- Jan 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Feb 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28
- Mar 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–31
- Apr 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–30
- May 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30 31
- Jun 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–30
- Jul 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
- Aug 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
- Sep 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–30
- Oct 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Nov 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–30
- Dec 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
Saturday, February 28, 2009
'Wolverines!'
Posted by on 2.28.09 @ 1:27PM
A dispute has arisen among some conservative bloggers about the wisdom and effectiveness of the Tea Party protests against the stimulus. Endeavoring to referee or reconcile the dispute, I have some thoughts on collaborationist propaganda and guerrilla resistance.
Friday, February 27, 2009
The CPAC Idea-Shortage
Posted by on 2.27.09 @ 3:47PM
I've been wandering around CPAC today, and I have to say I find a lot of it rather depressing. There's a whole lot of talk about strategy and getting the message out (especially through Twitter and Facebook), but surprisingly little about what the message ought to be. It hasn't always been like this; in past years there have been heated policy debates at CPAC over issues that divide the right, like drugs and immigration. There's a foreign policy panel later today that promises some friction, but that's about it. The right needs to be hashing out its policy ideas if its going to be politically relevant again in the post-Bush era. I would have thought this would be obvious, but apparently it isn't.
Young Conservatives: 'It's Our Turn'
Posted by on 2.27.09 @ 2:38PM
(BUMPED; UPDATED BELOW) "The Democrats think you are stupid," Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) told the under-40 crowd at CPAC brought together by the Young Conservatives Coalition. DeMint marveled that so many young people supported Barack Obama in 2008, given that they will get the bill for the Democrats' massive deficit spending.
The YCC is a new group founded by a network of young DC-area activists, and describes itself as "an advocacy organization dedicated to leading the next generation of the conservative movement." At today's even in the Omni Shoreham Hotel's Palladian room, YCC distributed orange-and-black stickers with their motto, "It's Our Turn."
"People under the age of 40 are stepping up to leadership," YCC President Christopher Maligisi told the crowd.
Grassroots activism is vital to the supporting conservatives in Congress, DeMint said. "Thank you for what you're doing," he said. "We have no chance at all without you."
In a brief interview following his YCC speech, DeMint -- who opposed President Bush's attempts enact amnesty for illegal aliens -- said he expects Democrats to push the immigration issue. "I'm sure we're going to have that fight again," he said.
UPDATE 2:38 p.m.: Exclusive video interview with Christopher Maligisi:
Pence's CPAC speech
Posted by on 2.27.09 @ 2:14PM
Once I figure out how to embed the video, I'll post the video directly here, but for now, use this link to to see Rep. Mike Pence's superb speech to CPAC yesterday. Now THIS is a leader we can believe in.
Budget to bankrupt
Posted by on 2.27.09 @ 1:52PM
Lost in the din of a minor furor over President Obama's massive "global warming" tax -- "minor" because it, too, is lost ever further within the proposal's host of wealth transfers and social engineering -- is that Obama is on record telling us why he's doing this.
As was well-covered at the time [CORRECTION: this actually was never mentioned by the Chronicle, nor anyone else until a sharp eye caught it months later, at which point it garnered brief if in certain quarters furious attention] and yet which has slipped into the recesses of our minds so quickly, subsumed by a tsunami of other outrages, in a January 17, 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle Senator Obama said that "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket" under his plan to fight global warming. He also said that under his plan, "if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them."
Watch him say it himself, then pass it along to remind our friends in the cheerleading establishment press corps.
There's no doubt that -- in addition to hugely taxing your energy in the name of essentially funding Loch Ness Monster Insurance, but really to pay for a new welfare entitlement -- this budget is designed to bankrupt coal and anyone who seeks to burn it by causing your energy prices to skyrocket. According to its author.
Fortunately electricity comes from the wall, so there's no doubt also a program in this monstrosity to purchase power strips for everyone, doubling our supply overnight.
The Book Burning, Anti-Thrift Law
Posted by on 2.27.09 @ 1:28PM
Conservatives need to really get up in arms about the continuing fallout from the terrible anti-lead law that went into effect earlier this month. The Examiner editorializes on it here. And the single best place to track all its devastation is at Walter Olson's Overlawyered. Bookstore owners are literally destroying old children's books while thrift shops go out of business, motor scooter makers stop doing business in the US, and charities stop fundriasers that finance their rehabilitation services. This is serious stuff. And awful stuff.
Mr. Wilders Comes To Washington
Posted by on 2.27.09 @ 12:31PM
Geert Wilders, the Dutch parliamentarian/filmmaker who is facing prosecution in the Netherlands and constant death threats for his criticism of Islam, spoke at the National Press Club today and took questions after a screening of his documentary Fitna.
Wilders, who was denied entry to the United Kingdom earlier this month because of his statements about Islam, has been touring the U.S. all week, with stops in Boston, New York City, and Washington. Yesterday, he screened his film in the U.S. Senate at the invitation of Sen. Jon Kyl, and he also met with John Bolton after the former U.N. ambassador's speech at CPAC.
In remarks at the Press Club this morning, Wilders said that his case was just a part of the broader struggle between Islamic radicalism and the West. Islamists, he said, use hate speech codes to silence criticism of Islam even while they themselves preach hate.
"They can say whatever they want, 'throw gays from apartment buildings, kill Jews, slaughter the infidel, destroy Israel, jihad against the West,' whatever their book tells them," Wilders said. "Ladies and gentleman, make no mistake, my prosecution is a full-fledged attack by the Left on the freedom of speech in order to appease Muslims."
The major culprit in all of this is the dominance of cultural relativism in Europe, according to Wilders.
"Cultural relativism is a serious and the most dangerous disease in Europe today," he said. "Most of our politicians in Europe believe that all cultures are equal. Well let me tell you, they are not. Our Western culture, based on Christianity, on Judaism, on Humanism, is in every aspect better than the Islamic culture."
He compared the struggle against Islamic ideology to the Cold War, and suggested the West needed to face up to reality, as Ronald Reagan did when he called the Soviet Union an "evil empire."
"You cannot runaway from history, you cannot escape the dangers of the ideologies that are out to destroy you," he said. "Denial is not an option. Islam is the communism of today."
Wilders' 17-minute film (which you can watch in its entirety here), shows passages excerpted from the Koran, and intercuts them with hateful sermons from Imams and images of terrorist acts committed by Islamic extremists. He has come under fire for the film as well as for public statements critical of Islam. And his critics have attacked him as hypocritical for calling for a ban of the Koran.
In his defense, he said that this had to be viewed in the Dutch context, a country in which Mein Kampf was banned 20 years ago. His point, he said, is that if that was banned as hateful speech that incited violence, than a similar standard should be applied to the Koran.
Wilders has also proposed that the Netherlands stop accepting new immigrants from Muslim countries becuase of the affect that the explosion of their population has had on the country, and to deport those who commit crimes.
If convicted, he could face up to two years in jail, but he has enlisted a top lawyer in the Netherlands and said he was confident that he would triumph.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 2.27.09 @ 9:56AM
- George Will to crazed green bloggers: um, I actually have sources and I'm sticking to my story (Washington Post)
- Crazed war hawk Barack Obama to spend as much on the military as Dubya himself (Slate)
- One year later, reflecting on the loss of William F. Buckley (NRO)
- Apparently it's ok for the president to say whatever he wants whenever he wants (Econlog)
- Why is Obama throwing poor Geithner under the bus? (Market Movers)
- Time to start thinking of Mexico as a foreign policy concern (Real Clear World)
Dispatches from the Academy 3: Neuhaus' Choice
Posted by on 2.27.09 @ 12:53AM
Again reporting from the Making Men Moral conference at Union University . . .
The evening panel featured Robert George, Jean Bethke-Elshtain, David Novak, and Harry Poe. Their primary subject was the life of Richard John Neuhaus. Lots of great material, but Robert George spoke very movingly of Neuhaus’ career.
In the 1960’s, Neuhaus was a friend and associate of Martin Luther King, Jr. During the next decade, Neuhaus moved into position to become the most prominent religious liberal in the United States, perhaps succeeding Reinhold Niebuhr in the esteem of the media and cultural elites. It was a position that would have been attractive to the talented Rev. Neuhaus.
Then, Roe v. Wade happened. At first, there was such a thing as a pro-life liberal. Teddy Kennedy was one. Jesse Jackson was one. Albert Gore was one. So was Richard John Neuhaus.
But the center failed to hold and the pro-life liberals pronounced fealty to Planned Parenthood in serial fashion. Richard John Neuhaus could have done that, too, had he wished to preserve his chance to succeed Niebuhr as the most prominent mainline Protestant.
Abandoning the unborn child, the defenseless and innocent human being who desperately needed protection, was a step too far for Neuhaus. So, he left “the left” behind.
The tenor of the story fit a persistent theme of this conference with speakers cognizant of the presence of young evangelicals in the room. Hold your ideals more dear than your lust for applause. The temptation to make oneself acceptable to the dominant zeitgeist is terrible in its power. Do as Richard John Neuhaus did. Resist.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Pence Wowed Them
Posted by on 2.26.09 @ 5:35PM
If there ever were a House member who, Jack Kemp-like, could seriously consider running directly for president with no higher office in between (not that it worked for Kemp), it is Mike Pence of Indiana. His speech today at CPAC was absolutely superb, earning several enthusiastic standing ovations and hitting all the right notes both substantively and tonally. It was a stirring defense of free enterprise, limited government, and life, without ever sounding out of the "mainstream" in terms of tone or language. The man knows how to give a speech, and the man knows how to fight for principles. And he knows the issues and has the requisite experienc to be taken seriously. Again, he was terrific today, as he has been every time I have seen him.
