Obama fundraiser found guilty of bank fraud

Rick Moran

Nice company you're keeping there, Barry. You going to return the money this guy raised for you too?

New York Daily News:

Courtney Dupree was convicted of vastly overstating the billings of his Long Island City-based lighting company GDC Acquisitions in order to fraudulently obtain a loan from Amalgamated Bank.

Dupree, 42, sat stone-faced as the verdict was read in Brooklyn Federal Court. He faces up to 30 years in prison and has to pay back at least $18 million.

Meanwhile, the jury that convicted Dupree also acquitted his company lawyer, Thomas Foley, 45.

"The jury rejected an FBI effort to ensnare a lawyer because of his client's conduct and we are very grateful," said Foley's defense attorney, Joseph Ryan.

Dupree was done in by a mountain of paperwork, which prosecutors said proved he was a crook, and by testimony from cooperating witnesses who were involved in the scheme.

"This is a case about lying to a bank to get money," Assistant U.S. Attorney David Woll told the jury during the trial. "It is about telling lies over and over again in order to grab millions of dollars of the bank's money."

Obama will probably pardon the guy. After all, he's an ex-basketball star at the University of North Carolina. 

We Don't Need a Balanced Budget Amendment

 
• Tad DeHaven 

• The Constitution already places strict limits on what the federal government can and cannot do. The problem is that those limits have become stretched over the years to the point that the federal government can do pretty much what it pleases. As a result, Americans have become accustomed to, and dependent upon, the federal government to supervise their lives from cradle to grave.
  Most Republicans are about as enthusiastic to confront this reality as most Democrats are in reversing it. Thus, the convenient resurgence in popularity for a balanced budget amendment on the part of Republicans has been driven by an unwillingness — or inability — to flesh out exactly what federal agencies and programs would have to go in order to bring the budget into balance without raising taxes.
  Indeed, it's not a coincidence that the balanced budget amendment wasn't a priority for Republicans when they were jacking up spending and debt during George W. Bush's tenure. Now that the Obama Democrats have done the Republicans one better on the fiscal profligacy front, the GOP is really just looking to score political points for the November 2012 elections by hoisting up the balanced budget amendment as a litmus test for fiscal propriety.
  However, the purpose of the balanced budget amendment is to put an end to budget deficits, and deficits are only a symptom of the real problem: too much spending. Therefore, Republicans who support the balanced budget amendment cannot cite it as evidence that they're serious about cutting spending unless they're prepared to detail what they would cut in order to bring the budget into balance.

  While proponents of the balanced budget amendment argue that it would also reign in spending, almost all the states possess balanced budget requirements and that hasn't stopped state spending from continuing to increase. In fact, the balanced budget amendment would actually end up solidifying the oversized and overbearing federal government we have today. Therefore, policymakers who truly desire a federal government that is smaller in size and scope should concentrate their efforts on convincing the American people that the country would be better off.

Another electric car company backed by DoE loan guarantees in trouble

Rick Moran

The entire "green subsidy" program, as we've discovered, is rife with corruption, cronyism, and just plain bad decisions. But beyond all of that, this is what happens when government - rather than the market - picks winners and losers.

The Hill:

An electric vehicle manufacturer that received a $529 million loan from the Energy Department is recalling 239 vehicles.

The Transportation Department's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) said Thursday that the company, Fisker Automotive, will recall its Karma vehicles made between July 1, 2011, and Nov. 3, 2011, because of a faulty electric battery component that could cause a fire.

"Within the high-voltage battery, certain hose clamps may have been positioned incorrectly during assembly. If positioned incorrectly, the batter compartment cover could interfere with the hose clamps, potentially causing a coolant leak from the cooling hose," NHTSA said in its recall notice Thursday.

"If coolant enters the battery compartment, an electrical short could occur possibly resulting in a fire."

The Energy Department issued a $529 million loan to Fisker in April 2010 for the development of its plug-in electric vehicles.

The administration has come under fire for issuing the loan after ABC News reported in October that Fisker is making its vehicles in Finland because it could not find a contractor in America to manufacture them.

Fisker is backed by Obama fundraiser and venture capitalist John Doerre who runs a company that has Al Gore sitting on its board of directors. Doerre raised millions for Obama's 2008 campaign.

It seems that not only is the government picking winners and losers, it is picking them based on their political clout.

