• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

Just Another American Schooling Failure When Libbie Women Run the Teaching Show

This Embarrasses You and I*

Grammar Gaffes Invade the Office

in an Age of Informal Email, Texting and Twitter

from the Wall Street Journal…..sent by Mark Waldeland:

When Caren Berg told colleagues at a recent staff meeting, “There’s new people you should meet,” her boss Don Silver broke in, says Ms. Berg, a senior vice president at a Fort Lauderdale, Fla., marketing and crisis-communications company.

“I cringe every time I hear” people misuse “is” for “are,” Mr. Silver says. The company’s chief operations officer, Mr. Silver also hammers interns to stop peppering sentences with “like.” For years, he imposed a 25-cent fine on new hires for each offense. “I am losing the battle,” he says.

Employers say the grammar skills of people they hire are getting worse, a recent survey shows. But language is evolving so fast that old rules of usage are eroding. Sue Shellenbarger has details on Lunch Break. Illustration: John S. Dykes.

Managers are fighting an epidemic of grammar gaffes in the workplace. Many of them attribute slipping skills to the informality of email, texting and Twitter where slang and shortcuts are common. Such looseness with language can create bad impressions with clients, ruin marketing materials and cause communications errors, many managers say.

There’s no easy fix. Some bosses and co-workers step in to correct mistakes, while others consult business-grammar guides for help. In a survey conducted earlier this year, about 45% of 430 employers said they were increasing employee-training programs to improve employees’ grammar and other skills, according to the Society for Human Resource Management and AARP.

How’s Your Grammar?

Take a quiz to test your skills.

“I’m shocked at the rampant illiteracy” on Twitter, says Bryan A. Garner, author of “Garner’s Modern American Usage” and president of LawProse, a Dallas training and consulting firm. He has compiled a list of 30 examples of “uneducated English,” such as saying “I could care less,” instead of “I couldn’t care less,” or, “He expected Helen and I to help him,” instead of “Helen and me.”

Leslie Ferrier says she was aghast at letters employees were sending to customers at a Jersey City, N.J., hair- and skin-product marketer when she joined the firm in 2009. The letters included grammar and style mistakes and were written “as if they were speaking to a friend,” says Ms. Ferrier, a human-resources executive. She had employees use templates to eliminate mistakes and started training programs in business writing.

Most participants in the Society for Human Resource Management-AARP survey blame younger workers for the skills gap. Tamara Erickson, an author and consultant on generational issues, says the problem isn’t a lack of skill among 20- and 30-somethings. Accustomed to texting and social networking, “they’ve developed a new norm,” Ms. Erickson says.


At RescueTime, for example, grammar rules have never come up. At the Seattle-based maker of personal-productivity software, most employees are in their 30s. Sincerity and clarity expressed in “140 characters and sound bytes” are seen as hallmarks of good communication—not “the king’s grammar,” says Jason Grimes, 38, vice president of product marketing. “Those who can be sincere, and still text and Twitter and communicate on Facebook—those are the ones who are going to succeed.”

Also, some grammar rules aren’t clear, leaving plenty of room for disagreement. Tom Kamenick battled fellow attorneys at a Milwaukee, Wis., public-interest law firm over use of “the Oxford comma”—an additional comma placed before the “and” or “or” in a series of nouns. Leaving it out can change the meaning of a sentence, Mr. Kamenick says: The sentence, “The greatest influences in my life are my sisters, Oprah Winfrey and Madonna,” means something different from the sentence, “The greatest influences in my life are my sisters, Oprah Winfrey, and Madonna,” he says. (The first sentence implies the writer has two celebrity sisters; the second says the sisters and the stars are different individuals.) After Mr. Kamenick asserted in digital edits of briefs and papers that “I was willing to go to war on that one,” he says, colleagues backed down, either because they were convinced, or “for the sake of their own sanity and workplace decorum.”


Patricia T. O’Conner, author of a humorous guidebook for people who struggle with grammar, fields workplace disputes on a blog she cowrites, Grammarphobia. “These disagreements can get pretty contentious,” Ms. O’Conner says. One employee complained that his boss ordered him to make a memo read, “for John and I,” rather than the correct usage, “for John and me,” Ms. O’Conner says.

In workplace-training programs run by Jack Appleman, a Monroe, N.Y., corporate writing instructor, “people are banging the table,” yelling or high-fiving each other during grammar contests he stages, he says. “People get passionate about grammar,” says Mr. Appleman, author of a book on business writing.

