The Dallas Cowboys used to be called "America's team", a term which few still use. There remains, however, quite a number of national symbols. One is "America's Idiot", which is clearly the best description for New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. Paul is at it again with a column about the "typo" that could bring down Obamacare. It never fails to amaze me just how wrong Krugman gets things while at the same time being absolutely sure he is correct.
The subject of Krugman's typo column is the Supreme Court's decision to take the appeal of the case deciding if subsidies are available to those who buy health insurance on the federal exchange rather than one created by a state. For Krugman, this distinction is just a typo, an inadvertent mistake made by Congress when passing the law. Despite the clear language, Krugman is sure that Congress meant to include the federal exchange in the coverage of the subsidy language.
Now it is true that Krugman knows a great deal about international trade. He won a Nobel Prize in economics for his work in that area. Krugman, however, thinks that he knows everything about everything. The reality, of course, is something quite different. Let's consider what Krugman knows about law. First of all, the Supreme Court will never decide that the language in the Obamacare statute is a typo. That is certain! In the prior arguments and appeals in the case before the Court, neither side ever claimed that the language was there by mistake. The Supreme Court will not even consider arguments that were not made in the court below. And there is a good reason why the government never argued that the language was there by mistake. Established legal doctrines make clear that in the event that a statute has language in it by mistake, that mistake is to be corrected by Congress and not the Court. The courts are constrained to enforce the statutes as written; they do not determine whether or not Congress made a mistake. On top of this, there is the problem for Krugman and his argument that one of the main drafters of the Obamacare statute has already said that the language used in the relevant section of the law was quite intentional. It was intended to provide an incentive for individual states to create their own exchanges.
I really do not know why the Times continues to let Krugman write a column. It's just embarrassing.
The subject of Krugman's typo column is the Supreme Court's decision to take the appeal of the case deciding if subsidies are available to those who buy health insurance on the federal exchange rather than one created by a state. For Krugman, this distinction is just a typo, an inadvertent mistake made by Congress when passing the law. Despite the clear language, Krugman is sure that Congress meant to include the federal exchange in the coverage of the subsidy language.
Now it is true that Krugman knows a great deal about international trade. He won a Nobel Prize in economics for his work in that area. Krugman, however, thinks that he knows everything about everything. The reality, of course, is something quite different. Let's consider what Krugman knows about law. First of all, the Supreme Court will never decide that the language in the Obamacare statute is a typo. That is certain! In the prior arguments and appeals in the case before the Court, neither side ever claimed that the language was there by mistake. The Supreme Court will not even consider arguments that were not made in the court below. And there is a good reason why the government never argued that the language was there by mistake. Established legal doctrines make clear that in the event that a statute has language in it by mistake, that mistake is to be corrected by Congress and not the Court. The courts are constrained to enforce the statutes as written; they do not determine whether or not Congress made a mistake. On top of this, there is the problem for Krugman and his argument that one of the main drafters of the Obamacare statute has already said that the language used in the relevant section of the law was quite intentional. It was intended to provide an incentive for individual states to create their own exchanges.
I really do not know why the Times continues to let Krugman write a column. It's just embarrassing.
No comments:
Post a Comment