For Your Leftie Friends, Simon Johnson on the Financial Crisis

• Mark Calabria

• As much as I have trouble believing it, there seems to be a portion of the public that will immediately dismiss anything Cato has to say on the financial crisis.  So as much as I try to reach anyone willing to listen, there are just many unwilling to do so.  Given the importance of understanding the financial crisis, it is essential that we have some intelligent, thoughtful voices on the Left.  Perhaps the best of those is MIT’s Simon Johnson.
  While I am nowhere near 100% agreement with Simon, a recent EconTalk podcast on the financial crisis illustrates that he is generally more right than wrong.  From the podcast, Simon clearly sees central banking as an ultimate source of moral hazard in the financial sector.  His discussion of the Aldrich-Brandeis views on the founding of the Federal Reserve alone make the podcast a worthwhile listen.
  From EconTalk:

  Simon Johnson of MIT and the author (with James Kwak) of 13 Bankers talks with EconTalk hostRuss Roberts about the origins of the financial crisis and how the next one might be prevented. Invoking the work of George Stigler, Johnson argues that the financial sector has captured the regulatory process and the result is that regulation and government intervention have been steered more by the interests of the financial sector than to the benefit of the general public. Johnson argues for capping the size of banks in order to reduce the danger of systemic risk and the too-big-to-fail excuse for bailing out banks. Johnson also discusses the role of the Fed in subsidizing risk-taking and leverage in the financial sector.

  Play

  Time: 01:04:49

  His core message is one of regulatory capture in the financial system, going as far as calling himself  “a follower of George Stigler.”  This is certainly a point where progressives and libertarians can agree.  It is perhaps on the cures that we disagree. 

• So if you are frustrated that some of your friends seem to be getting all their (mis)information on the financial crisis from the likes of Paul Krugman, then point them towards this podcast. 
  While Simon has apparently covered much of this in his book,13 Bankers, I have to admit to not having read it.  I’ve largely put it off because as a regular reader of Johnson’s blog, I find his co-author/blogger to be excessively partisan, not to mention lacking an understanding of what free-market proponents are actually advocating.

Our Forefathers' Business

By John W. Howard

As perennial as the season itself, is the annual emergence of the secular left to file lawsuits challenging the presence of Christian symbols, however benign, on public property.  It is, I suppose, a festive tradition for some whose lives are otherwise joyless except to the extent they can snatch seasonal delight from others who enjoy more spiritual richness with which to color their days.

So, as the Christmas season winds down, the good citizens of Flathead Valley, Colorado, and the owners of White Fish Mountain resort find themselves under fire because a small statue of Jesus occupies a 3 foot by 3 foot section of the resort that sits on Forest Service land.  The effigy was installed 50 years ago to honor members of the 10^th Mountain Division of the U.S. Army, becoming a cherished local landmark.   There it has rested, without objection, ever since. 

The complaint seeking its removal was filed by the Freedom from Religion Foundation and the only thing about the controversy with which most can agree is that the complaint is, in the words of Foundation president Laurie Gaylor, a "no-brainer"; words redolent with unintended irony.

It is a wonder such complaints have lately been so successful.  They proceed from a consistent misconstruction of the First Amendment starting in 1947 with a Supreme Court decision, Everson v. Board of Education, in which the Court, for the first time, invoked the words of Thomas Jefferson calling for a "wall of separation" between church and state.  In using that convenient phrase, the Court remarkably overlooked the fact that Jefferson did not participate in the debate over the ratification of the Constitution or, for that matter, over the subsequent adoption of the First Amendment with which the Court rationalizes decisions barring religion from the public square. (He was in France at the time.)  The phrase appears in none of the debates that led to the enactment either of the Constitution or of the First Amendment.  Indeed, the expression was not even used by Jefferson until fourteen years after the amendment was adopted, thus providing no illumination as to intention of those who actually approved it.

The Supreme Court's jurisprudence with respect to government's relationship to religion is chaotic and intellectually rudderless, likely because it is so ungrounded in original intent or in the text on which the Court relies for doctrinal development.  The Court has based its decisions on the First Amendment which reads, in relevant part:

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." 

