As a rule, progressive liberals (or is that progressives and liberals?) hate federalism, the institutional division of power between the states and the federal government. Specifically, Progressives despise the fact that fifty different states in the entire United States union can "go their own way" (to quote Fleetwood Mac) and spend their money and enact legislation as they see fit. By extension, progressives in principle resist the Constitution, for at its essence the national charter inevitably defines the federal government in limited terms, and for the Progressive, the expansion of the state into every corner of society will permit the perfectibility of mankind to take place.
In order to bypass the internal (infernal?) checks and balances within the federal compact between the states and the federal government, to exercise greater power over the states, leaders in Washington either withhold or hand out federal dollars (in effect, state tax dollars collected through the IRS). As states look for more innovate means for their citizens to hold onto their own money as well as diminish the role of the statehouse in the citizen' own house, the federal government will itself losing more money.
Following President Obama's reelection, followed by incremental increases in the House and the Senate, the progressive impulse to spend, expend, and finally expand state power remains as heated as ever. Along with the President, another progressive Democrat who faced a tough reelection, Congressman Henry Waxman, returned to office, yet clinched his seat by the lowest victory margin of his career.
From the outset of Obama's first term, Congressman Waxman championed the ObamaCare power grab. Since the legislation is covered with his fingerprints (or red hands), the individual health insurance mandate/tax should be called Obama-WaxmanCare. The West LA Congressman championed this law before, during, and after its passage, yet this past summer he had trouble explaning its basic provisions in a CNN interview. Despite the frustrations of single-payer advocates, Waxman advocated legislation which would impose more regulations and require every person in this country to get health insurance or pay a fine.
The United States does need health care reform. Yet following the passage of Obamacare, health insurance premiums have increased while access has decreased. ObamaCare failed to fight off lawsuit abuse, one of the prime instigators for rising health insurance rates along with the spiraling costs of health care. A simpler reform would have permitted individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines. Health Savings Accounts would encourage people to invest in their own health care over time and grant them a tax credit for any money invested in the fund. Waxman has rebuffed selling health insurance across state lines, and he voted against tax credits for health savings accounts.
One critical feature of Obama-WaxmanCare, the statewide health exchanges, would ensure that enough money was coming into the system to insure anyone who cannot afford health insurance. The IRS reported that their interpretation of the would ignore that heads of households have access to employer funded health insurance, yet most businesses do not cover the rest of the family. Because of the head income earner's salary, they would be priced out of receive the federal subsidy for health insurance.
Thirty states have opposed implementing Obama-WaxmanCare. Governor Rick Scott of Florida shut down any steps for the exchanges. So has Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, also the first Republican governor to suggest that contraception should be purchased over the counter, beyond the purview of the federal government. Texas Governor Rick Perry (and his health secretary) and the rest of the growing GOP governor's conference have staked out a federalist affront to Washington power-grabbing.
Chris Christie, Republican Governor of New Jersey, candidly admitted to fellow New Jerseyan Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show" that since the federal government does not know how to run this thing, then his state's should not waste dwindling coffers to try and put this thing together. He runs a two-to-one Democratic state with a sometime-sympathetic legislature, at least when it comes to reining in the costs of the public sector union pensions and benefits. His courage to face off against the Obama Administration's officious expansion of power deserves as much regard as his genuine respect for the President's assistance after Superstorm Sandy.
While disquieted independents, conservatives, Republicans, and many Democrats feared the worst following the Supreme Court's ruling to uphold Obama-WaxmanCare, the several states have severred all support for this law, which will further cripple the financial backing anticipated by the law's enthusiasts, including Congressman Waxman. Now the CEO of Domino's Pizza is filing a lawsuit against the federal government for advancing a legislative monstrosity which flouts the First Amendment.
Thirty governors rejected the Obama-WaxmanCare health exchanges. Private business leaders are still challenging the law, and already Waxman has expressed concern that the federal government will delay enforcing the law. Perhaps Congressman Waxman would have been better off retiring instead of witnessing his "signature" legislation" stiffen and strengthen federalist Republican opposition and frustrate his progressive agenda.