- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
- 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
Saturday, June 13, 2009
The Face of Evil
Posted by on 6.13.09 @ 6:20PM
Some video of the brutal crackdown on Iranians being perpetrated by the ruling regime:
Some higher quality video from the BBC here of officers beating protesters, and chants of "We want freedom."
More footage below. No matter anybody's politics, we should all stand in solidarity with those Iranians seeking freedom against this oppresive theocracy.
UPDATE: This Iran blog has lots more photos and videos.
Jesus Likes Government-Run Health Care
Posted by on 6.13.09 @ 3:08PM
Maybe the problem is that I'm not a biblical scholar. But until now I didn't realize that God was in favor of the government takeover of the medical system. The religious Left is busy attempting to fill in my--and your--gaps of knowledge.
Reports Mark Tooley of the Institute on Religion and Democracy:
In early April, Religious Left groups met with Senator Kennedy's Chief Advisor on Health reform to plot how to exploit religion for imposing socialized medicine on America. Evidently, they easily agreed to the June 24 "Interfaith Service of Witness and Prayer for Health Care Reform" in Washington, D.C., supported by "echo" interfaith rallies across the nation.
These staged, ostensibly religious gatherings "will draw attention to the moral message offered by every American faith tradition: affordable, accessible, inclusive, and accountable health care coverage for all." But for the Religious Left, these goals can only be achieved through a federally controlled, centralized health system governed from Washington, D.C. that ultimately squashes private insurance.
Sponsors of the rallies operate under a coalition called "We Believe Together" and include the Episcopal Church, the United Methodist Board of Church and Society, the Islamic Society of North America, Michael Lerner's Tikkun and Network of Spiritual Progressives, the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church USA lobby office, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Jim Wallis' Sojourners, the School of the Americas Watch, and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Regarding the latter two groups, evidently opposing the U.S. school for Latin American military officers at Ft. Benning, Georgia, and advocacy for unrestricted abortion rights are causes that easily align with socialized medicine.
Speakers at the D.C. rally at Freedom Plaza will include Rabbi David Saperstein of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, Sayyid Syeed, of the Islamic Society of North America, and James A. Forbes Jr., Pastor Emeritus of famously far-Left Riverside Church in New York and now head of the Healing of the Nations Foundation.
Concurrently with the interfaith prayer rally in Washington, a group called People Improving Communities through Organizing (PICO) is also rallying religious groups to socialized medicine. PICO was founded by Jesuit priest Fr. John Baumann, who learned Saul Alinsky-style community organizing in Chicago in the 1960's and 1970's and transferred his skills to Oakland, California. PICO and its allies see churches as convenient and susceptible tools for political organizing on the Left's behalf, which nearly always entails expanding the power and control of government, while displacing the private sector. PICO's socialized medicine campaign is working in coalition with Sojourners and Faithful America, which is the political arm of the National Council of Churches.
PICO and friends kicked off their latest national push for socialized medicine with a May 22 conference call between its activist clergy and reporters. Supposedly PICO has recruited nearly 600 clergy to preach the glories of socialized medicine and mobilize their congregations in June and July. It also professes that 10,000 religionists will lobby Congress "to work together to make quality health-care choices affordable for all families," i.e., a federal takeover of the health care industry. PICO likewise will air radio ads called "Abundant Life" in key congressional districts. According to a PICO news release, the ads will stress "every person, created in the image of God, is of limitless value." Listeners are asked to contact their members of Congress to encourage them "to work together to make quality health-care choices affordable for all families."
So God is a socialist when it comes to medicine. And probably most everything else. Imagine that. I've got to get more serious about reading the Bible!
Iranian Elections Challenge Obamaism
Posted by on 6.13.09 @ 11:43AM
In the weeks leading up to the Iranian elections, we heard a lot of talk about the thriving democracy in Iran, and yesterday, even Obama got into the act. "We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran," Obama said. He continued, "Ultimately the election is for the Iranians to decide," adding: "Whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact that there's been a robust debate hopefully will help advance our ability to engage them in new ways."
The fantasy among Obamaists was that the administration's peaceful overtures -- in contrast to Bush's bellicose rhetoric -- had bolstered a "reformist" candidate and would usher in an era of moderation. But given the outcome in Iran, this overreach by the left now puts them in a pickle. Now that their "reformist" was defeated in an election widely viewed as rigged, and at the moment we're looking at a harsh government crackdown on demonstrators protesting the result, how does the Obama left now argue that this is a regime we need to engage with "mutal respect"? By raising the expectations in the runup to this election, the actual results cast an even brighter light on the brutality and undemocratic nature of this oppressive regime. The idea that we can get the regime to moderate its behavior by extending a hand of friendship now looks even more naive than it did a week ago.