Christopher Telano, chief internal auditor at the New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., has employees circulate their reports to co-workers to review for accuracy and grammar, he says. He coaches auditors to use action verbs such as “verify” and “confirm” and tells them to write below a 12th-grade reading level so it can be easily understood.

Mr. Garner, the usage expert, requires all job applicants at his nine-employee firm—including people who just want to pack boxes—to pass spelling and grammar tests before he will hire them. And he requires employees to have at least two other people copy-edit and make corrections to every important email and letter that goes out.

“Twenty-five years ago it was impossible to put your hands on something that hadn’t been professionally copy-edited,” Mr. Garner says. “Today, it is actually hard to put your hands on something that has been professionally copy-edited.”

Write to Sue Shellenbarger at sue.shellenbarger@wsj.com

Comment:   So they blame it on twitter and facebook.    Even at the Wall Street Journal!

Bull!    It is the price education, worse- society pays for living in a feminized world where feelings rather than structure and order overwhelm everything including learnings and common sense.

We live in Obamaland school neighborhoods,  where these lefties push for unilavatories and everything ‘equal’ (except for the Obamas who always take a bigger share of the pie…..and allow the human female to be more equal than anyone else in order to buy her vote.     The Left controls the schools which control the language, which control the culture..  

I shop at a slightly uppity super market and have so for more than 40 years.   There was a time when children ages three to twelve  didn’t grab the merchandise they didn’t have any intention of buying.   Since the American Institutional Left has elevated the human female to goddess levels over the past 35 years all that has changed.    And nowdays, so many American females have grown out of husbandland they almost always show up at  “Lunds” Super Market with a child or two with the little ones usually under age nine  grabbing this and that to play or cause attention.   And so what does one hear mama say nearly every visit?

“Jonnaleee, I’ve told you a hundred times not to touch things that don’t belong to you”….and indeed she most likely has asked a hunred times or more.  

No one is  listening to mama of “a hundred I told yous”.   Nor do these creatures seem to listen while at school when such lessons as learning proper   language usage  is taught.   Admittedly it probably isn’t as exciting and titillating as putting a condom on a banana as President Obama finds important for the first grade curriculum, but unlike condoms, learning ones language stays with a kid for the rest of his or her life if learned early and properly.

Properly would mean learning in a male environment as existed when I attended school.   Nearly all of my teachers, almost all of the very good ones, were old–maids.   Unlike  today’s tubbies, butches, and sloppily dressed labor-union armies  of the female sex, these old timers were in charge of the subjects they taught.   And so, they had something to teach….They loved what they taught and  they taught it well.

Thirty six kids in a classroom was standard……an no one dared to act out of place…..These perpetually age-50 year  old maids didn’t carry lugers beside their skirts.    There was no snake pit into which the ugly and profane could be dumped.  

No one dared to be ugly and profane!  It was all made very clear before anyone attended school!

The American male wss nearby…..the one who knew bull shit when he heard it and saw it, called it for what it was, and sent the brat home, to a misbehavior room, or out on his or her ear…….

Some of these ‘males’ were women.   The adult  was in charge and adult  standards were established by male thinking and behavior.   No one gave a damn about feelings.    Students had to learn their lessons.   That is what shcooling meant. 

No one of authority  in my entire school life  from kindergarten through two graduate degrees ever asked me how I felt!

How I felt  was my problem.      I was told I  should have been smart enough to stay home  if I weren’t feeling well……End of story.    Exam will be Thursday.   

I taught for 13 years from the early 1960s to the early seventies, the beginning of the Age of Chaos in the American public school.

So they blame student ignorance on twitter and facebook, these days?    What are the teachers teaching besides banana and women  studies with  beggings to get the students to Love Ms. Bechweldson or Bubba Jones.

Nearly all of language is constructed from  rational patterns.    Perhaps it was the guy in me, but braking down and building up language  was always like solving a picture puzzle or algebra problem.

How can you instruct others to build up or take apart language if none of the teachers have a clue about it?

Today’s American teachers at nearly all levels who have direct contact with students are semiliterate at best in nearly every field they teach.   How can they teach what they do not know?

If she…..and most of them are still she in the beginning school years and into middle school, doesn’t know the difference when to use LESS,  rather than FEWER,  how can she manage anything  beyond what can be counted on her fingers?    