Not Sold on the Obama Economic Plan
Posted by on 2.26.09 @ 5:16PM
A majority of Americans are skeptical of President Barack Obama's "spend and borrow our way to prosperity" plan. According to the latest Zogby poll:
More than half - 56% - are doubtful the stimulus package will personally help them, and another 17% are unsure. While nearly half of Democrats (48%) believe they will benefit from the stimulus, few political independents (19%) and even fewer Republicans (7%) believe they will be helped. The vast majority of Republicans (88%) and most independents (62%) remain skeptical they personally stand to gain from the new stimulus bill, compared to just 26% of Democrats who said the same. Higher levels of optimism for the stimulus bill were found among the youngest adults, age 18-24, who were more likely (38%) than older adults to believe it would benefit them or their family. Just 16% of those age 65 and older felt the same. The Zogby Interactive survey of 1,474 likely voters nationwide was conducted Feb. 23-24, 2009, and was completed before President Barack Obama's address to a joint meeting of Congress on the state of the U.S. economy Tuesday night. It carries a margin of error of +/- 2.6 percentage points.
Dispatches from the Academy 2: Great Lines
Posted by on 2.26.09 @ 4:41PM
Still reporting from the Making Men Moral Conference in honor of Robert George at Union University . . .
I've had the chance to hear some great lines offered up by conservative academics. Here are a couple:
Paul Kerry (BYU) on the difference between Robert George and Cornel West:
"Last year, Robert George was invited to meet with Pope Benedict XVI. Cornel West was similarly honored to be invited to meet with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez."
Russ Moore (Southern Seminary) on better relations between evangelicals and Catholics:
"Very few evangelicals today would still say the Pope is the Anti-Christ. Bill Maher might, but evangelicals wouldn't."
Union has done a tremendous job of putting this conference together. They may be on track to become another conservative favorite like Hillsdale, the graduate school at Claremont, and the political theory program at LSU (represented here by the delightful James Stoner).
Later, I'll have a report about the events of this evening. Richard John Neuhaus was slated to speak at the conference, but died recently, thus leaving a substantial hole in the conservative tapestry. It's a hole, thankfully, that we have men like Robert George and Father Robert Sirico to help fill.
Tonight, Robert George, Harry Poe, and others will host an informal conversation with the assembled guests. I'm guessing we'll have a great time hearing stories about the exploits of Father Neuhaus.
Global warming tax still evolving
Posted by on 2.26.09 @ 4:30PM
It seems that all is not well in the land of green make believe. The enormous "global warming" tax is, upon scrutiny, something of a moving target as well as faslely advertised.
For example, environmental trade e-zine Greenwire reports:
"The climate program would generate nearly $650 billion between 2012 and 2019, according to Obama's proposal. About $80 billion of the climate revenues would go toward Obama's proposed middle-class tax cut each year beginning in 2012, the draft says, and the government would spend $15 billion per year on 'clean' energy technologies."
Possibly you spotted the fuzzy green math: $650 billion taken in over 8 years, used in part to fund $640 billion over the same period to help ease the pain it causes, and the . . . er, remaining . . . $120 billion going for green pork, leaving us a balance of minus $110 billion.
My colleague Iain Murray looked a little closer and found that, according to the table from the budget preview, they are claiming that only $525 billion is targeted for the new welfare payment Obama calls a tax cut (approx. $52 billion a year, not $80 billion). With the $120 billion for green pork to major lobbying parties like GE (windmills, among other items) that still leaves them $5 billion short, by this calculation. That used to be considered real money, yet is a relatively trifling amount in this context.
This paints a picture rather different than those one floated earlier of raising energy prices and rebating a portion while paying down debt - instead it's simply a new vehicle to raise revenue to pay for a permanent new welfare entitlement. Again, that is until the scheme succeeds in "bankrupt[ing]" its targets, as then-candidate Obama vowed was the purpose.
Each of the nasty little peanuts hiding under every one of the shells in this game are vastly more expensive - and given the welfare/entitlement angle, surely more politically explosive if the media do their job (kidding!) - than the Clinton-Gore run at pricing energy out of your reach. With CPAC going on just as this audacity is floated, the grab could either gain some traction in the public discourse or get lost in the mix. We'll soon find out which.
The good news is that some Senate Democrats at least have objected to using the filibuster-proof budget process as a vehicle for the actual statutory changes required to enact the tax/rationing scheme, as opposed to merely assuming its revenues. Remember, the 1993 BTU tax was floated the very same way, and killed in the very same process.
Saving Daily Newspapers
Posted by on 2.26.09 @ 4:06PM
In a meandering column earlier this year, I bashed liberal media bias while still arguing that daily newspapers must be saved from collapse. The need for a common culture demands it. Today, the wonderful Debra Saunders, always a breath of fresh air and a thoughtful conservative (more of the libertarian variety) makes much the same point. I hate to ruin he rcolumn by giving away her last line -- DO read the whole column -- but her last paragraph demands to be quoted because it is true: "When a newspaper dies, you don't get a comprehensive periodical to fill the void. You get an informational vacant lot into which passersby can throw their junk."
That is not a good thing for conservatives.
Huckabee's Free Market Populism
Posted by on 2.26.09 @ 2:29PM
Mike Huckabee just finished speaking here at CPAC, and what was pretty clear is that he's trying to win over skeptical economic conservatives by reframing his populism in free market terms. He blasted the stimulus bill and the bailout, and emphasized that taxpayers shouldn't be bailing out banking executives who messed up. He claimed he was "prophetic" during the campaign for warning about the dangers of the "Wall Street to Washington axis of power."
It wouldn't be a Huckabee speech, of course, without some bizzare metaphors and anecdotes. At one point, he told of a boy who brings teacher a leaking box that she assumes is an adult beverage from his father's liquor store, but it's actually a puppy. That was Huckabee's way of saying that "things are not always the way they seem" when it comes to the plight of Republicans.
He also spoke about how you can't just store a boat in the warehouse, you need to take it into the water and take risks. We have to learn to be "water conservatives, not warehouse conservatives," he said.
Update on Biggest Tax Hike Ever
Posted by on 2.26.09 @ 1:29PM
A colleague had ruminated that the $300 billion per year the Obama administration had floated as the assumed revenues from selling "global warming" ration coupons was so much greater than any tax increase in history, and such a breathtaking gamble, that possibly they would pull their punch after word got around, or else had in mind coming in lower than that staggering sum in order to finesse an "expectations" ruse.
Whichever occurred, we now read that they are projecting between $79 and $82 billion per year in cap and trade revenue from selling energy ration coupons (p. 123). At least this was well thought out...
$80 billion a year, that is, until the scheme succeeds in "bankrupt[ing]" its targets as then-candidate Obama vowed was the purpose. Such a bargain!
Still, that's almost twice the cost of the last stab at this, the BTU tax, so maybe they'll lose twice as many seats as a result that Gore claims BTU cost them (there's only one Congress that can change hands). Then again, business was organized against BTU. Now, many have figured out how to sell their support in return for some "rents" from the scheme, more on which next week. So the game is on, let's see who takes the field.
The new "global warming" tax: biggest U.S. tax hike ever
Posted by on 2.26.09 @ 12:49PM
President Obama's budget outline released today includes substantial assumed revenues from a new "global warming" tax, the largest revenue-raising measure in U.S. history - at $300 billion per year from mandating then selling "cap-n-trade" carbon dioxide ration coupons, vastly bigger than the tax to fight WWII even in present dollars ($107 billion per year). It's spectacularly larger than the last energy tax hike tried by the same crowd, the proposed (and failed) 1993 BTU tax that Al Gore now says cost the Democrats control of Congress ($47 billion as proposed). So much for Obama studying the mistakes of the Clinton-Gore administration's first year.
He plans on raising from the energy tax imposed in order to avert the end of the world to pay for his social engineering agenda.
This adds a special twist to the old conundrum of "sin taxes" - the demonized vice immediately becomes a virtuous, or at least indispensible, contributor to the public purse. Now, the (faltering) theory of catastrophic Man-made global warming is a necessary catastrophe to claim he's averting: the Obama administration needs the threat in order to offset, at the bookkeeping level, much of his agenda.
But how, precisely, does he continue the revenue stream when he succeeds at his express goal of this scheme, as told during the campaign to the San Francisco Chronicle, to "bankrupt" coal and those who try to burn it (to produce more than half of our electricity) by ensuring that electricity prices "skyrocket" for those who dare? That's a problem, but one the tax-raisers will surely find a way around, in the form of raising other taxes...a lot.
Another twist is found in various media reports today of the Obama administration's line, that some portion (up to 20%) of the annual $300 billion raised by the global warming tax "would go to tax credits for lower- and middle-income working families."
Don't forget what this largess represents. It is not aid to improve their lot from current conditions but instead, as I have previously written, in the words of legislation recently floated to implement such a scheme, "compensation, through the issuance of a monthly rebate, for the loss in purchasing power resulting from" imposing the global warming tax. It is an attempt to make some of those hardest hit by this price-hiking and job-killing measure closer to whole before imposition of the tax.
The transfer is a new entitlement and the global warming tax, the largest hike in U.S. history, is in perpetuity, requiring that government always proclaim that they are protecting you from climate catastrophe, as without that premise the revenue source for their social engineering is no more.