The Court's rationale is that the presence of religious displays on government property constitutes, by endorsement, the "establishment of religion" prohibited under the first clause of the First Amendment (the "Establishment Clause").  The Court is apparently untroubled by the fact that those who wrote and adopted the First Amendment believed no such thing.

How do we know that those who wrote the First Amendment did not interpret the Establishment Clause as prohibiting, in the Court's words, "government entanglement with religion"?  We know it because on September 26, 1789, the day after the final language of the First Amendment was adopted by Congress, so taken was the assembly by its success in adopting the Amendment, that it passed a resolution in celebration, calling on the president to "recommend to the people of the United States, a day of public fasting and prayer, to be observed, by acknowledging with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of the Almighty God."

We know it, too, because during Jefferson's administration, Congress -- constituted, as it was, by many in the founding generation -- allowed the Capitol Building to be used for Christian worship services; services regularly attended by President Jefferson himself, apparently unconcerned that doing so surmounted a constitutionally required "wall of separation."

We know it because from the very first Congress onward, proceedings have always opened with a prayer.

And, yet, here we are, more than 200 years on, in continuing argument over whether the First Amendment was intended to prohibit religious symbols on public property; whether public schools can constitutionally begin commencement exercises with a prayer; whether the Establishment Clause prohibits exultant high school football players from "Tebowing."

Some argue that Congress has a right to constitutional interpretation coextensive with that of the Supreme Court.  Whether or not that power exists, Congress has never exercised it and doing so would upset a delicate constitutional balance and an established and stabilizing separation of powers.  What Congress does have the power to do, though, is to amend the Constitution, if it thinks the Court has, through its jurisprudence, guided the ship of state off course.  It also has the power to set the means and extent of judicial redress and jurisdiction.

There is, then, a path of return to original intent; one we should follow.  It is certainly well past time to do so.

The first, easiest and most immediate remedy is for Congress to adopt a statute setting a time limit on actions challenging religious symbols or displays on public land.  Governments enjoy sovereign immunity.  This means that government -- at all levels -- cannot be sued unless it consents and it can set the conditions for doing so.  So, for example, the federal government has consented to its being sued to establish a right in land to which the government lays claim.  But it enacted a statute of limitations for bringing such actions and made it effective on a date earlier than its adoption.  Local governments typically set short time limits -- some as short as ninety days -- in which to make claims, and those attenuated limits are consistently upheld.

Congress should approve such a statute for actions challenging the existence of religious symbols on federal land -- say, one year -- after which time an action would be barred by the passage of time.  This would establish an expiration date on actions like that in Flathead Valley.

The structure of judicial decision making is deliberately slow and the courts' commitment to the doctrine of stare decisis, very strong.  (Stare decisis is that doctrine that obligates courts to respect the decisions of previous tribunals.  Major changes in judicial doctrine do not occur unless demanded by overwhelming historical circumstance.)  The structural impediments of the judicial process provide salutary stability to American society. But they also make constitutional interpretation painfully slow.  It is unlikely that even the present Supreme Court, populated as it is by sound original intent thinkers, will overrule Everson or its progeny and reestablish the intent of the Founders.

So, short term, the attack on religion in the public square by the secular left will go on unless Congress short circuits the process by shortened time limitations and jurisdictional restrictions.  Perhaps an enterprising or ambitious member of Congress could be persuaded to pursue a clarifying constitutional amendment that would provide a more comprehensive solution by more carefully defining the extent of the power of the Establishment Clause.  But that is a long and painful process; one not likely to enjoy sufficient immediacy to provide staying power to its sponsors.

For the time being, legislative reform can get us more than halfway there and vigorous resistance to judicial depredation can chip away at the wall of separation erected, by fiat, sixty-five years ago.  Since that time, Americans have stood helplessly by as courts systematically dismantled cherished traditions.  We can stop them if we will but use the tools the Founders provided.  The time has come for us to be about our forefathers' business.