We say “I have fewer dollars than JoAnne has to spend today.”    The intelligent and well educated don’t say “I have less dollars than JoAnne to spend today.”……unless they are Lefties who like to invent their own languages and meanings.

Why  don’t we  say “I have less dollars”…..or “I have fewer money”   Why is it we say “We need fewer  typewriters  than we used to”……rather than “we need less typewriters  than we used to.”

The literate know that less and fewer are not interchangeable words despite how the illiterate use them.

Test your teacher, kids.   Find out for yourself why they cannot teach much about the English language…..They weren’t taught it either.

(Thanks go to Mark Waldeland , for sending  me the above article.   Mark and I were teaching colleagues in a Minneapolis public high school more than 40 years ago…….when adutls were still in charge, but not for long.

But, Our Vote Needs Protection……especially from Obama’s true-believer Marxixts, Illegals and the Dead

Dan McGrath: Voter ID —

opponents underestimate the problem,

 overestimate the cost

By Dan McGrath
Posted:   06/13/2012 12:01:00 AM CDT


 As Ramsey County elections manager, Joe Mansky is responsible for overseeing the tally of votes for Ramsey County. That’s why it’s concerning that Mr. Mansky has been using his position of public trust to campaign against the Voter ID constitutional amendment and spread misinformation about it. Can we trust him to fairly count votes on the amendment when he’s created a public conflict of interest? Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has put himself in the same boat.

In a report posted on TwinCities.com June 12, Pioneer Press reporter Fred Melo wrote that over the past six years, 123 people who were not eligible to vote landed on the voter rolls in Ramsey County. Incorrect. That’s how many were charged, and 114 of them were convicted. Most of the ineligible voters who registered and voted illegally in Ramsey County were never charged. Only those who could be proved to have knowingly violated the law were convicted.

From the 2008 election alone there were at least 215 convicted felons who voted illegally in Ramsey County and, overall, more people were convicted for voter fraud after Minnesota’s 2008 election than in any other state in the last 50 years.

Mansky reportedly told the Ramsey County board that the Voter ID amendment could cost Ramsey County as much as $1.7 million per biennium and cities could pay $200,000 — based upon what? Mansky doesn’t write the election laws. The only expense referenced in the amendment is explicitly borne by state government.

He said the county would “likely” have to pick up the cost of distributing free IDs. Again, based upon what? The constitutional amendment language is explicit that the state must provide photo identification at no charge. Cities and counties aren’t mentioned. Does the county currently pay for distribution of state-issued ID? No. That’s handled by the Department of Public Safety, a state agency. There is no basis whatsoever for Mansky to assume that would change, especially when the amendment language is explicit that the state will pay for free IDs.

Ramsey County commissioners Jim McDonough and Toni Carter were right to caution against the spread of disinformation based on assumptions and guesswork. Let’s hope Mr. Mansky heeds that advice.

In legislative committee hearings on the amendment, Mansky testified that each polling place would need two additional election judges to handle new provisional ballots required by federal law and a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court for Voter ID states. Based upon what? Indiana, a state with a similar voting population to Minnesota and the strictest Voter ID law in the country, had fewer than 4,000 provisional ballots cast in the high-turnout 2008 election. Superimpose that figure on Minnesota and it amounts to an average of less than one provisional ballot per precinct. Two new judges working 14 hours to deal with maybe one provisional ballot?

One can start to see how Mr. Mansky comes up with some of his figures. I think even the career bureaucrats in Ramsey County can spend taxpayer money more efficiently than that.

Dan McGrath is the chairman of ProtectMyVote.com, whose website describes it as “a ballot question committee registered with the Minnesota Campaign Finance Board” and says, “Our mission is to pass the Minnesota Voter ID Amendment in the November 2012 general election. We believe Voter ID can go a long way to improving the integrity of Minnesota’s election system.”

Comment:   It is the religion of the loony left…..the strident Obamaman…who  is leading the cause of Equality righteousness to free us from our Christian past and its stupidities of preaching goodness over evil.

There is no evil except the sin of political, religious  and cultural opposition to Obama and his fellow travelers who preach entitlement rights at schools and universities.   Tax the worker and enrich the indolent who vote Left……the new ethos in modern America.