If opponents can't win this giant misstep, I am at a loss at to what they can win in the fight to retain our system, more successful than any of those we seek to emulate with the new rush to a social democratic state.
Bolton on Obama: Deception is not Moderation
Posted by on 2.26.09 @ 11:38AM
John Bolton just spoke here at CPAC, offering a blistering critique of President Obama's foreign policies, insisting that, "If we get our act together, he is a one-termer."
Bolton said that conservatives should not be comforted by the fact that Obama has backed off some of his campaign rhetoric on issues such as Gitmo, NAFTA, and CIA black sites. "Being inconsistent and deceptive is not the same as being moderate," he said.
Bolton, echoing Joe Biden, said that Obama would be challenged internationally by foreign powers who seek to test the young administration. He said that Obama's weak reaction to Georgia during the campaign coupled with his skepticism regarding missile defense has emboldened a resurgent Russia. Hillary Clinton's decision to essentially take human rights off the table in her trip to China was a mistake. He explained that China is expanding its naval fleet, and will be in a position to challenge America in the western Pacific. An important test will come next month when it's the 50th anniversary of the Dali Lama's flight to Tibet -- Bolton said to watch for whether Obama has the backbone to meet with him in the White House. He also noted the North Korea's nuclear program would never be abandoned unless the U.S. puts more pressure on China. On Iran, he said that Obama is naive to believe that the issue can be resolved through negotiation. It has already mastered the nuclear fuel cycle, he said, and the only question is whether or not Israel will launch a military strike. That could present Obama with a major foreign policy crisis in the next 6 to 9 months.
Talk Radio and the Right
Posted by on 2.26.09 @ 11:33AM
The beginning of CPAC is probably as good a time as any to talk about John Derbyshire's American Conservative cover story about conservative talk radio. I'm a frequent -- and grateful! -- guest on talk radio. I remember what a breath of fresh air Rush Limbaugh was when he first hit the national scene. As I mentioned in my tribute to David Brudnoy, I spent the summer of 1994 glued to talk radio.
To some extent, I think Derbyshire's complaints about "Happy Meal conservatism" and "ideological comfort food" are really complaints with the popularization of conservatism. When conservatism was primarily an intellectual movement rather than a political one or even a niche market, when "Firing Line" was the most popular conservative broadcast, the right was pretty small. It is now, even in its current attenuated form, much larger, a real mass movement of sorts. Conservative talk show hosts are doing what they are supposed to do and offering a kind of political commentary that is bound to appeal to more people than readings from Edmund Burke.
That said, it seemed that in the 1990s conservative talk radio was good at tapping into a sense of outrage that benefited Republicans. This still goes on, but has at least partly been replaced with an echo chamber effect. I can't tell you how many of my conservative friends who primarily get their news from talk radio and Fox were genuinely shocked when the Republicans lost the 2006 elections. Many of them were surprised again when Barack Obama beat John McCain, even though polls clearly showed that this was the likelier outcome for most of the year. (But those were liberally biased polls! And Republicans don't have landlines! And they lie to liberally biased, landline-calling pollsters!)
The downside to what Derbyshire calls "ideological comfort food" is that it blinds you to what the outside world thinks. Now, even that's not always a bad thing -- on a whole host of issues, from Obama's designs on our health care system, to the vast increases in federal spending anticipated by the Democrats, to the laundry list of bailouts, nationalizations, and stimuli on the horizon -- the people behind the microphones are right and a majority of the American people are wrong (depending on which poll you believe). But can people who speak in movement-ese, all red-team all the time without nuance, persuade that majority they are wrong?
I think it is a stretch to blame talk radio for the right's problems -- and Derbyshire, in his judicious piece, doesn't -- and know conservatism would be worse off if it were silenced via the Fairness Doctrine or something like it. But conservatives need a way to reach beyond the base and try to convert some swing voters. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing Sean Hannity ain't it.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 2.26.09 @ 10:18AM
- Do what you want in bed, but be careful at the table (Washington Post)
- ...And Bill Kristol reappears (Washington Post)
- Obama, using the Chicago method to find out what works (Bloomberg)
- Recession opens the door for political backlash in Eastern Europe (Forbes)
- Santelli populism or Joe the Plumber populism: pick your poison (Crunchy Con)
- Republicans' "no" gets so boring, and Democrats' spending numbers are so interesting (Politico)
- Wily Obama finds inventive ways to sneak in ideas that won't work (New Majority)
Ryan Warns We're At "Tipping Point" in Staving off Socialism
Posted by on 2.26.09 @ 10:16AM
Rep. Paul Ryan, the opening speaker at CPAC, just warned that America is currently at a "irreversible tipping point" as it is on the verge of drastically remaking the individuals' relationship with government. The stimulus bill, the housing bailout, the prospect of bank nationionalization, cap and trade, government-run health care, when you add them all up, he said, we could get to the point where more people depend on the government than free enterprise.
President Obama's housing proposal, he said, is an update of Marx's "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Instead, it's “From the suckers who followed the rules to those who borrowed beyond their means.”
He said Republicans should focus on the following:
1) Sound Money
2) Tax Reform -- calls for junking 64,000 page tax code and replacing it with a new one. Supports optional two bracket "flatter" tax code.
3) Health Care -- Makes the case for consumer-based health care.
4) Federal Budget -- Binding cap on federal spending. Says on our current course, taxes will have to double from 20 cents out of every dollar of GDP to 40 cents.
5) Regulatory reform
Obama Projects $1.75 Trillion Deficit for 2009, Savings "TBD"
Posted by on 2.26.09 @ 8:15AM
Some highlights from the Washington Post story on his budget, to be released today (with some emphasis in parts by me):
President Obama will release a proposed budget today that sets aside up to $250 billion dollars to add to he existing bank bailout, which would bring the 2009 budget deficit to $1.75 trillion dollars...
It identifies $634 billion in tax increases and spending cuts to cover the cost of part of the program, but does not say how the administration hopes to raise the rest of the money -- hundreds of billions of dollars more. "TBD" has been penciled into categories for cost savings and benefit reductions....
Obama's budget also would make permanent a tax cut for the middle class enacted in the recent stimulus package. But to pay for it, the president counts on a big infusion of cash from a politically controversial cap-and-trade system, which would force companies to buy allowances to exceed pollution limits....
And though Obama told Congress on Tuesday that his budget team has "already identified $2 trillion in savings" to help tame record budget deficits, about half of those "savings" are actually tax increases, administration officials said. A big chunk of the rest of the savings comes from measuring Obama's plans against an unrealistic scenario in which the Iraq war continues to suck up $170 billion a year forever.
Higher taxes, more spending, and mystery savings. Sounds like an Obama budget to me.
The Perils of Health Care Reform
Posted by on 2.26.09 @ 5:22AM
Although critics of the U.S. health care system speak of 46 million uninsured, the vast majority of them are middle-to-upper income people who self-insure, healthy young people who don't buy insurance, and lower-income people who are eligible for other health care programs. There are about eight million people who are chronically uninsured and have few alternatives.
The problem of no insurance obviously is most acute in states where health insurance is most expensive. Like New York. The New York Times recently wrote about young adults who can't afford health insurance:
"My first reaction was to start laughing - I just kept saying, ‘No way, no way,' " Alanna Boyd, a 28-year-old receptionist, recalled of the $17,398 - including $13 for the use of a television - that she was charged after spending 46 hours in October at Beth Israel Medical Center in Manhattan with diverticulitis, a digestive illness. "I could have gone to a major university for a year. Instead, I went to the hospital for two days."
In the parlance of the health care industry, Ms. Boyd, whose case remains unresolved, is among the "young invincibles" - people in their 20s who shun insurance either because their age makes them feel invulnerable or because expensive policies are out of reach. Young adults are the nation's largest group of uninsured - there were 13.2 million of them nationally in 2007, or 29 percent, according to the latest figures from the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit research group in New York.
Gov. David A. Paterson of New York has proposed allowing parents to claim these young adults as dependents for insurance purposes up to age 29, as more than two dozen other states have done in the past decade. Community Catalyst, a Boston-based health care consumer advocacy group, released a report this month urging states to ease eligibility requirements to allow adult children access to their parents' coverage.
"There's a big sense of urgency," said Susan Sherry, the deputy director of Community Catalyst. She described uninsured young adults as especially vulnerable. "People are losing their jobs, and a lot of jobs don't carry health insurance. They're new to the work force, they've been covered under their parents or school plans, and then they drop off the cliff."
It's a genuine problem, but the Times didn't bother to explain why health insurance is so expensive in New York. First, the state mandates coverage of lots of conditions that don't interest most young people, raising costs. Indeed, nationwide there are more than 1000 mandates, for everything from hair transplants to Viagra. Second, New York engages in community rating, that it, the state forbids insurers from adjusting premiums for risk. So healthy 21-year-olds pay the same as unhealthy 55-year-olds, which in practice means the former subsidize the latter--who usually are making a lot more money. And for every 21-year-old who steps out of the health care marketplace, like those mentioned in the Times story, the cost rises for the ones who remain.
Fixing the health care system won't be easy, but adding government controls and mandates surely is not the answer.
Dispatches from the Academy: Making Men Moral
Posted by on 2.26.09 @ 12:03AM
In the wake of Joseph Lawler's piece on George Mason economists evaluating conservative magazines' affinity for liberty on the basis of their treatment of sex, gambling, and drugs, Princeton's Robert George is the perfect antidote. He could have reminded the measurers of liberty that those who favor laissez faire with regard to vice are often much less friendly to consensual acts of capitalism between adults. It's a point he made in his seminal book Making Men Moral.