Burmese Brutality on the March
Posted by on 6.13.09 @ 9:32AM
North Korea almost certainly is the worse regime on earth, but Burma's "State Peace and Development Council" constantly tries to make it a race. The military junta has launched another offensive against the ethnic Karen in the east. Reports BBC:
About 3,000 ethnic Karen villagers have reportedly fled from Burma into Thailand in recent days because of a new Burmese military offensive.
Aid groups say the refugees are from Ler Per Her camp in eastern Karen state, near where the Burmese army is reported to be attacking Karen rebels.
It is thought to be one of the largest movements of refugees across the Thai-Burma border in a decade.
Meanwhile Burma still faces pressure to halt Aung San Suu Kyi's trial.
The pro-democracy leader is charged with breaching the terms of her house arrest, a charge that could leave her in jail for up to five years.
These people seem very far away to most Americans, but through the work of the activist humanitarian group Christian Freedom International I've spent time with the Karen over the years. The impact on children is particularly horrific, as I detailed for the Spectator a while back.
There's not much the U.S. government can do. But as individuals we can support groups which help relieve the plight of the victims of the Burmese government's brutality. And we can pray for them.
Uncle Sam's Debt Bomb
Posted by on 6.13.09 @ 8:39AM
I keep trying to tell myself that everything will be okay. Then I read an article like this one by Ernest S. Christian and Gary A. Robbins in Investor's Business Daily:
President Obama has officially begun the era of bigger big government by proposing to go on a multitrillion dollar borrowing spree that risks doing to the "full faith and credit of the United States" what excessive borrowing during the housing bubble did to private credit.
Under his budget plan for America's future, spending will average 23.7% of GDP for at least a decade (a whopping 20% higher than in 2000-08).
Near-record deficits increasing at record rates will push the public debt of the U.S. beyond the economy's plausible capacity to pay - 70% of GDP by 2012, heading quickly to 82% of GDP in 2019 and on pace to be astronomically higher soon thereafter.
The Avalanche
American families over the last year have already lost 8% of their net worth - in part as a result of inept government meddling, past and present. For many of the same reasons, they are also buried under a mountain of mortgages and private-sector debts gone bad. On top of that, if the president has his way, they will soon be hit with more than a 100% increase in public debt (from $8 trillion this year to $17.3 trillion in 2019).
Furthermore, the Treasury (and taxpayers) will soon have to begin repaying to Social Security more than $5 trillion in payroll tax revenues that the government had taken from the trust fund and spent for earmarks and other purposes.
Even without the Obama surge in debt - and taxes to pay it off - taxpayers face the prospect of 60% to 70% income-tax rates in the future to pay for $48 trillion in unfunded liabilities under existing entitlement programs. Now the president plans to burden the economy's limited taxpaying capacity with a universal health care entitlement.
Well, as I've said before, it's only money. Don't worry, be happy!
Associated Press Leaps More Leftward
Posted by on 6.13.09 @ 8:14AM
The New York Times reports that the Associated Press -- the worldwide news service that every formerly mainstream news organization uses -- will distribute stories from four leftist nonprofits in addition to its own liberal reporting:
Starting on July 1, the A.P. will deliver work by the Center for Public Integrity, the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University (cranks out many of the FMSM journalists), the Center for Investigative Reporting, and ProPublica to the 1,500 American newspapers that are A.P. members, which will be free to publish the material.
The A.P. called the arrangement a six-month experiment that could later be broadened to include other investigative nonprofits, and to serve its nonmember clients, which include broadcast and Internet outlets.
Newspapers are still useful for starting bonfires and lining birdcages, ya know.
True Health Care Reform
Posted by on 6.13.09 @ 6:14AM
The American health care system is broken and needs reform. On that point most people across the spectrum agree. But what kind of reform? The president and the usual gaggle of left-wing interest groups want to nationalize the system. The alternative is to return control over health care to patients.