America’s Grease…..the Passage of the Obama-Roberts Obamacare Bill

by John Hinderaker in Liberals, Obamacare, Supreme Court

Speaking of Illegitimacy…

by John Hinderaker    at   PowerLine:

“So, is the Supreme Court legitimate again? Evidently so, as those who fretted about the Court sliding into the abyss are happy with this particular 5-4 decision. But, as Glenn Reynolds reminds us, the real issue of legitimacy posed by Obamacare relates to the executive and legislative branches:

With the focus on the Supreme Court’s opinion, it’s easy to forget the sleazy way that Obamacare was passed. But the Supreme Court itself points out one key aspect. Though President Obama pooh-poohed the idea that the mandate was a tax, the Supreme Court found that, in fact, it was. …

Obama had to reject [the] notion [that the mandate was a tax], since otherwise Obamacare’s tax increase would have represented a massive middle-class tax increase indeed, and one that violated his promise that families earning less than $250,000 a year would see no tax increases of any kind under his plan. Now the Supreme Court has basically said he lied.

Of course, that’s not the only broken promise from Obamacare’s passage. Obama also promised that if you liked your existing health insurance policy, you’d get to keep it — something that quickly turned out to be false, as the changes mandated under the health care law led to severe cuts in coverage, or even cancellation of coverage, by insurers.

And if the executive branch’s treatment of Obamacare was characterized by lies, the legislative branch didn’t look any better. Obamacare, remember, was rammed through in the teeth of popular opposition; when the special election victory of Scott Brown meant that Democrats no longer had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, the bill was squeezed through via a “reconciliation” procedure under the fiction that it was a budget bill, not substantive legislation. …

So, at the end of the day, the legitimacy question rests not with the Supreme Court, but with Congress and the president.

So far, the returns are not good. A Rasmussen poll last week showed only 22 percent of Americans think our present government enjoys the “consent of the governed” — the Framers’ standard for legitimacy.

Maybe the Dems can convince that Congress is legitimate by joining in a bipartisan effort to repeal Obamacare.”

Funding the Obama-Roberts Obamacare Bill by Breaking the American Bank

Who will pay the ObamaCare uninsured tax?

by Keith Hennessy:

Now that the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, who will pay the tax for not having health insurance?

CBO answered this in April 2010. They projected that in 2016, when the mandate is in effect and the tax is fully phased in, there will still be 21 million uninsured people.  This belies the advertised “universal coverage” label.

Oversimplifying a bit, for most people the tax in 2016 will be $750 per adult and $375 per kid.

But while 21 million people will be uninsured, CBO said “the majority of them will not be subject to penalty.” That’s an understatement.

You won’t have to pay the tax if:

  • you’re not in the U.S. legally;
  • you’re in prison;
  • you’re poor (measured two different ways);
  • you’re a member of an Indian tribe;
  • you’re in a period of being uninsured that’s less than three months long;
  • your religion forbids getting health insurance; or
  • you get a waiver from HHS.

Given HHS’ behavior in handing out waivers since the law was enacted, this waiver authority bears further observation and scrutiny.

In addition, some who are legally required to pay the tax will not do so.  CBO/JCT therefore assumes a certain amount of noncompliance (aka cheating).

This gets CBO’s 21 million uninsured in 2016 down dramatically to 3.9 million who will be both uninsured and pay the tax.  Total U.S. population in 2016 will be about 327 million. This means that, in 2016:

  • almost 94 out of every 100 people will have health insurance in some form;
  • five out of every 100 will be uninsured and pay no tax;
  • a bit more than one out of every 100 will be uninsured and pay a tax to the government.

If I’m that one person out of 100, I’m going to be pretty ticked off at those five.  All six of us are uninsured but I’m the only one of the six who has to pay higher taxes.

CBO also estimated the income levels of those 3.9 million uninsured who will pay higher taxes.  More than 3/4 of them are not rich.

Income relative to
federal poverty line
# of people
paying tax 
Income range
Income range
(family of 4)
Below poverty 400,000 $0 – 11,800 $0 – 24,000
100% to 200% 600,000 $11,800 – 23,600 $24K – $48K
200% to 300% 800,000 $23,600 – 35,400 $48K – $72K
300% – 400% 700,000 $35,400 – 47,200 $72K – $96K
400% – 500% 500,000 $47,200 – 59,000 $96K – $120K
> 500% 900,000 > $59,000 >$120K
Total 3,900,000    


Reading the first line of this table, CBO says that under this law in 2016 there will be 400,000 people below the poverty line who will be uninsured and pay the tax. (More will be required to do so — this is the number who will comply with the law.) Singles in that income range will have annual income less than $11,800, and families of four in that range will have annual income less than $24,000.  These are 400,000 poor uninsured people who will be forced to pay higher taxes.