I'm currently attending a Union University conference honoring the work of Robert P. George. If conservatives are to have a chance of winning the argument over the proper balance of liberty and virtue, they could do no better than to look to Professor George as an example. As Russell Moore reminded the audience this evening, Robert George has never imitated the tendencies of many conservative and/or Christian academics to make themselves or their work more palatable to the ambient culture. Instead, he has unapologetically argued for a robust conception of the natural law and has mentored many academics to follow in his footsteps.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Re: The Anti-Liberty Spectator
Posted by on 2.25.09 @ 5:00PM
I find that study especially ironic, given that I not only favor drug legalization and legalized gambling, but actually grew up in Atlantic City with a father in the casino business, and spent three summers working for casinos myself. I don't think you could find many commentators who are more in the pocket of the gaming industry than I am, and yet my checks still seem to clear at the Spectator. I don't write about drugs and gambling --not because I am intimidated by the powers that be -- but because I am more concerned with greater threats to liberty posed by socialism and Islamic terrorism. At a time when we face the possibility of the federal government nationalizing banks and taking over the healthcare system, and the prospect of a nuclear Iran, delving into an esoteric debate about prostitution seems rather quaint.
Joe (4 percent) Biden to Protect the Treasury
Posted by on 2.25.09 @ 4:52PM
Now I feel really, really reassured. Joe "don't mess with me" Biden has been appointed to keep everyone on the straight and narrow as the Feds begin tossing $800 billion about the U.S. with wild abandon. After all, he's a tough guy and those local pols will be afraid that he will ... embarrass them. Really.
President Obama said last night that he put Vice President Biden in charge of the White House's oversight effort on the implementation of stimulus funds because "nobody messes with Joe."
The line got a huge laugh from the Members of Congress in the House Chamber, who are familiar with the loquacious Blue Hen from his decades as a senator from Delaware, and made Biden grin and blush in his seat behind the president.
As he kicks off the first oversight session on the stimulus funds, Biden put states on notice this morning that the White House is not going to sit back and do nothing if stimulus funds are misused.
"In some cases we can withdraw the money we can hold them accountable. And in other places we'll just use the television, the radio and the media to embarrass them for not doing what their' supposed to do," Biden said to Good Morning America's Robin Roberts.
Yes, those governors, mayors, state legislators, county commissioners, and city councilmen who think they've died and gone to heaven with all the money that's about to start pouring in will run in fear from Big Joe. Who, the National Taxpayers Union tells us, received a 4 percent on its 2007 spending ranking. That's an F if you're from the modern theory of grading, which passes everyone, no matter how bad. It seems that while in the Senate Big Joe rarely found a dollar that he didn't want to waste. How hard do you think he's going to work to stop other people from wasting it?
The Anti-Liberty Spectator
Posted by on 2.25.09 @ 2:17PM
Via Tyler Cowen, I see that Daniel Klein and Jason Briggeman, two George Mason economists, have published a paper (pdf) claiming that conservative magazines, including The American Spectator, are not pro-liberty.
They review the records of the Spectator, National Review, The American Enterprise, and the Weekly Standard on pro-liberty stances regarding sex, gambling and drugs. They find that National Review is generally the most pro-liberty on these issues, but that overall all the conservative magazines lean anti-liberty. They conclude:
This investigation underscores that nowadays the menu of major public philosophies offers three options: conservatism, social democracy, and classical liberalism/libertarianism. Only the third upholds the presumption of liberty.
This is a sweeping, sweeping generalization. This conclusion reduces all kinds of arguments about the nature of liberty and the role of government in upholding liberty to grossly oversimplified terms.
In reaching such a conclusion, Klein and Briggeman employ big and questionable assumptions about which positions in policy debates about sex, gambling, and drugs are the pro-liberty positions. In fact, they don't even make it clear what exactly they consider the ideal pro-liberty position to be But to state outright that, for example, advocating regulation on prostitution or pornography is a clear violation of liberty (as they seem to do) requires an intellectual defense. I would have thought it obvious that there are conservatives who espouse those "anti-liberty" positions because they believe they are the true pro-liberty positions. For example, although I am personally anti-drug war, it is not apparent to me that any conservatives who argue for the drug war are secretly authoritarians. I know of plenty of folks who could provide an intellectually honest pro-liberty defense of all the positions Klein and Briggeman consider anti-liberty as a given.
So in short I experience no cognitive dissonance when I label myself both conservative and pro-liberty, nor for that matter when I write for The American Spectator.
They Don't Make 'Em Like the Gipper
Posted by on 2.25.09 @ 12:02PM
The generally negative reaction to Bobby Jindal's response to Barack Obama reminds us that Ronald Reagan was a rare spokesman for the right who could compete with the Obamas and the Kennedys in the personality department. Jindal and Mark Sanford are two of the most intelligent, competent, philosophically sound, and politically accomplished Republican executives in the country. (I personally like Sanford even better than Jindal.) But between the two of them, they have all the charisma of a wet paper bag.
UPDATE: Jindal is a lot better in this Today appearance (via The Corner):
Another Cheer for Byrd
Posted by on 2.25.09 @ 11:54AM
Robert Byrd also may have saved us from nationalized health care back in 1994. Bill Clinton wanted to pass his (really his wife's) health care plan using the reconciliation process, which is not subject to Senate filibusters. Byrd informed Clinton that the health care plan was outside the bounds of the normal budgeting process and that he would invoke the Byrd Rule to stop it. It takes 60 votes to waive the Byrd Rule, so the plan still would have needed 60 votes to pass the Senate. Clinton backed down and then was never able to cobble together a supermajority for his health care legislation.
Bless Robert Byrd
Posted by on 2.25.09 @ 11:26AM
Yes, Robert Byrd. As this article shows, the man is, for all his faults, intellectually consistent on some important matters. It tells about how Byrd is knocking Obama for outlandish executive power grabs. And Byrd is right. Do read the article. Meanwhile, for all of his porking ways and for all of his pomposity, it is worth remembering that Byrd will stand on principle even against his own short-term desires. Stephen Carter relayed in one of his books the story of how Byrd helped assure the confirmation of judicial nominee Daniel Manion even though Byrd himself opposed Manion, merely in order to uphold a point of honor in the Senate. It's a great story. As an addendum, the way I remember it (I don't have the book handy in front of me), Carter's account does not identify the senator who violated Byrd's sense of senatorial integrity in a way that led Byrd to help keep Manion's nomination alive, but I THINK the senator who drew Byrd's wrath was Joe Biden. If I am wrong, I hope someone corrects me.....
He Just Doesn't Get It
Posted by on 2.25.09 @ 9:14AM
From President Obama's speech last night:
Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs. More than 90% of these jobs will be in the private sector - jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges; constructing wind turbines and solar panels; laying broadband and expanding mass transit.
Because of this plan, there are teachers who can now keep their jobs and educate our kids. Health care professionals can continue caring for our sick. There are 57 police officers who are still on the streets of Minneapolis tonight because this plan prevented the layoffs their department was about to make.
Because of this plan, 95% of the working households in America will receive a tax cut - a tax cut that you will see in your paychecks beginning on April 1st.
The problem with this rhetoric is that it is based on a misunderestimation of the historic proportions of what has happened to the U.S. economy since 2006. We are not merely in a transitory slump that can be cured by Keynesian "pump-priming." The collapse of the housing bubble exposed systemic weaknesses in the American financial structure.
This goes back to September, when John McCain declared, "The fundamentals of our economy are strong." Michelle Malkin finally got fed up with what she called the "Pollyanna conservatives" and burst out: "The fundamentals of the market suck." And the sucking has only grown louder since then.
The financial collapse was caused by excessive debt, and now Obama and the Democrats seem to think that they can fix the problem by borrowing money. One could endeavor to explain in detail what's wrong with their plan -- inter alia, if wind turbines were not cost-efficient enough to survive in the market without government subsidies when gasoline was $4 a gallon, why further subsidize Big Wind now? -- but these specifics are trivial in comparison to the gigantic misconception that what our economy needs is more deficit spending.
We are headed for '70s-style "stagflation." Never mind what the Dow Jones does today; it will be below 6,000 by Christmas. Obama doesn't know what he's doing, and what he's doing is standing at the bottom of a hole demanding we dig faster.
Why Stop with a House Seat for D.C.
Posted by on 2.25.09 @ 6:53AM
Legislation is moving forward to bestow a House seat on Washington, D.C. Reports the Washington Post:
The 62 to 34 vote was on whether to consider the bill. But the strong "yes" tally indicated that there could be enough support to pass the measure in the Senate, which has a 60-vote threshold to prevent a filibuster. Two years ago, the bill died after failing to clear that hurdle.
The vote came as the legislation moves ahead in the House, where it enjoys broad support. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) said she expects the legislation to pass the Judiciary Committee today. And, for the first time in years, the bill also has a champion in the White House.
The legislation still faces obstacles -- such as possible attempts to kill it through amendments and a probable challenge that could go to the Supreme Court. But a beaming Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) called the initial Senate vote "a breakthrough in the full franchise of the people of the District of Columbia."
No one disputes the justice in enabling Washington, D.C. residents to vote. But the Constitution--remember it? The document drafted by the constitutional convention, which theoretically has something to do with the U.S. government--says that House Members are chosen by the people of the states. You know, those inconvenient political entities which still exist despite the efforts of countless politicians in Washington, D.C. to take over their responsibilities.
Washington, D.C. isn't a state. That's an unpleasant bit of reality on Capitol Hill, so it isn't likely to have any impact on the bill's final passage.
