State Lawmakers Debate States’ Rights

Since the recent Federal Universal Healthcare Legislation has been made into quasi-law, state governments have been taking a stand for their constituents arguing that it is unconstitutional to force citizens to pay a penalty for refusing to participate in the federal health-care program. This includes states that Barack Obama both won and lost in the last presidential election.

Could it be that the Democrats that voted against the bill but weren’t given a backdoor deal are feeling a little bitter that their fellow representatives got something that they didn’t? Or could it be that the tide has largely turned against universal health care since it has been rushed through the House behind closed doors?

Whatever their reason, if the state governments can hold out against the federal government it is a victory for the freedom to choose, the rights of the individual and a victory for small government in general. It is also a victory for politicians actually listening to those whom they represent.

But perhaps the biggest reason for my home state of Michigan to oppose this bill is the negative economic impact it will ultimately have. We are already suffering from a staggering 14 percent unemployment rate. What is the first thing businesses do when expenses go up? Cut down on other expenses. This usually results in employee layoffs and hiring freezes. Historically small and medium businesses have been the power house for job creation and job growth. When the big industries fail, small and medium businesses keep communities together. We have experienced this with the automotive industry and have yet to rebound.

Yet this bill is aimed specifically at small and medium businesses. Not only will they face a tax that they cannot afford; it will increase as they try to hire more employees. When you punish businesses for hiring more people, they generally stop… hiring people! Ultimately unemployment gets worse (14 percent is already above the national average).

So now it makes sense why my Attorney General Mike Cox and dozens of his colleagues from other states are fighting back. Apparently (hopefully), he understands this principle. The question is; why is our governor attempting to stop him?

Jennifer Granholm, who has done little more than increase the size of the state government to “increase jobs” and has repeatedly worked against tax credits for businesses (except for the entertainment industry), believes he “wasn’t representing her or Michigan citizens who would benefit from the law.” Apparently we wouldn’t benefit from the freedom to refute our government. Or maybe she is just a little too focused on the first part of that sentence, and is worried about losing her influence with the commander-in-chief; after all she can’t be reelected next term.

Leave a reply