Unlike the clerks, Obama's refusal to enforce our nation's immigration laws through deportations is not based on his religious convictions. He just thinks he's smarter and knows better. He therefore uses executive orders to ignore those laws of which he disapproves. But like the clerks, Obama justifies his inaction as the right thing to do; he follows his moral compass rather than the laws he swore to uphold.

The clerks and Obama both serve in the executive branch of government, albeit at very different levels. Officials in the executive branch cannot make law, like the legislature, or interpret law, like the judiciary; their job is to execute the laws the other branches have made — as in apply the law, enforce it, carry it out. If they do not like the law and want to change it, they are in the wrong branch.

Obama's dereliction of duty — and the example it sets — has graver consequences than that of the clerks. No one has died as a result of inaction by the clerks. The Supreme Court has decreed that gay marriage is a constitutional right, and violation of a constitutional right is a serious matter. But it is not the same as seeing your child shot by an illegal alien and holding her while she dies, as happened in the "sanctuary city" of San Francisco recently.

Francisco Sanchez, the man who confessed to murdering Katie Steinle on the San Francisco pier earlier this month, has an extensive criminal history — seven felonies — and had been deported to Mexico five times. Sanctuary cities like San Francisco attract people like Sanchez because they know that it's city policy to shelter illegal immigrants from deportation; Sanchez admitted as much to a reporter.

THE COURIER-JOURNAL

Bridget Bush | GOP should support OTC birth control

San Francisco's sheriff and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are blaming each other for Sanchez being free to commit a murder. That finger pointing misses the larger truth. The proliferation of sanctuary cities is the logical extension of the Obama administration's refusal to enforce the immigration laws: the fish rots from the head.

There are now 200 sanctuary cities. The rationale for the policy is to prevent families from being torn apart; children born to illegal immigrants on American soil are U.S. citizens automatically, but their parents are not. And to be sure, Sanchez is by no means representative of all illegal immigrants. The unintended consequence of that compassionate impulse to provide sanctuary from deportation is that Katie Steinle's family has been torn apart.

Sanctuary cities, Obama's non-enforcement, and the rogue county clerks, each make a mockery of the notion of the "law-abiding citizen." In days of yore, abiding by the law was something a citizen just did, and expected others to do or else face punishment. It was part of being a responsible adult, a norm parents taught children. The corollary was that public officials were expected to honor their oaths and enforce the law, all the laws.

When did it become respectable to obey and enforce only the laws one likes? Perhaps the most devastating legacy of Obama will be this trickle-down lawlessness.

.

Kentucky 45th in Fiscal Condition

George Mason University's Mercatus Center has done a 50 state survey of state financial conditions.  Kentucky falls near the bottom at 45th. No surprise there.

Mercatus came up with a composite score based on five different variables: cash solvency for short term funding; budget solvency; long run solvency; service level solvency; and trust fund solvency.

The question becomes:  what do Jack Conway and Matt Bevin propose to do about it?

Any business contemplating relocating would look to this survey, or one like it, to evaluate the fiscal health of a state.  No one wants to move a business to a state that is likely to default, or face a massive tax hike. So the ability of Kentucky to manage its finances sensibly has real-world consequences for employment -- and for making Kentucky a place where our children want to remain as adults.

Judicial Nominations Update

Politico has a good read on the status of judicial nominations now that Mitch McConnell is Senate Majority Leader.  Lots of accusations about why the pace of confirmation is so slow.

This is an issue that has implications for Kentucky. as we have several vacancies in the district courts and one on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.

To be sure, the president has wide latitude on whom he chooses to nominate. However, I take comfort in knowing that McConnell will ensure that the Senate makes a searching inquiry of each nominee. The Senate has that right and indeed duty.

Obama's days in office are drawing to a close, thank God. But the judges he nominates, if confirmed, will have life tenure. Their impact will reach far into the future and affect the daily lives of numerous Americans. It is therefore important that Republicans take the time to look closely at these nominees.

Thoughts on Obergefell

The Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, finding a fundamental right to gay marriage, was so expected as to be anti-climactic.

Conservatives lost this battle long ago. It's over, culturally. It has been over ever since the ABC sitcom Modern Family hit the air with it's portrayal of the popular gay couple, Mitchell and Cam.

I have long thought that the Church should not be in the contract business. Instead, it would have been preferable if American wedding ritual was more like the French:  go to the court house to have a government official conduct the marriage, and then, for those so inclined, go to the church and receive the sacrament of marriage.