If "state" really doesn't mean state, but instead something like "thingie" when it comes to congressional apportionment, why stop with the District? Let's give every city a House Member. And every county. Every water district. And, heck, give every Rotery Club a House Member too. If the Constitution really doesn't bind Congress, legislators might as well be truly creative.
It appears the only hope for maintaining any respect for the Constitution will be the Supreme Court, since passage of the D.C. amendment will lead to a court case that is likely to end up in the high court. Then we will find out if the notion of a "living Constitution" goes so far as to eliminate any meaning of the original terms of the text.
A Good Meeting as Defined by Roland Burris
Posted by on 2.25.09 @ 6:42AM
The poor Democrats. They are riding high in electoral triumph, but they just can't quite shake the Blagojevich embarrassment. As Senator Roland Burris continues to wander the halls of Capitol Hill, refusing to take the hint. Well, not hint. Direct suggestion. Reports the Washington Post:
Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) suggested to Sen. Roland W. Burris (D-Ill.) yesterday that he resign, but Burris told Durbin that he will not step down.
"I told him, 'If I were in your shoes, I would consider resigning,' " Durbin told reporters outside his office in the Capitol, after an afternoon meeting with Burris that lasted more than 30 minutes. "He said, 'I will not resign.' "
Burris brushed past reporters after the meeting and would not comment except to say, "It was a good meeting."
Yes, it was a good meeting. He wasn't arrested.
It's hard to believe that this is going to end well for the esteemed public servant. If Burris doesn't get indicted for perjury, he probably will run for reelection. And then, even if he again drags out Rep. Bobby Rush to play the race card, it won't matter: he will get crushed in the primary. After which he will be reduced to telling us how unfair everyone was.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
I Don't Think He Bombed
Posted by on 2.24.09 @ 11:48PM
Jindal could have been Demosthenes or Al Pacino or Justin Timberlake and he would have come across as lame and out of his depth. There's just no way anyone can follow a gifted political performer like Obama wowing the country and the Congress at his first (de facto) State of the Union appearance. It didn't help that Jindal's audio connection seemed to go on and off. Plus he had only 12 minutes to Obama's 60. Yet compared to the few other times I've seen Jindal in action, he seemed pleasant, relaxed, a bit youthful, but genuinely friendly and decent. He couldn't promise the world, or lie or dissemble. He praised the president as required; he didn't hide his own party's recent performance. Republicans are currently at a huge disadvantage. But this was an early first step. Even in its current condition, the GOP could do a lot worse than have a Bobby Jindal taking it.
Jindal Bombs
Posted by on 2.24.09 @ 11:17PM
The substance of his speech read fine, but his delivery was absolutely awful. It's true that whoever delivers the response from a quiet room somewhere is always at a disadvantage, and these type of speeches are rarely memorable. But I thought Jindal came off particularly bad. His delivery was flat and his jokes and anecdotes were awkward, his grin childish. He seemed more like a high school student giving a valedictory speech than a potential future leader of the party. He may be brilliant, but presentation matters too, and this was a lackluster performance. "Ya either got it, or ya ain't," according to a line from Gypsy. Sadly, Jindal aint got it. Or at least he didn't tonight.
Obama's Speech
Posted by on 2.24.09 @ 10:20PM
President Obama gave a characteristically well-delivered speech, and one that demonstrates why he has the potential to be a transformational liberal leader. Sure, his contradictory goals don't stand up to much scrutiny. He says we'll all have to give up some of our priorities even while outlining the most expansive domestic agenda in decades. He says he doesn't believe in bigger government, but vows to pump more money into banks, bail out homeowners, set up a fund to provide auto loans, and spend billions more on education and energy. He creates the illusion of being a sober and realistic leader who understands that we face some hard choices and tradeoffs while he declares that the way to reduce the growth of government spending on health care is to have the government spend more money on health care. There's simply no way that all of his policy claims add up. But they don't have to. Not right now. President Obama remains popular and is in office at a time of crisis. After eight years of Bush, the American public is desperate and open to his arguments for a more robust role for the federal government. Obama talks of the day of reckoning. Well, at some point, he'll face his own day of reckoning, when his rhetorical flourishes will be swatted down by reality. But until that day comes, he'll get much of what he wants. The big question is how much damage he can do before the public catches on to him.
Who's the Boss?
Posted by on 2.24.09 @ 10:09PM
We didn't see much of the soaring rhetoric that Obama is so good at tonight. Now wasn't the time for mere inspiration. Instead, his tone was of a sort of national CEO, talking as if he could look at America's balance sheet, reorganize various departments, and lead us to a more prosperous fiscal year. Judged on those terms, it was a successful speech.
But of course a country isn't a corporation, and can't be run like one. Obama's brand of managerial liberalism blurs that distinction. The continuing ascendance of the notion that the president is the all-powerful boss of the country is more than a little worrying.
White House Releases Excerpt from Obama's Speech
Posted by on 2.24.09 @ 5:16PM
Not much to remark on, but here's the part they chose to highlight:
But while our economy may be weakened and our confidence shaken; though we are living through difficult and uncertain times, tonight I want every American to know this: We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before.
The weight of this crisis will not determine the destiny of this nation. The answers to our problems don’t lie beyond our reach. They exist in our laboratories and universities; in our fields and our factories; in the imaginations of our entrepreneurs and the pride of the hardest-working people on Earth. Those qualities that have made America the greatest force of progress and prosperity in human history we still possess in ample measure. What is required now is for this country to pull together, confront boldly the challenges we face, and take responsibility for our future once more.
Jindal to Echo Reagan in His Response
Posted by on 2.24.09 @ 5:03PM
The RNC has released excerpts of Bobby Jindal's speech responding the President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress. From what they released, it seems like he's trying to echo Reagan in tone, using his background as a son of immigrants to convey an optimistic vision for America. And, in a jab at Obama's statement that we may not be able to reverse the economic crisis, Jindal says, "don’t let anyone tell you that we cannot recover - or that America’s best days are behind her.” He talks about the need to restrain government growth and dings Republicans for having lost their way on spending when in power.
Here are the excerpts:
“As I grew up, my mom and dad taught me the values that attracted them to this country - and they instilled in me an immigrant’s wonder at the greatness of America. As a child, I remember going to the grocery store with my dad. Growing up in India, he had seen extreme poverty. And as we walked through the aisles, looking at the endless variety on the shelves, he would tell me: ‘Bobby, Americans can do anything.’ I still believe that to this day….
“Republicans are ready to work with the new President to provide those solutions. Here in my state of Louisiana, we don’t care what party you belong to if you have good ideas to make life better for our people. We need more of that attitude from both Democrats and Republicans in our nation’s capital. All of us want our economy to recover and our nation to prosper. So where we agree, Republicans must be the President’s strongest partners. And where we disagree, Republicans have a responsibility to be candid and offer better ideas for a path forward.…
“The strength of America is not found in our government. It is found in the compassionate hearts and enterprising spirit of our citizens.…
“To solve our current problems, Washington must lead. But the way to lead is not to raise taxes and put more money and power in hands of Washington politicians. The way to lead is by empowering you - the American people. Because we believe that Americans can do anything.…
“Democratic leaders say their legislation will grow the economy. What it will do is grow the government, increase our taxes down the line, and saddle future generations with debt. Who among us would ask our children for a loan, so we could spend money we do not have, on things we do not need? That is precisely what the Democrats in Congress just did. It’s irresponsible. And it’s no way to strengthen our economy, create jobs, or build a prosperous future for our children.…
“In recent years, these distinctions in philosophy became less clear - because our party got away from its principles. You elected Republicans to champion limited government, fiscal discipline, and personal responsibility. Instead, Republicans went along with earmarks and big government spending in Washington. Republicans lost your trust - and rightly so.…
“A few weeks ago, the President warned that our nation is facing a crisis that he said ‘we may not be able to reverse.’ Our troubles are real, to be sure. But don’t let anyone tell you that we cannot recover - or that America’s best days are behind her.”
Play "O-BINGO" with Obama Tonight
Posted by on 2.24.09 @ 3:13PM
If you're like me, you wish there was something to do while listening to the Obama-ganda tonight.
Well now there is. From the people who brought you the Taxpayer Protection Pledge (which almost saved California from higher taxes), and the famous "Wednesday Meeting", comes a new play-at-home game that is fun for the whole family.
Americans for Tax Reform, providing wholesome family fun since 1984, has created "O-BINGO". Played just like regular bingo, "O-BINGO" allows you and your family to follow along with Obama's speech and see who can get the most squares covered in one line.
This soon to be timeless game includes such memorable Obama phrases like "let me be clear", "vulnerable Americans", and who can forget the classic "toxic assets".
Get your "O-BINGO" card below and visit the newly remodeled www.ATR.org for more information and to leave your comments and scores from the game.
KEY:
“Since the Great Depression” – The economic one, not the feeling you’ve had since he signed the “stimulus” bill.
“Save or create” jobs – Obama’s new metric whereby he can claim credit for the outcome no matter what happens (how exactly does one determine the number of "saved" jobs?)
“Crisis” - Excuse to hike taxes and grow the government per Rahm Emanuel’s theory: “Never let a crisis go to waste."
“Stimulus” – The 1,000 page Pelosi-Reid-Obama pork bill rushed through in the dead of night with no transparency and that not a single member of Congress who voted for it actually read.
“Hope” – The optimistic expectation, against all evidence that this government will be the first in the history of time to succeed in spending its way out of economic problems.