Obama Has United the World…in Opposition to Bad U.S. Tax Policy

 
• Daniel J. Mitchell 

• Last year, I came up with a saying that “Bad Government Policy Begets More Bad Government Policy” and labeled it “Mitchell’s Law” during a bout of narcissism.
  There are lots of examples of this phenomenon, such as themisguided War on Drugs being a precursor to intrusive, costly, and ineffective money laundering policies.
  Or how about government healthcare subsidies driving up the price of healthcare, which then leads politicians to decide that there should be even more subsidies because healthcare has become more expensive.
  But if you want a really stark example of Mitchell’s Law, the internal revenue code is littered with examples.
  The politicians created a nightmarishly complex tax system, for instance, and then decided that enforcing the wretched system required the erosion of civil liberties and constitutional freedoms.
  The latest example of this process involves the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, a piece of legislation that was imposed in 2010 because politicians assumed they could collect lots of tax revenue every single year by getting money from so-called tax havens.
  This FATCA law basically imposes a huge regulatory burden on all companies that have international transactions involving the United States, and all foreign financial institutions that want to invest in the United States. It is such a disaster that even the New York Times has taken notice, recently reporting that:

  …the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or Fatca, as it is known, is now causing alarm among businesses outside the United States that fear they will have to spend billions of dollars a year to meet the greatly increased reporting burdens, starting in 2013. American expatriates also say the new filing demands are daunting and overblown. …The law demands that virtually every financial firm outside the United States and any foreign company in which Americans are beneficial owners must register with the Internal Revenue Service, check existing accounts in search of Americans and annually declare their compliance. Noncompliance would be punished with a withholding charge of up to 30 percent on any income and capital payments the company gets from the United States. …The I.R.S., under pressure from angry and confused financial officials abroad, has extended the deadline for registration until June 30, 2013, and is struggling to provide more detailed guidance by the end of this year. But beginning in 2012, many American expatriates — already the only developed-nation citizens subject to double taxation from their home government — must furnish the I.R.S. with detailed personal information on their overseas assets. …He said his sense was that Fatca required companies “to prove your innocence.” …Then there is a question of reciprocity: Would the United States accept the same demands for information from the tax authorities in other countries — say Russia or China?

  It’s worth noting at this point that FATCA only exists because of bad tax law. If the United States had asimple and fair flat tax, there would be no double taxation of income that is saved and invested. As such, the IRS wouldn’t have any reason to care whether Americans had bank accounts and/or investments in places such as London, Hong Kong, and Panama.
  But as is so often the case with politicians, they choose not to fix bad policy and instead decide to impose one bad policy on top of another. Hence, the crowd in Washington enacting FATCA and sending the IRS on a jihad.
  By the way, the New York Times was late to the party. Many other news outlets already have noticed that the United States is about to suffer a big self-inflicted economic wound.
  Indeed, what’s remarkable about Obama’s FATCA policy is that the world is now united. But it’s not united for something big and noble, such as peace, commerce, prosperity, or human rights. Instead, it’s united in opposition to intrusive, misguided, and foolish American tax law.
  Let’s look at some examples.

  o From the United Kingdom, a Financial Times column warns that, “This summer, the senior management of one of Asia’s largest financial groups is quietly mulling a potentially explosive question: could it organise some of its subsidiaries so that they could stop handling all US Treasury bonds? …what is worrying this particular Asian financial group is…a new law called the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act…the new rules leave some financial officials fuming in places such as Australia, Canada, Germany, Hong Kong and Singapore. Little wonder. Never mind the fact that implementing these measures is likely to be costly. …Hence the fact that some non-US asset managers and banking groups are debating whether they could simply ignore Fatca by creating subsidiaries that never touch US assets at all. “This is complete madness for the US – America needs global investors to buy its bonds,” fumes one bank manager. “But not holding US assets might turn out to be the easiest thing for us to do.”

  o From India, the Economic Times reports that, “FATCA, or the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, will require overseas banks to report U.S. clients to the Internal Revenue Service, but its loose definition of who is a U.S. citizen will create a huge administrative burden and could push non-residents to slash their U.S. exposure, some bankers say. …Bankers say the scheme will be extremely costly to implement, and some say that as the legislation stands, any bank with a client judged to be a U.S. citizen will be also obliged to supply documentation on all other clients. “FATCA will cost 10 times to the banks than it will generate for the IRS. It is going to be extremely complicated,” said Yves Mirabaud, managing partner at Mirabaud & Cie and Swiss Bankers Association board member.”

  o Discussing the impact in Canada, Reuters notes, “The new regulation has drawn criticism from the world’s banks and business people about its reach and costs. ..”Hundreds of millions of dollars spent on developing compliance processes to target Canadian citizens would not be a useful exercise, and they are, for the most part, people who actually have no tax liabilities because they do not earn income in the United States,” [Canadian Finance Minister] Flaherty said.”