Similarly, if we add up the rows up to 500% of poverty, we see that under this law there will, in 2016, be three million people with incomes less than $59,000 (singles) or $120,000 (families of four) who will be uninsured and have to pay the tax. These three million people are not rich, they will be uninsured, and they will be required to pay higher taxes. The tax increases on these people, as well as some fraction of those in the “>500%” category, clearly violate the President’s pledge not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250K.

Jim Capretta points out that these estimates may be low. In 2010 CBO assumed a mandate enforced by a penalty for noncompliance.  Before today’s ruling, the law created both a legal and a moral obligation to buy health insurance. If you didn’t buy insurance, you would be violating the law and have to pay a penalty to the IRS.  Some people would buy health insurance even though financially it would make more sense for them to just pay the penalty, because they didn’t want to be perceived as breaking the law and paying a penalty.

Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion converts the mandate+penalty into a “pay or play” choice model by turning the penalty into a tax you can choose to pay, without moral opprobrium, rather than buying health insurance.  By removing the “should” implication of the mandate, the Roberts opinion should increase CBO’s estimate of how many people will go uninsured and pay the tax instead.

It is how Lefty you can present yourself to be which determines Justice in the Obama Courts today.

Looking In: Marriage views not off-limits for businesses
The New Mexican
article sent by Mark Waldeland:
Santa Fe hairdresser Antonio Darden decided he can no longer in good conscience cut the hair of Gov. Susana Martinez because she does not support redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. In order to operate his business according to his beliefs and make a public statement against the governor’s position on marriage, he is refusing to offer his services to her. Many admire Darden for his courage. 

Suppose Gov. Martinez were to feel insulted or hurt by Darden’s actions and decided to file a discrimination complaint against him. Then suppose state officials find “probable cause” that Darden violated New Mexico’s anti-discrimination law, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission orders him to stand trial. 

While on the witness stand, suppose Darden endures the withering cross-examination by the governor’s attorney while he calmly explains that his business is an expression of who he is and that he could not in good conscience cut the hair of a governor that declines to redefine marriage. 

Suppose that Darden’s attorney explains how the First Amendment protects Darden’s actions, but the commission harshly rejects that argument and says Darden surrendered that right when he became a commercial hairstylist. 

Imagine the commission demeaning Darden as a mere dispenser of services who must dispense haircuts as a gumball machine dispenses gum when someone puts in money. Then suppose the commission finds Darden guilty of discrimination and orders him to pay the governor $6,600 in attorneys’ fees. 

Many would be outraged by such a misuse of anti-discrimination laws to punish someone with views different from the governor’s. 

Well, it turns out that the commission has already done exactly that — only not to Darden, but to another small business, Elane Photography, run by a young husband and wife from Albuquerque. 

Their business received an email from a woman in a same-sex relationship inquiring about prices for shooting her and her partner’s “commitment ceremony” in Taos. The photographer knew that she could not in good conscience use her artistic skills to photograph a ceremony that communicated support for redefining marriage. Although the same-sex couple found another photographer for their ceremony, one of the partners filed a discrimination complaint with the state, subjecting the owners to a trial before the Human Rights Commission. 

The owners explained that they tried to operate their business according to their higher principles, including those on marriage. The commission rejected their First Amendment defenses, found the company guilty, and ordered it to pay $6,600 in attorneys’ fees. The case is now on appeal and awaiting a decision by the New Mexico Court of Appeals. 

Both Darden and Elane Photography have the right to decline to provide services to people with whom they disagree about what marriage truly is. I don’t think many would accuse Darden of bigotry and discrimination against Gov. Martinez, and they shouldn’t level that same accusation against Elane Photography either. 

Even though cutting hair has little to do with the definition of marriage, many would admire Darden’s act of courage and conscience. People should view Elane Photography’s case the same way. 

We should encourage business owners to operate their businesses with ethics and higher principles so that they do not mindlessly dispense goods and services with no thought to the impact of their actions. The Constitution protects people’s expression of their views, even when it comes in a commercial context. 