Indeed, that's what most of the rest of the world is doing, including the socialist models so beloved on the left. Writes my Cato Institute colleague Michael Tanner:
Finally, the broad and growing trend in countries with national health care systems is to move away from centralized government control and to introduce more market-oriented features. As Richard Saltman and Josep Figueras of the World Health Organization explain, "The presumption of public primacy is being reassessed." The growth of the government share of health care spending in European countries, which had increased steadily from the end of World War II until the mid-1980s, has stopped, and in many countries, the private share has begun to increase, in some cases substantially.
Other countries are loosening government controls and injecting market mechanisms, particularly cost-sharing by patients, market pricing of goods and services, and increased competition among insurers and providers. Pat Cox, former president of the European Parliament, said in a report to the European Commission, "[W]e should start to explore the power of the market as a way of achieving much better value for money."
There is even evidence of a growing shift from public to private provision of health care. If many of the proposals in Congress would push us toward more of a European-style system, the trend in Europe is toward a system that looks more like the U.S.
If there is a lesson that U.S. policymakers can take from national health care systems around the world, it is not to follow the road to government-run national health care, but to increase consumer incentives and control. The U.S. can increase coverage and access to care, improve quality and control costs without importing the problems of national health care.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Angry ACORN Mob Intimidates NY Lawmaker, Assaults Top Aide
Posted by on 6.12.09 @ 6:40PM
Protesters that were part of an angry mob that included many ACORN supporters nearly knocked New York state Sen. James Alesi, a Republican, down on the floor and spat in the face of his chief of staff, according to reports.
The protesters were reportedly upset that two Democratic senators decided to caucus with Republicans, a move that when finalized by the state Senate would hand Republicans control of it. Majority Democrats have shut down the chamber to prevent the transfer of power.
Meanwhile, Pennsylvania state Rep. Stephen Barrar, a Republican, is circulating a petition calling on his state's attorney general to investigate ACORN.
Rangel: House Dem Health Care Bill to Have $600 bln in Tax Hikes
Posted by on 6.12.09 @ 4:01PM
Bloomberg has the remarks of House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel , and it also includes this reassuring line:
Asked whether the cost of a health-care overhaul would be more than $1 trillion, Rangel said, “the answer is yes.”
IG Firing Is a Big Deal
Posted by on 6.12.09 @ 3:52PM
I call on Chris Matthews, Katie Couric, Eugene Robinson, Keith Olbermann, the NY Times editorial page (okay, most of its news pages, too), all of CBS, CNN, MSNBC, much of NBC, most of the Washington Post headline writers, and, heck, let's just say virtually the entirety of the Establishment Media to stop doing their continuous collective Lewinsky on President Obama long enough to raise Cain about this incident of their Obamassiah improperly firing a politically inconvenient Inspector General. Note that the IG worked at an organization that now almost certainly will fund ACORN, an organization so vastly expanded that it raises serious questions about whether it will stay within proper bounds, and one that many fear is being heavily politicized. It is an organization headed by a man who has raised hundreds of millions of dollars for Democratic candidates, and whose top staffer just was sent over there from Michelle Obama's personal staff. And the fired IG had been embarrassing close allies of President Obama. Because this goes straight to the top, to Obama himself, this highly suspicious firing looks worse than anything seriously alleged in the flap over the perfectly legitimate firings of attorneys general by the Bush Justice Department. More to come on all this. Michelle Malkin is on the case. So are lots of others now. And so am I, big-time. Watch for much, MUCH more on all this. But just don't watch for the Establishment Media to pay attention. They are otherwise occupied.
The Radical Roots of Iran's "Reformist"
Posted by on 6.12.09 @ 3:41PM
The media has been eager to portray President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's chief rival in today's Iranian elections as a "reformist" candidate, but a survey of Mir Hussein Moussavi's record shows him to be yet another radical.
As prime minister during the 1980s, Moussavi was routinely described as a "militant" and "hard-liner" in press accounts. He celebrated Islamists' seizure of of the U.S. Embassy, backed the Supreme Leader's call for author Salman Rushdie's murder, and had ties to Lebanese terrorist goup Hezbollah. He has been quoted as referring to America as "the Great Satan" and to Israel as a "cancerous tumor."