  o A Taiwan news outlet said, “Taiwan’s domestic banks will reportedly reduce holdings of American bonds worth an estimated NT$100 billion (US$3.33 billion) due to the U.S. government’s recent decision to impose 30% tax on foreign-investment income in U.S. securities as bonds. Taiwan’s eight government-linked banks reportedly hold U.S. financial products worth over US$2 billion… On April 8, 2011, the U.S. government issued a notice advising foreign financial institutions to meet certain obligations under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), under which foreign financial institutions are subject to complex reporting rules related to their U.S. accounts.”

  o From the Persian Gulf, the Bahrain Daily News noted, “A US law…has drawn the criticism of the world’s banks and business people, who dismiss it as imperialist and “the neutron bomb of the global financial system.” The unusually broad regulation, known as FATCA, or the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, makes the world’s financial institutions something of an extension of the tax-collecting Internal Revenue Service – something no other country does for its tax regime. …Even the European Commission has objected, and experts say other countries may create their own FATCA-style regimes for US banks or withdraw from US capital markets. In a barrage of letters to the Treasury, IRS and Congress, opponents from Australia to Switzerland to Hong Kong assail FATCA’s application to a broad swath of institutions and entities.”

  o A story from Singapore finds, “For many years, thousands of foreign investors have put their money into American shares or other investments. Now, however, a somewhat obscure law called the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) may make investments in the United States for everyone, from billionaires to the man on the street, here in Singapore far less attractive. …some banks or investment managers may advise customers not to invest in the US. … “private bankers are publicly advising their clients to clear their portfolios of all US securities”. A fund manager here told me his company is also advising clients to avoid US investments, and other companies may similarly start telling large clients as well as smaller ones the same story. Investors could then see recommendations not to invest in the US, and they may put their money elsewhere. …As consulting firm PwC said, “some institutions could decide that complying with the due diligence and verification provisions may not be cost effective” so they may stop making investments in the US. Banks or other asset managers may similarly decide it is easier not to offer US investments than to try and comply with the FATCA.”

  o From Switzerland, a story “about the backlash from United States expats and the financial sector to the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA)” reports that, “Growing numbers of American expatriates are renouncing their US citizenship over a controversial new tax law and ever more burdensome fiscal and reporting obligations. …banks and business people who are supposed to enforce it on behalf of the US tax man are worried about its costly administrative burden… it’s just too expensive. The consequence will be that they cut out US clients and stop investing in the US. …Three or four years ago no one talked about renouncing nationality – now it’s an open discussion. That’s a major shift in mentality.

  o Writing about the reaction from Europe, one columnist noted, “FATCA encourages foreign financial institutions to limit their exposure to U.S. assets. In a joint letter to the Treasury and the IRS, the European Banking Federation and the Institute of International Bankers, which together represent most of the non-U.S. banks and securities firms that would be affected by FATCA, warned that “many [foreign financial institutions], particularly smaller ones or those with minimal U.S. investments or U.S. customers, will opt out of U.S. securities rather than enter into a direct contractual agreement with a foreign tax authority (the IRS) that imposes substantial new obligations and the significant reputational, regulatory, and financial risks of potentially failing those obligations.” A widespread divestment of U.S. securities by institutions seeking to avoid the burdens of FATCA could have real and harmful effects on the U.S. economy.”

  These press excerpts help demonstrate the costs of FATCA, but what about the benefits? After all, maybe the law will lead to lots of good results that offset the high regulatory costs and lost investment for the American economy.
  Well, the only “benefit” anybody had identified is that FATCA will transfer more money from the productive sector of the economy to the government. Indeed, Obama argued during the 2008 campaign that cracking down on “tax havens” with proposals such as FATCA would give politicians lots of additional money to spend.
  But when the legislation was approved in 2010, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the new law would raise only $8.7 billion over 10 years, not the $100 billion that Obama claimed could be collected every single year. This video has some of the damning details.
  One final point demands attention.
  While it appears that the rest of the world is against FATCA, that’s not completely true. Some international bureaucrats in Paris, funded by American tax dollars, actually want the rest of the world to adopt the same Orwellian system. Here’s a blurb from the New York Times story.