“Change” – Take-home pay of future generations due to massive spending increases and government expansion.
“Bipartisan” – "Pelosi and Reid get to decide what we'll do, but I'll have you over for tea first."
“Children and grandchildren” – The people picking up the tab.
“Shovel-ready” – Vital projects that somehow are not important enough to receive funding through the regular appropriations process at the local, state, or federal level.
“Toxic assets”- Now the responsibility of those who followed the rules and made wise decisions.
“Failed policies of the past” – An overspending problem by George W. Bush to be expanded by Obama
“Investment” – Government spending.
“Sacrifice” – Tax hikes.
“As I’ve said before” – Prepare for a poll tested line from stump speeches.
“Make work pay” – Writing welfare checks through the tax code (and then calling it a tax cut).
“Climate change” – (Formerly known as Global Warming) The natural cycles of the sun and the four seasons.
“FDR” – The last President to attempt and fail to spend the country’s way out of a hole.
“Let me be clear” – Warning to “have your shovel ready.”
“Executive pay” – A serious problem because large cash awards are only appropriate when politicians dole out taxpayer money to the pet projects of their sons, brothers, wives, or campaign contributors.
“Protecting responsible homeowners” – Forcing you to pay your neighbor’s mortgage.
“Trillion-dollar deficit that we've inherited” – Bush overspending – which Obama just doubled.
“Essential services” – Government programs that employ unionized bureaucrats.
“Vulnerable Americans” – People that Obama wants to make dependent on the government.
“Tax cuts to 95 percent of working families” – See “Make Work Pay”
“Alternative energy”– Energy that is either too expensive or hasn't succeeded in the free market on its own (if it worked, it would just be called “energy”)
Obama Plan to Include Individual Health Care Mandate?
Posted by on 2.24.09 @ 2:47PM
Ezra Klein blogs that he was able to confirm that Barack Obama's health care plan, which we'll get a preview of in his budget on Thursday, will include (or at least allow for) an individual mandate requiring all Americans to obtain health insurance. As I have written repeatedly, and as recently as last week in this space, President Obama's vision for health care reform made a mandate inevitable, no matter what he said during the campaign. If Ezra is right and Obama does give way on this point, it would represent his largest reversal to date, as this was one of the few actual policy differences he had with Hillary Clinton during the primaries. For those of us who sat through all of their 20 or so debates and watched this issue get hashed out over and over again, this is a pretty major development. Adopting a mandate will make it a lot more difficult for Obama to argue that he isn't pursuing a government takeover of health care, and he'll have a hard time explaining away his stunning flip flop. This wasn't one of those issues where Obama made a convoluted statement that could be interepreted multiple ways, he was absolutely unequivocal.
Take, for instance, this exchange from the Austin, Texas debate last February. Clinton tells Obama that there's no way he can achieve universal health care without a mandate, and Obama offers a pointed criticism of the concept of a mandate in response. This was just based on a quick search on my part. There's plenty, plenty, more where this came from.
Here's an excerpt from the transcript:
SEN. OBAMA: Number one, understand that when Senator Clinton says a mandate, it's not a mandate on government to provide health insurance; it's a mandate on individuals to purchase it. And Senator Clinton is right; we have to find out what works.
Now, Massachusetts has a mandate right now. They have exempted 20 percent of the uninsured because they've concluded that that 20 percent can't afford it. In some cases, there are people who are paying fines and still can't afford it, so now they're worse off than they were. They don't have health insurance and they're paying a fine. (Applause.) And in order for you to force people to get health insurance, you've got to have a very harsh, stiff penalty. And Senator Clinton has said that we will go after their wages.
Here's the video. The relevant part starts around the two minute mark:
A Republican, Not Restrictionist, Rout
Posted by on 2.24.09 @ 1:35PM
Daniel Larison disagrees with Richard Nadler.
Trillion Dollar Tuesday
Posted by on 2.24.09 @ 1:20PM
In the Politico, frequent AmSpec contributor Jeremy Lott urges Barack Obama not to make another $1 trillion mistake. Taking up where I left off in this blog post, I argue that the Republicans have no choice but to finally take risks on spending. Republican man cannot live by tax cuts alone and the GOP will become irrelevant if government growth continues, even with all the wonkery about the value-added tax or carbon taxes in the world.
You Say You Want a Revolution...
Posted by on 2.24.09 @ 12:39PM
Via Gawker, I see video of the hysterical conclusion to the NYU student occupation of the food court, complete with commentary by the cameraman. Sample: "We need to look at the situation, the hierarchy, the power relationship here."
Leveling the Playing Field for College Students
Posted by on 2.24.09 @ 12:36PM
Am I referring to affirmative action? Pell Grants? Forgiveness of student loans?
No, I'm talking about the primary area where college students are actually plagued by injustice. I am talking about the market for textbooks.
Though the world of academia tilts heavily to the left, the professor/textbook writers of the world participate as rapaciously in cutthroat capitalism as anyone on the planet.
Students get sticker shock when they go to buy a particular text. So, they resort to the used market, which is better than ever thanks to ebay, half.com, and a variety of other outlets.
But the textbook writers regularly act to destroy the value of the old editions by continually issuing new ones whether necessary or not. The Nobel winning liberal economist Paul Samuelson earned a fortune on his many-times updated standard text.
The situation is on the verge of changing, though. Whether you want to own cherished novels or books of history as an e-book is one question. Owning college texts as e-books is a slam-dunk yes. And because the texts are electronic and can be easily altered, students have a strong case to expect updates as a matter of course to be either free or offered for a nominal additional cost. Certainly, they don't have to be forced to pay for the hard covers, the glossy paper, and the full color ink.
The day of the $20 college text may finally be here. And the incentive to continually offer updated versions with an extra paragraph here or there may be coming to an end.
The company to do it is Amazon. Much has been made of the iPhone as a device for reading books, but I can't imagine using that small screen for textbooks where you need to take notes, mark passages, etc. The Kindle is exactly that kind of device. And a student version may eventually be forthcoming.
Jindal's Moment
Posted by on 2.24.09 @ 11:39AM
In addition to this being President Obama's first speech to a joint session of Congress, it's also Bobby Jindal's chance to introduce himself to a large national audience in delivering the Republican response. According to the Washington Post, Jindal will be delivering the speech from the governor's mansion in Baton Rouge, which is more or less a typical way to deliver the response. I think he would have been better off taking a page out of Christine Todd Whitman's book. Back in 1995, when she was the tax cutting governor still in good graces with the party, she delivered her response in front of an audience in the New Jersey state assembly chamber, which mitigated the natural advantage that President Clinton had by delivering a speech in front of Congress with all its pageantry.
I'm still waiting to see how Jindal performs as governor, and see his views fleshed out more, but what I find most appealing about him is that he is undeniably brilliant. I watched Jindal's performance on "Meet the Press" this week, and it was refreshing to see a Republican who was actually able to provide a detailed defense of his decisions and policies. At one point, David Gregory grilled Jindal about his decision to reject some unemployment money from the stimulus package because it would require permanent changes to state law that would impose obligations down the road. Gregory quoted Sen. Mary Landrieu saying that Jindal was wrong. "Her point being, you could insert a sunset clause when this has to go away, but it would certainly be beneficial at a time when you're in economic stress," Gregory said.
Here was Jindal's response:
GOV. JINDAL: That's great, except the federal law, if you actually read the bill--and I know it was 1,000 pages, and I know they got it, you know, at midnight, or hours before they voted on it--if you actually read the bill, there's one problem with that. The word permanent is in the bill. It requires the state to make a permanent change in our law. Law B--our employer group agrees with me. They say, "Yes, this will result an increase in taxes on our businesses, this will result in a permanent obligation on the state of Louisiana." It would be like spending $1 to get a dime. Why would we take temporary federal dollars if we're going to end up having a permanent program?
And here's the problem. So many of these things that are called temporary programs end up being permanent government programs. But this one's crystal clear, black and white letter law. The federal stimulus bill says it has to be a permanent change in state law if you take this state money. And so within three years the federal money's gone, we've got now a permanent change in our laws, we have to pay for it, our businesses pay for it. I don't think it makes sense to be raising taxes on Louisiana businesses during these economically challenging times. And what it shows is what we're going to do in the stimulus is we're going to look at every program, every dollar. If it makes sense for Louisiana, makes sense for our taxpayers, we'll use those programs and dollars. If it doesn't, like on Friday we said, "This doesn't make sense for us. This is not a good deal for us." It makes--my job is to represent Louisiana's taxpayers. Makes no sense for us to take temporary federal dollars and create permanent state obligations.
One thing I would say is that, perhaps because he has such a command of the details, at times he tends to speak a bit too fast and drop wonky terms. I think that could turn some people off from his message, and that's something he'll need to work on as he matures as a politician. He's smart, yes, but does he come across as likeable enough to connect with a national audience? We'll see how he performs tonight.
Another Bust for Commerce?
Posted by on 2.24.09 @ 11:32AM
Former Washington Gov. Gary Locke is reputed to be up for the Commerce Secretary appointment. But Michelle Malkin tells us that skeletons abound in the former governor's closet.
I covered Gary Locke when I worked at the Seattle Times. I dealt with his campaign and gubernatorial staffs. "Strait-laced" is not the adjective I'd use for my dealings with him and his people.
In response to my columns pressing Locke on his close ties to campaign finance crook John Huang, the governor's office first stonewalled. His standard Democrat smokescreen? Play the race card and play the victim.