Business owners do not surrender their constitutionally protected rights at the marketplace gate. Although Antonio Darden and Elane Photography disagree on the definition of marriage, both should have their rights protected to operate their businesses within the protections of the First Amendment. 

Jordan Lorence is senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (www.telladf.org), which is defending Elane Photography in court. 

Will Breaking the American Bank Matter to Marxist Obama? Won’t that be a Plus?

Jenkins: ObamaCare—Upheld and Doomed


Regardless of the Supreme Court, fiscal reality will prevail.


Fans of ObamaCare must be busting a gut three times over. The mandate that conservatives now hate was originally a conservative proposal. In upholding it, Chief Justice John Roberts followed President Obama’s Rose Garden instructions to the letter: The Court must find an act constitutional if it happens to be the signature act of a president running for re-election.Worse, in doing so, he may have read any constitutional limit on Congress out of the Constitution while pretending to do the opposite. Congress cannot compel you to do anything Congress wishes, but it can impose taxes on you until you finally have no rational alternative but to do whatever Congress wishes.History will judge whether Mr. Roberts saved the reputation of the court or lost his nerve. Many conservatives obviously suspect the latter. Resolved: The government cannot make you eat broccoli, though it may levy a non-broccoli-eating tax on any who refuse.

The Supreme Court in Washington

Yet he may also think—and would not be wrong to think—that ObamaCare is doomed in any case. His opinion makes clearer than ever that ObamaCare is a tax program—throwing more tax dollars at an unreformed health-care system. ObamaCare is a huge new entitlement in a nation laboring under commitments it already can’t afford. Those who gripe that he just authorized a vast expansion of the welfare state haven’t reckoned with this fiscal reality principle.What’s more—and save us your constitutional brickbats—the mandate’s survival could actually be a convenience to those who remain seriously interested in fixing health care.GOPers, including Mitt Romney, immediately adopted “repeal” as their mantra. But repealing ObamaCare would just leave us with the health-care system we have, which is already ObamaCare in many respects—an unsustainable set of subsidies bankrupting the nation.The solution is a tweak. Republicans already are lip-committed to a national health-insurance charter that allows insurers to design their own policies and market them across state lines. Republicans are also lip-committed to a tax reform to equalize the tax treatment of health care whether purchased by individuals or by employers on behalf of individuals.Now just modify the Affordable Care Act so buying any health policy authorized by the new charter, no matter how minimalist, satisfies the employer and individual mandate.What would follow is a boom in low-cost, high-deductible plans that leave individuals in charge of managing most of their ordinary health-care costs out of pocket. Because it would be cheap, millions who would opt not to buy coverage will buy coverage. Because it will be cheap, companies will direct their low-wage and entry-level employees to this coverage.Now these workers will be covered for serious illness or injury, getting the rest of us off the hook. As they grow older, wealthier and start families, they will choose more extensive but still rationally limited coverage. Meanwhile, the giant subsidies ObamaCare would dish out to help the middle class afford ObamaCare’s gold-plated mandatory coverage would be unneeded.With consumers shouldering a bigger share of health expenses directly, hospital and doctors would discover the advantages of competing on price and quality. This way lies salvation. In the long run, whatever share of GDP society decides to allocate to health care, it will get its money’s worth—the fundamental problem today.Perhaps a not-discreditable sense of the political moment lies behind the chief justice’s opinion after all. The court’s job, he wrote, is not to “protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”He may have meant: The chief justice’s job is to get the court out of the way while the body politic still remains suspended between recognizing the unsustainabilty of the current welfare model and deciding what to do about it.This was always the fatal problem of ObamaCare. Reality could not have instructed President Obama more plainly: The last thing we needed, in a country staggering under deficits and debt, a sluggish economy and an unaffordable entitlement structure, was a new Rube Goldberg entitlement. The last thing we needed was ObamaCare. The nation and the times were asking Mr. Obama to reform health care, not to double-down on everything wrong with the current system.Even with this week’s Court success, he failed—and it’s not as if there wasn’t a deep well of policy understanding in Washington that he could have drawn on to take the country in a better direction. Regardless of any Supreme Court ruling, reality will pass its own judgment on the Affordable Care Act and it won’t be favorable.A version of this article appeared June 30, 2012, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: ObamaCare: Upheld and Doomed.