  Jeffrey Owens, a tax expert at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, said catching tax evaders was “a concern that many member countries share.” If countries could agree to new global reporting standards for exchanging information, he said, then “maybe there’s a way forward.”

  In other words, the pinhead bureaucrats at the OECD think FATCA’s such a swell idea that they want to create a global network of tax police. So not only would America erode the sovereignty of other nations because of our bad tax law, but those other nations would be able to impose their bad tax law on income earned in America!
  And just in case you think that’s just irresponsible demagoguery, it’s already beginning to happen. Check out this IRS regulation, proposed by the Obama Administration, that would require American banks to put foreign law above American law.

European Health Care: Economic Malpractice

By Hugh de Payns

Any reasonable person does not take satisfaction in the failure and destruction of another.  This is especially true when the other is innocent of any wrongdoing or lack of judgment.

Yet sometimes, epic failure can constructively serve as an example of what not to do.  If the individual states of our nation are a laboratory of democracy, then the states of Europe are the laboratory of socialism.  What we are witness to in Greece, and eventually in Spain, Italy, and possibly France, is the painful death of the welfare state. 

Credit markets are locking up all over the continent; meanwhile, trillions have been pumped into their banks in an effort to keep them afloat.  But their situation is so bad that they cannot even take the risk of making business loans.  Employment is shrinking, and tax revenues are falling.  Internally, the socialist cash-machine is running empty as other people's money dries up.  It is all happening just as reader of American Thinker foresaw.

The welfare state's demise, long inevitable, will be painful and ugly, and it will harshly impact the weakest and the most innocent of the population.  After all, the welfare state defies the laws of economics and the laws of mathematics.  Take notice as the liberal and socialist agitators and pundits shake their collectivized fists at the sky and curse the gods without any noticeable change.  The facts on the ground will do what they will, despite rhetoric or political pontifications coming from any quarter.

One of the first organs to fail is the socialized health care program.  No matter its stated merits, a serious and impactful socialized medicine program is simply too expensive for any state to long sustain.

For months prior to the passing of ObamaCare, we were told -- repeatedly -- how it would "bend the cost curve downward" and open up better health care for millions of Americans...all at the same time! 

The problem is that the pundits on the left at the time and still today don't even believe their own rhetoric.  In fact, they are either living in a fantasy land that never existed or simply lying.

Back in May 2010, bluegrasspundit made mention of the total hypocrisy of the left with regard to ObamaCare.

After shilling for ObamaCare for months, the New York Times is now telling Greece getting out of the health care marketplace would allow health care costs to come down. The hypocrisy of the left is simple astounding.

The NY Times also made mention of the total impossibility of it all.

Another reform high on the list is removing the state from the marketplace in crucial sectors like health care, transportation and energy and allowing private investment.

What is also important to make note of is that these socialized countries do not have the traditional bogeyman that leftists point their finger at: a revenue-hungry military.  The Greek military is small to the point of insignificance.  The same is true with Spain, Italy, and most others on the continent.  Their defensive needs were being functionally met and subsidized by the United States.

A recent article by the NY Times makes for overwhelming evidence of the disruption and pain this transformation causes to the innocent and the disadvantaged.  While the article is slanted politically, it is worth reading in its entirety; the reader must realize that this will happen in other European nations, and eventually here in the U.S. should we be so foolish as to follow their example.

At public hospitals, doctors report shortages of all kinds of supplies, from toilet paper to catheters to syringes. Computerized equipment has gone unrepaired and is no longer in use. Nurses are handling four times the patients they should, and wait times for operations -- even cancer surgeries -- have grown longer.

Access to drugs has also been affected, as some drug manufacturers, owed tens of millions of dollars, are no longer willing to supply Greek hospitals. At the same time pharmacists, afraid that the government might not reimburse them, are asking for cash payments, even from those with insurance.

Brick by brick, the edifice of socialized medicine is ruthlessly and forcefully being taken apart.

The lesson here is for our nation to rid ourselves of ObamaCare entirely before it becomes embedded into the fabric of society, because it too will be rooted out by the forces of economics.  It is easier to throw out the seed than uproot the plant, so the sooner this is done, the better.  Anything less is a form a gross medical malpractice.

"There are two places only where socialism will work; In Heaven, where it is not needed, and in Hell, where they already have it."  -Winston Churchill