This could be fun. Maybe the president is going for a record number of withdrawals for a Cabinet position.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 2.24.09 @ 10:07AM
- Hillary: A little bit of realistic foreign policy now goes a long way for human rights later (Washington Post)
- A quick grammar lesson for prof. Obama (NY Times)
- One good case against nationalization (WSJ)
- A liberty success story: home brewing (Reason)
- A look at the mature and reflective (i.e. non-deficit spender) J.M. Keynes (The American)
The Price of Bipartisanship
Posted by on 2.24.09 @ 8:46AM
Poring over the mammoth, $410 billion "omnibus" spending bill released by the House Appropriations Committee this afternoon, an interesting name pops up as one of the more prolific earmarkers: Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.
The earmark requests were submitted early last year, when LaHood, R-Ill., served as a member of the House Appropriations Committee -- long before he could have been thinking about serving in President Obama's Cabinet.
Members of that committee traditionally dominate the requests for funding for specific projects. Those requests are made public by the appropriations committee.
To choose just a few of LaHood's voluminous earmark requests, which are scattered throughout the documentation posted online: Research funding for the Midwest Poultry Consortium; medical equipment funding for Memorial Medical Center in Springfield, Ill.; construction funds for a cancer research lab at the University College of Medicine at Peoria; "exhibit design" help for the Lakeview Museum in Peoria; planetarium equipment for the Lakeview Museum of Arts and Sciences; "public safety communications equipment" for the Logan County Sheriff's Department; equipment for the Lincoln, Ill., Police Department; research funding for the "National MarketMaker Network" at the University of Ilinois at Urbana-Champaign; "crop production and food processing research" in Peoria; biodiesel and E85 storage tanks and dispensers for the City of Peoria; "green building design and implementation" at Bradley University; and funding for the Soybean Disease Biotechnology Center and the Livestock Genome Sequencing Initiative in Champaign, Ill.
Remind me again why I should be happy there is a Republican in the Obama Cabinet.
Flake Leads Spending Fight
Posted by on 2.24.09 @ 6:16AM
At a time when congressional Republicans desperately need leadership, Rep. Jeff Flake continues to press for spending responsibility and accountability. Reports Politico:
Rep. Jeff Flake, one of the loudest critics of earmarks in federal spending bills, is using the scandal over the PMA Group in an effort to force the House ethics committee to look into whether earmarks and campaign contributions are linked.
Flake offered a privileged resolution on the House floor Monday night calling on the ethics panel to conduct an investigation and report back to the full body in two months.
The Arizona Republican is trying to use the controversy over the FBI probe involving the PMA Group, a lobbying firm with strong ties to Rep. John Murtha (D-Penn.), to jumpstart his effort.
Now, if only we can elect a couple hundred more congressmen like him!
Monday, February 23, 2009
The Death of the American Automobile?
Posted by on 2.23.09 @ 7:20PM
Mark Tapscott of the Washington Examiner--who writes about cars when he's not trying to save America from the big spenders--worries that high performance automobiles likely are a thing of the past for the U.S. industry. He writes:
It's only a matter of time now before "core products" can only mean "high mileage," "alternative fuels" and "zero emissions." The end times are on the horizon for the Corvette, Camaro, and high performance versions of the Cobalt, Colorado, Silverado, etc. etc. Get ready to say goodbye to Vipers and Shelby Mustanges, too.
Driving the point home is the LaHood Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) tax hint. The people calling the shots for Detroit now are all in Washington, and the most important of them aren't named "Timothy Geithner" nor are they working at the U.S. Treasury Department handing out TARP funds.
No, the people now deciding what kind of products will be made by Detroit are working in Congress, the U.S. Department of Transportation and, most crucially, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Virtually to a man, these people hate privately owned cars and the individual autonomy they symbolize.
This is, of course, yet another reason the unending government bail-outs are a disaster--they give politicians the leverage to impose their own ideological whims on a basic industry. Unfortunately, we almost certainly are at the beginning rather than the end of this process, the veritable socialization of much of the economy.
A More Charitable View of Brooks
Posted by on 2.23.09 @ 6:17PM
Can be found here. But what if government encouragement of irresponsible behavior isn't just unfair to the responsible, but actively damaging to the economy?
The GOP Answers Obama's Fuzzy Math with ... Fuzzy Math!
Posted by on 2.23.09 @ 5:31PM
Reports Jonathan Karl of ABC News:
The House Appropriations Committee just posted its $410 billion 2009 Omnibus spending bill. It's a doozy. This is the bill that will fund the government's operations until the end of the fiscal year. It's larded with thousands (so many, I can't count them all yet) of earmarks and adds up an increase in overall discretionary spending of more than 8 percent, the biggest one year increase since 1978 (with the exception of the spending boost after the September 11 attacks).
And this is a bi-partisan feeding frenzy. Roughly 40 percent of the money for earmarks (i.e. pet projects inserted by individual lawmakers) have been inserted by Republicans.
Don't these people ever learn?
Stocks Drop to Pre-Lewinsky Scandal Levels
Posted by on 2.23.09 @ 5:09PM
Another grim day on Wall Street.
Condi Rice: Like, You Go Girl
Posted by on 2.23.09 @ 4:25PM
AP reports former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will be spending the next phase of her life working out her inner English major. She signed a three-book deal with Crown publishers. The first book will be a memoir of her time at the White House, the second a memoir about her family, the third a YA (Young Adult) version of her family memoir.
Like, who is ghosting that third book? I can't imagine Condi saying. "Like, whatever, I'd rather go into politics then play this silly piano."
Edie Adams, RIP
Posted by on 2.23.09 @ 2:25PM
Jim: You may enjoy the "In Memoriam" segment of the annual Oscar show, but last night even that didn't go right. For instance, where was the tribute to Edie Adams? She was the ultimate Hollywood trooper, yet nothing, nada, zilch -- which is the way it is in that increasingly empty world. The host Hugh Jackman was fine -- if you didn't mind that he disappeared for the longest stretches. There were more commercial interruptions than I can recall -- desperate efforts to shake out some cash while it still has some value. The tributes from five previous winners to the evening five nominees in the best acting categories gave new meaning to overkill and mutual adoration. The show managed to accomplish a paradox -- pack too much while seeming to be going nowhere with nothing going on. Sensory overload and attention deficit where everyone's a zombie. Oh well, there was blessed little politics, notwithstanding the comments of Milk's winners (Sean Penn suddently appreciating elegance?) and Bill Maher reminding everyone what makes him a perpetual jerk. Luckily the children and larger cast of Slumdog Millionaire rose above their surroundings, and who can forget the East German born winner in the short film category who in his happy acceptance remarks expressed the delight of someone who had been born "behind" the Berlin Wall but was now standing in center of his childhood dreams. At least one person had a good time.
Reforming Entitlements By Growing Them
Posted by on 2.23.09 @ 2:19PM
Phil, you obviously haven't read your Robert Kuttner today.
Obama Using Fiscal Summit to Promote Health Care Plans
Posted by on 2.23.09 @ 1:38PM
In watching the introductory remarks to the White House "fiscal responsibility summit," it became clear that this media stunt is largely aimed at setting the stage for Obama's health-care agenda.
In his speech, Obama said that health care is "the single most pressing long-term fiscal challenge we are facing by far."
His director of Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, speaking ahead of Obama, declared, "Health care reform is entitlement reform. The path to fiscal responsibility runs directly through health care reform."
Of course, both Obama and Orszag are correct that health care is our biggest fiscal challenge, but the problem is that their idea of "reform" will drastically augment our entitlement crisis. Even if one were to buy into the unrealistic savings Obama promises as a result of rationing care, increasing the use of IT, and improving access to preventative care, those imagined savings will be offset many times over by plans to provide subsidies for every American to acquire health insurance.
When you cut through the rhetoric, what Obama is saying is that the only war to rein in entitlements is to expand them.
Systemic Failure
Posted by on 2.23.09 @ 12:17PM
Is David Brooks turning into some strange cross betwween Michael Gerson and David Gergen? Via Jerry Taylor, I see good reason to fear he is. Some Brooksian comments on NPR:
We're not just individuals; we have a system, a system we all share. And the system right now is so unsteady that we have no individual responsibility in our own system because the economy is so unsteady. If you deserve a job sometimes you get laid off, if you don't deserve, sometimes you don't get laid off. And the government's fundamental responsibility right now is to make sure the system is stable. And that may reward people who took unnecessary risks but we just have to live with that. The primary responsibility here is not to worry about the moral hazard; it's to keep the stability of the system as a whole intact. And I think that the housing plan is a pretty moderate and respectable way to go about that.
This is just mindless babble, centrism without substance, "responsibility" as a pose. There is just nothing here. And yet this is considered highbrow commentary. Couldn't he have at least spiced this up with some references to an imaginary Applebee's salad bar or some podunk town where you have to travel 40 miles from the nearest Starbucks to buy a copy of the New York Times?
Obama and Social Security
Posted by on 2.23.09 @ 11:58AM
The New York Times is reporting that liberal Democrats are already resisting efforts by the Obama administration to do something about Social Security, and that in response, Obama shelved plans to announce a Social Security task force at today's White House "fiscal responsibility summit." If this report is accurate, that would actually make the summit even more of a farce than it is already shaping up to be, given that there's no way to address this nation's long-term fiscal nightmare without dealing with Social Security.