Instead, we allow members of the clergy to act as an agent of the state, performing a government function simultaneously with bestowing a sacrament. The cost of that convenience is Obergefell.

A bifurcation along the lines of the French marriage ritual recognizes that marriage is two things:  a contract, and a sacrament.  As long as adults are competent to give consent, I have no problem with two people of the same sex entering a contract to formalize their relationship. That comports with an understanding of limited government.

That's why I thought it was a mistake for conservatives to oppose civil unions.  It's true that this reasoning applies with equal force to polygamy.  It's also true that the Supreme Court's reasoning would encompass polygamy. That's not a battle worth fighting; if adults choose to organize themselves in that manner, it's no one's business. Again, that's viewing marriage as a contract, freely entered into.

However, I worry that marriage as sacrament is endangered. There will be calls to revoke the tax exempt status of those churches that refuse to conduct gay weddings.  Calls for "tolerance" will not extend to tolerating the religious convictions of those who believe in the biblical definition of marriage as being reserved for one man and one women. This assault on freedom of worship has already begun.  It will get worse, I fear. The implications for the nature and survival of our country are serious. Gay marriage cannot and will not destroy America; stripping citizens of the right to worship freely very well could.

The Church has seen worse. It's important to remember that and to keep a historical perspective as the assault on Christianity gets more aggressive. Sure, it would be a terrible thing to have one's church lose its tax exempt status.  But it's not the same as being martyred.  As Russell Moore wrote this past week, the Supreme Court cannot put Jesus Christ back in the grave. He is still alive.  Still sovereign, even in the fallout of Obergefell. That means we should be of good courage and not let our hearts grow dismayed.

So the appropriate response to the Supreme Court's decision is prayer for America.  Lots and lots of prayer that the Lord will continue to bless and keep this great nation.

SCOTUS Upholds SCOTUScare

The Supreme Court of the United States has once again saved Obamacare, this time on the validity of giving Obamacare tax subsidies to people who live in states that have not established the insurance exchanges; the law requires a state established exchange as a prerequisite to getting the tax subsidy.

No matter, according to the majority.  A state is not really a state or something. The words don't matter. Why look at the actual language of the statute when we can look to policy goals and context? Up is down and down is up: the majority found Congress' statutory language ambiguous and yet divined Congressional intent as clear. Logically, the Court cannot have it both ways.

Chief Justice Roberts once again joined the left, this time accompanied by Justice Anthony Kennedy, to uphold the vote 6-3.

This is a shameful moment in the history of the Court. This is a true erosion in the rule of law in this country, The Court disregarded clear language.  "Established by a state" is not an obscure term of art. that requires nuanced legal reasoning. Any fifth grader could read the phrase and understand that the federal government is not a "state."

A few choice morsels from Justice Scalia's dissent:

• “The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says ‘Exchange established by the State’ it means ‘Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.’ That is of course quite absurd.
• ”“You would think the answer would be obvious—so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it. . . . Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is “established by the State
• .”It is not our place to judge the quality of the care and deliberation that went into this or any other law. . . . Much less is it our place to make everything come out right when Congress does not do its job properly. It is up to Congress to design its laws with care, and it is up to the people to hold them to account if they fail to carry out that responsibility

  
Justice Scalia is right in dissent. Having now rewritten the statute to save it -- twice -- the name should be changed from Obamacare to SCOTUScare.  

Keep Hamilton on the $10

Here's my Courier-Journal column on why I think Alexander Hamilton should remain on the ten dollar bill.  With thanks to the C-J for giving me permission to reprint:

Poor Alexander Hamilton has become the Rodney Dangerfield of paper money: he "don't get no respect."

Efforts are afoot to replace Hamilton on the ten-dollar bill. Harriet Tubman, the escaped slave turned abolitionist, has been mentioned as a replacement and appears to be the leading contender.

For the record, Harriet Tubman rocks. Not only did she advance the cause of abolition and women's suffrage, but she also was a Republican and embraced her second amendment right to carry a gun as a spy for the Union Army. Tubman is worthy of honor.

It does not follow, however, that, Alexander Hamilton should be cast aside to make way for Harriet Tubman. This is a false conflict — not an "either or" situation.

Ten-dollar bill features Alexander Hamilton (Photo: U.S. Treasury)

It's true that Hamilton is not as well known as those founding fathers who went on to become president. That's a pity, because he was a fascinating man — and not just because Vice President Aaron Burr killed him in a duel. Perhaps the new Broadway musical Hamilton will boost his name ID.

