Tag Archive for Bill Schuette

When Less Means More

Clearly, we dodged a bullet by not establishing a state run exchange. The AG appears to be watching for 'ricochets.'

Attorney_General_Bill_Schuette_410797_7For anyone who wondered WHY we did not establish a state run exchange, the answer is clearly about surrendering authority.

Not unlike the camel’s nose, the exchange was a buy-in to undermine state sovereignty. Fortunately, Michigan attorney general Bill Schuette appears to be trying to make sure the mandate does NOT apply to Michigan residents. From MLive:

Attorney General Bill Schuette is arguing an IRS rule offering tax credits to individuals buying health insurance on the federal exchange from states without their own exchanges violates the U.S. Constitution.

The argument was made in a “friend of the court” brief filed in a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where individuals and businesses from states without insurance exchanges are challenging the ability of the IRS to offer tax credits for buying insurance through the federally established exchange.

Schuette and the attorneys general for Kansas and Nebraska argue that allowing the IRS to offer the credits overrules the decisions not to set up exchanges under the Affordable Care Act that 34 states made and is invalid under the Tenth Amendment.

Schuette’s on the right track.

Additionally, it should be noted that this might not be the most popular move, and could be painful to his campaign in the general. As many Michiganians are expecting a federal subsidy, it may not happen or they may lose that subsidy if this action is successful.

This is a courageous and quite correct move.

You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)

Because When They’re Right

twinkieWe’ll say so.

Mlive is telling us that Governor Rick Snyder is asking for the ban on domestic partner same sex benefits to remain in place until properly adjudicated.  They report on the activist Judge who has first tossed the ban:

The motion asks Judge David Lawson to rule in favor of the state in a lawsuit filed by five same-sex couples. The motion argues that the 2011 law banning the benefits “eliminates local government programs that are irrational and unfair” and promotes “financially sound” local agencies.

In June 2013, Lawson issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the state from enforcing the law, Public Act 297, saying the plaintiffs in the case had a good chance of proving at trial that the law violates the equal protection guarantee of the U.S. Constitution.

“A good chance” is a pitiful reason to upend due process and legislate from the bench.

You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)