The Oscar Grouch
Posted by on 2.23.09 @ 11:50AM
From my perspective, the Oscars are very strange. I don't allow myself many diversions. Music is a given, but I never watch movies during a period of time when I'm interested in sports. When I went to the movies every Friday night as a pre-teenybopper, I had almost no interest in sports other than the basics that needed to be known to be allowed to live in Massachusetts. Now I watch a lot of sports but have almost no interest in movies (I'm sure the fact that sports bars are more popular than adult beverage-serving movie theaters is at least a small factor in this shift).
I haven't set foot inside a theater to watch a Hollywood film since sometime in 2004. It had been maybe three years since I'd seen my last movie before that. It has been over a decade since I last watched movies with any regularity. So almost everyone I see at the Oscars is Paris Hilton to me. I say this not to cast aspersions on their talent -- I'm sure many of them are very talented and their movies are just fine. But I only know who they are because they are famous. To me, they are famous for being famous.
I am pretty certain I have watched a movie in which Brad Pitt starred at least once. I vaguely recall some film where he gets hit by a car in some dramatic fashion very early on. But that's about all I could tell you. To me, Brad Pitt is Angelina Jolie's boyfriend, Jennifer Aniston's homewrecker, some guy who appears on magazine covers and gets chased around by camera-wielding paparazzi. I can identify him with no character and would have to strain to name a movie he's been in that was released more than a year ago.
The only part of the Oscars that doesn't seem completely bizarre to me is the "In Memoriam" montage. I've actually heard of all the dead people and watched their movies. But unless my tastes undergo another shift, I suppose in about ten years I won't even care about that part.
Who Do You Mean By "Many"?
Posted by on 2.23.09 @ 11:23AM
In a story on the phony NY Post cartoon controversy, the local news channel WPIX reports:
NEW YORK (WPIX) -- Outrage and protests continue to mount over The NY Post's controversial cartoon interpreted by many as comparing President Obama to a chimpanzee that was shot and killed by police in Stamford, Connecticut last week.
Emphasis mine.
It turns out the "many" mentioned in the story are Al Sharpton and Julian Bond. Plus it notes that NAACP members see the cartoon as "an invitation to assassinate the President."
It seems like a good time to remind everybody that, in contrast to the harmless cartoon, people have actually died as a result of Sharpton's racial and anti-Semitic incitement.
Pundits Right and Wrong
Posted by on 2.23.09 @ 10:24AM
Rick Moran at The Next Right worries about Republicans being too "divisive" and populist. In replying, I offered this thought:
A basic problem with conservative punditry is that too often it admits the premises of liberal arguments and yet expects to reach different conclusions. This is a fatal rhetorical trap. If one accepts the premise that the objects of government are to achieve liberal goals -- "world peace," "social justice," "economic equality," etc. -- then trying to find "conservative" answers to those problems is a snipe hunt. So it is with the will-o'-th'-wisp pursuit of "bipartisan civility," a euphemism employed by Democrats to mean, "Republicans lose and shut up."
You can read the whole thing, including my offer to write the book, Everything the Republicans Did Wrong 2005-2008 -- which would be a very long book.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 2.23.09 @ 9:57AM
- Just enough in the stimulus to hide the massive amounts of politically motivated spending (Washington Post)
- Bobby Jindal prepares for his moment in the spotlight (Politico)
- Chris Buckley, a year later, wishes his dad was around to
interpret the news
(Daily Beast)
- The disingenuous Prof. Kmiec is at it again (American Papist)
- Obama's union stance will exacerbate the recession, says Obama's economist (Weekly Standard)
Obama's Fuzzy Budget Math
Posted by on 2.23.09 @ 9:50AM
President Obama is expected to give us the first summary of his budget this Thursday, but the administration has already leaked some of the broad components to the press, including the pledge to reduce the $1.3 trillion deficit by more than half to $533 billion by the end of his term in office.
At first glance, it's difficult to see how his math adds up. The Obama administration expects to reduce the deficit by allowing Bush tax cuts to expire on wealthier Americans and saving money in Iraq and Afghanistan. But according to a Tax Policy Center analysis (a group whose work was frequently cited by the Obama campaign during the election), Obama would only be generating $68 billion in additional revenue by 2013 compared to maintaing all of the Bush tax cuts. Also, in FY 2008, the entire cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was $188 billion. In other words, even if we reduce our presence in both countries to zero and roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy, it doesn't get the deficit to under $1 trillion under the most charitable of assumptions. In reality, Obama just announced an increase in our pressence in Afghanistan and even during the campaign, he spoke of continuing non-combat operations in Iraq. So while the total cost of the wars is likely to go down, it won't bottom out to zero. Plus, his own tax plans come with a price tag, and during the campaign, the Obama team boasted that it would keep tax revenue at a lower rate than prevailed during the Reagan administration.
In addition, President Obama wants to establish universal health care, and in every state that this has been attempted, costs wildly exceeded projections. This doesn't take into account the costs of any future bailouts, stimulus packages, or other foreign entanglements. And of course, such analysis does not take into account the fact that the weak economy is certain to put a drain on tax revenue over the time period in question, and at the very minimum render any sort of deficit projections useless.
But this is good. It's part of being a chief executive. President Obama will put out a series of numbers setting clear budgetary goals, and if his numbers don't add up (which we know they won't) he'll be held accountable.
Why Bother With the Constitution?
Posted by on 2.23.09 @ 8:19AM
I believe it was Joe Sobran who once said that the Constitution poses no threat to our form of government. Certainly that is true with the plan to grant the District of Columbia a real, i.e., voting congressman. Reports the Washington Times:
Buoyed by the election of President Obama and additional Democratic gains in Congress, backers of a bill granting the District full representation in the House perceive Senate action this weekas the turning point in a decades-long quest.
"If it goes through the Senate, I think it will become law," said former Virginia Rep. Tom Davis, a moderate Republican who served roughly 14 years in Congress and backed the city's effort.
The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 is expected to be debated Monday in the Senate, then come up for a crucial preliminary vote Tuesday. A final Senate vote could come before Friday.
The bill provides one full House vote for the heavily Democratic District and an additional seat for Republican-leaning Utah in an attempt at a bipartisan compromise on the issue. In 2007, a similar bill fell three votes shy of advancing in the Senate after passing the House on a 241-177 vote.
Now, one can sympathize with people who have no voting representatives in Congress (either House or Senate). But the best answer would be to carve out a much smaller federal government enclave and retrocede the rest of the District back to Maryland, from whence it came more than two centuries ago. Then residents could vote for both House and Senate members.
However, the plan before Congress is flatly unconstitutional. Article I, Section 2 states: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States." Note that the Constitution says "states." Not "districts." Not "cities." Not "thingies." Not "geographical designations which we want to treat like states." But "states."
But then, as Joe Sobran noted, the Constitution really doesn't have much to do with the operation of the U.S. government any more.
The Battle for the GOP's Soul
Posted by on 2.23.09 @ 7:58AM
Congressional Republicans showed surprising fidelity to principle in opposing the Democrats' big spending pork-ridden "stimulus" package. But the toughest battle now is occurring among the governors. Men of principle, like South Carolina's Mark Sanford, are opposed by proto-Democrats like California's Arnold Schwarzenegger. Reports the New York Times:
Republican governors split sharply during the weekend over how to respond to the economic crisis, a debate whose outcome will go a long way toward shaping how the national party redefines itself in the wake of its election defeats of recent years.
The divisions were evident at the annual winter meeting of the National Governors Association here as the Republicans differed both in their approaches to their own states' budget shortfalls and in their attitudes toward President Obama's $787 billion stimulus package.
Some party leaders said Republicans should compromise with the Democratic president and move to the political center to attract independents' votes. A small but vocal group of conservative governors countered that the party instead must rebuild by standing against new spending and taxes to regain the trust of conservative voters.
"There's a tug of war right now within the party as to where we go next," Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, one of the conservative Republican leaders, said in an interview. "I am in the camp that says we go back to basics. There are other folks who say something a little different. The answer will be determined in this tug of war."
Among those tugging opposite him is Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, who only last week concluded a battle to close his state's $42 billion budget deficit over the opposition of Republican state lawmakers who opposed tax increases in the compromise. While Mr. Schwarzenegger was in Washington for the governor's meeting, a petition condemning him circulated back home at the California Republican Party convention.
This is a moment for the grassroots to speak up. The Republican Party has a chance to regain its voice in opposing wasteful spending. The rank and file need to make clear who speaks for them.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
The Chandra Levy Case
Posted by on 2.22.09 @ 1:45PM
It should be taught in all police investigative departments: The Chandra Levy Case: Or How NOT to Investigate a Major Felony.
In May of 2001 the 24-year-old Californian, an intern for the Federal Bureau of Prisons, disappeared from her District home. It quickly developed that she was having an affair with a married congressman from California, Democrat Gary Condit. Media and police attention fastened on Condit like a horsefly on a hot day. A massive search was undertaken to find Levy who, it was believed, had wandered into Rock Creek Park. It took the cops two months to unravel her computer and learn that, yes, she had been computer-exploring the park and probably went there. Police teams were sent out but they searched within a hundred yards of the roads, not the trails. It would be more than a year later that a man walking his dog discovered Levy's remains in the park less than 80 yards from where the police teams had swept through. The botched search was only the low point in a series of goofs committed by D.C.'s finest.
The case was revived due largely to a 13-part series in July by the Washington Post. Attention now centers on a Salvadoran doing prison time for attacks on a couple of women in the park at the time of Levy's disappearance. He denies any part in the Levy case.
We shall see. But we have already seen a couple of things: investigative incompetence and the continuing need for newspapers.
- Republic, Regained
- Mission Implausible
- Facing Up to Darwin
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