As the first Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton established the foundation of our nation's economy and monetary system, which is why he, of all the founders, should be commemorated on actual currency. He is, after all, the American who established the U.S. Mint.

Hamilton was one of three authors of the Federalist Papers; he wrote 51 of the 85 essays. Hamilton's writings were instrumental in convincing Americans to adopt the new Constitution. Hamilton was an early abolitionist and a founder of the New York Manumission Society, which advocated ending slavery in the 1790s, many years before that cause became widespread.

Hamilton's accomplishments are all the more remarkable given the adversity he overcame. Hamilton was born illegitimate, back when the term "bastard" was a real stigma. He immigrated to this country from the Caribbean and was orphaned at a young age. Immigrants and those who are born out of wedlock should therefore celebrate Hamilton as proof that this is a country of second chances, where one can go on to greatness despite the most humble and shameful of beginnings.

THE COURIER-JOURNAL

Bridget Bush | GOP should support OTC birth control

Before Hamilton graced the ten-dollar bill, that honor belonged to Andrew Jackson (who is now on the twenty-dollar bill). Some would say that Jackson has been on two bills too many. Democrats celebrate Jackson as the founder of their party. But Jackson's legacy is a mixed bag, particularly with respect to his treatment of Native Americans. Those who take umbrage at the name of the Washington Redskins overlook the fact that every time they pay with a $20, they are honoring the man responsible for the Trail of Tears. To the extent that we need to banish dead white men from currency to make room for Tubman, Jackson should be first in line.

I wonder how Tubman would feel about displacing Hamilton. It seems so impolite, like forcing someone to move from a general admission seat they already occupy.

Why not bring back the thousand-dollar bill and put Tubman on that? Higher denominations are disfavored and therefore not circulated, supposedly because they make crime and money laundering easier. It is hard to see, however, how forcing a drug dealer to carry ten hundreds rather than one thousand-dollar bill reduces crime. Given inflation, a thousand dollars isn't really that large a bill.

One of the reasons given for tossing Hamilton off the ten-dollar bill is that bill it is slated to be redone. That's just the Treasury Department deferring to a self-imposed schedule. There is no need for a schedule to revise currency. And if such schedule leads to bad decisions — such as scrapping Hamilton — then that schedule itself should be revised.

The Secretary of the Treasury, Jack Lew, is the D.C. bureaucrat who wants to replace Hamilton. Lew needs to reflect on the history of the founder of his department.

Fortunately, there are people outside of Washington, D.C. who have more respect for Lew's predecessor. The Alexander Hamilton History Society, founded and based in Louisville, has created an online petition to retain their namesake on the currency. The Society meets every third Saturday at the St. Matthews's branch of the Louisville Free Public Library to hear lectures regarding Hamilton and other founding fathers. Hamilton supporters may sign the petition at the AHHSKY website: http://ahhsky.wix.com/ahhs-ky

As the society's website cautions, quoting President Calvin Coolidge regarding Hamilton: "When America ceases to remember his greatness, America will no longer be great."

Yarmuth Announces He Will Seek Reelection

Congressman John Yarmuth has been telling people for some time that he would run again. Still, I am a little surprised. Yarumuth has to be increasingly frustrated as the House has become increasingly Republican. He has more seniority but less influence.

As a practical matter, unless JCPS does something dramatic to turn around public schools in Jefferson County, those families who are Republican( or independent but lean conservative) will continue to make their homes in Oldham County.

As a result, I see little point in Republicans even fielding a candidate to challenge Yarmuth. The voter registration gap is insurmountable as things now stand. The presence of a Republican on the ballot just forces Yarumuth to gear up his GOTV operation, which hurts other Republicans (say, in Metro Council races) who might otherwise be competitive.

The reality is that we are stuck with Yarmuth for another term.

Get Ready For Jack Conway 2.0

I hear that Jack Conway is getting some training on how to become a better candidate.  Presumably this includes public speaking and something along the Dale Carnegie course of How to Make Friends and Influence People.

Conway is not much of a speaker.  He's tried different personas.  There was pugilistic Jack Conway at Fancy Farm, boasting that he's "one tough son of a b***h."  Then there was sensitive Jack Conway, weeping about his decision not to appeal the gay marriage case.

His hair, along the way, has gone through more iterations of highlights than the Breck Girl.

So what will a new and improved Conway look and sound like?  Will the consultants have settled upon one hair color?

Is it possible to teach charisma?  I am doubtful.

Conway said on Derby Day that he wanted to run against Matt Bevin. Conway got his wish, and may soon learn the lesson of be careful what you wish for.

Regardless of how one feels about Bevin, he is a very talented speaker.  He doesn't need to take charisma classes. Stylistically, the comparison will not be flattering to Conway.  

ICMY: Why Raising the Minimum Wage is a Terrible Idea

Given Gov. Steve Beshear's executive order raising the minimum wage for state employees, this is a good time to reprint my Courier-Journal column on why raising the minimum wage hurts those it is supposed to help.

With thanks to the C-J for permission to reprint:

Bill Clinton, angling to become First Dude, is running around the country urging an increase of the federal minimum wage, which now stands at $7.25 an hour. This is Slick Willie at his most cynical.

As president, Clinton opposed the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's plan to index the minimum wage to the cost of living, to go up automatically. Instead, Clinton chose an increase, without indexing. Reviewing documents recently released by the Clinton Presidential Library, the Huffington Post concluded that central to the Clinton administration's rejection of Kennedy's indexing proposal was this: "[S]ince the minimum wage would automatically rise each year, it would take away a good political issue for those who believe the minimum wage is an important tool to help low-income families."

That is, Clinton chose to throw a little something to poor people to win votes, but not permanently — so that Democrats could repeat the same manipulation whenever necessary to survive an election.

Republicans could extinguish the issue forever by agreeing to index the minimum wage. That would be a mistake, however, because the minimum wage is bad economic policy that actually hurts those it purports to help.

“When the government forces a private employer to pay workers more, that employer will either pass the cost along to consumers in higher prices, or it will use fewer workers.”

Bridget Bush

No politician can outlaw the law of supply and demand. When the government forces a private employer to pay workers more, that employer will either pass the cost along to consumers in higher prices, or it will use fewer workers, plus improved technology where possible, to do the same work. That means layoffs, reduced hours and fewer jobs for unskilled workers.

To be sure, those lucky enough to still have a job will make more with an increase, but for those who are laid off or unable to find an entry level job, the increase will be cold comfort: Their income will be zero. Democrats overlook that there is no right in this country to a job. The government cannot outlaw unemployment — it cannot order private employers to hire. By raising the minimum wage, Democrats would price out of the labor market the least productive, most unskilled. Delaying that critical first job for these citizens makes it that much harder to escape poverty.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office in February released a study of the Obama administration's call to increase the minimum wage to $10.10. The CBO projected that Obama's proposal would eliminate 500,000 jobs and perhaps as many as 1 million jobs.

Consider, moreover, who would get cut. Of the half-million jobs that the CBO projects would disappear if the Obama increase is enacted, two-thirds belong to women. The layoffs and lost opportunity for work that a minimum wage hike would cause therefore would hit women disproportionately hard. Minority youths — who already have nearly double the unemployment rates of white youths — likewise would suffer disproportionately. Indeed, the unintended consequence of Democrats raising the minimum wage produces outcomes that — if caused by Republicans — would be slammed as sexist and racist.

Increasing the minimum wage distracts from the more serious issue of how to improve workers' skills so that entry level jobs are the first step in long, productive careers, and not a purgatory where the unskilled languish until the next time Democrats decide to give them a raise with other people's money.

Workers whose productivity exceeds that of the minimum wage will earn more than the minimum wage. So instead of hiking the minimum wage, the better course would be to ensure that every American who wants a decent education can get one, regardless of neighborhood or income. That will only occur when poor Americans have access through vouchers and charter schools to alternatives to those schools that have served them so poorly to date.

The minimum wage is also a liberty issue. The minimum wage forbids workers from accepting, and employers from offering, less than whatever wage the government has decreed. If private employers got together and colluded about setting a wage, it would be an antitrust violation. Yet when the government does it, Democrats call it fairness.

Our federal system generally permits states to raise the minimum wage higher than the federal minimum. That's why Moveon.org is running a "sign the petition" drive to increase the minimum wage in Kentucky.

Progressive bastion SeaTac, Wash., recently increased its minimum wages to $15 an hour. Look for higher prices and cut services at Seattle's airport. Here in Louisville, Jefferson County Attorney Mike O'Connell informed the Metro Council that it may legally raise the minimum wage; it is not — at this point — pre-empted by state law. It might be legal, but it is still a mistake. Raising Louisville's minimum wage will send jobs to surrounding counties. It will increase prices for those too poor to have transportation for bargain shopping.

Instead of "feeling our pain," Bill Clinton and those "progressives" who revere him should stop inflicting pain by recycling failed policies, like the minimum wage, that do real damage.