A Nexis search of old reports from the New York Times yielded these descriptions of Moussavi (I've placed the dates in parentheses):
"...Prime Minister Mir Hussein Moussavi, one of the Iranian regime's most severe militants." (Feb. 17, 1989)
"Iran's Prime Minister, Mir Hussein Moussavi, a prominent member of the militant wing in the Iranian leadership who has opposed economic liberalization at home and political openings to the West, added his voice today to the growing current of combativeness in Iran." (Feb. 22, 1989)
"Another prominent hard-liner was also left off the new Cabinet list: Mir Hussein Moussavi, the current Prime Minister..."(Aug. 20, 1989)
In the Feb. 22 story I cited above, it says, Moussavi "asserted that Ayatollah Khomeini's orders to kill Mr. Rushdie for what Iranian fundamentalists say is the blaspheming of Islam in his book 'The Satanic Verses' would be carried out, according to a Teheran radio broadcast monitored by the Associated Press in Nicosia."
On October 9, 1981, the Times spoke to Moussavi, and he addressed the seizure of the U.S. Embassy:
In the interview, Mr. Moussavi said Westerners in general and Americans in particular also had difficulty understanding why Iran held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. The hostage affair served the revolution's purpose, the Foreign Minister said.
''It was the beginning of the second stage of our revolution,'' after the overthrow of the Shah, Mr. Moussavi said. ''It was after this that we rediscovered our true Islamic identity.''
''After this, we felt the sense that we could look Western policy in the eye and analyze it the way they had been evaluating us for many years.''
Moreover, he said, the seizure of the United States Embassy in Teheran ended the ''problem of pro-American circles and their following in Iran.'' This was apparently an allusion to the ouster of Mr. Bani-Sadr who, with other secular Iranian officials, had urged that the hostages be released.
A former Iranian intelligence officer has been quoted by Newsmax as saying Moussavi was one of the founders of Hezbollah. Even if one were to dismiss that report, it's undeniable that he was supportive of Hezbollah. This Associated Press account from Oct. 27, 1985 explains how Moussavi introduced his cabinet (keep in mind that "Party of God" is the translation of "Hezbollah"):
Iran's official Islamic press agency reported Mr. Moussavi's comments as Parliament opened debate on nominations to the Cabinet at the start of the second term of Mr. Moussavi and the President, Hojatolislam Ali Khamenei.
The agency, monitored in Nicosia, quoted Mr. Moussavi as saying Ali Akbar Mohtashami, the proposed Interior Minister, was a religious figure noted for his work with the Party of God, in Lebanon. The Party of God is one of the most radical Shiite Moslem groups in Lebanon.
The agency quoted Mr. Moussavi as saying the proposed Minister of Culture and Higher Education, Mohammed Farhadi, was one of the Party of God figures at Teheran University. He referred to former Oil Minister Mohammed Gharazi, nominated to become Minister of Post and Telephone, as ''one of the most revolutionary figures of the country.''
Michael Goldfarb has more, including this from a 1998 Reuters report:
In a Foreign Ministry statement read on Tehran radio today, Iran said that Israel should be annihilated and that implicit recognition of it by the Palestine Liberation Organisation ignored the inalienable rights of the Muslim Palestinan people.
The statement said that the only way to achieve Palestinian rights was continuation of all-out popular struggles against Israel.
Iranian Prime Minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi yesterday called Israel a "cancerous tumour" and said the Palestinian move to accept UN Resolution 242 would anger Muslim revolutionaries.
He also notes that, "In 1987, Reuters quoted Mousavi at a demonstration in Tehran saying 'Tomorrow will be the day we step on the Great Satan. Tomorrow is the time for America to see our iron fists.'"
Even though the president of Iran doesn't have real power, should Moussavi win, the media will no doubt attempt to portray his election as a "sea change" in Iran. But his long record of radicalism suggests otherwise.
Orange Barrels...
Posted by on 6.12.09 @ 1:25PM
A North Carolina State University student was arrested for creating this monster:
Seems to me it'd be a pretty good warning to slow down!
Hat tip: Jon Sanders.
Health Care's Arbitrary Price Tag
Posted by on 6.12.09 @ 11:30AM
The Congressional Budget Office is close to putting a price tag on some health care proposals, but Democrats, fearful that Americans may get sticker shock, are considering using estimates of the White House Office of Management and Budget instead, the Hill reports.
In the article, Democrats express concern that the CBO will inadequately value the "savings" that a proposal would generate through preventive care.
The potential cost savings from preventive health care is a thorny issue, because not all prevention is created equal. While it's true that you could reduce health care costs if people lived healthier lives, it's not clear that you can change people's behavior through government policy, and as I wrote earlier today, Democratic health care proposals threaten successful private sector efforts to lower costs by cutting obesity and smoking rates. Furthermore, a number of experts have found that prevention does not save money when it takes on the form of increased screening, overdiagnosis of diseases, overprescription of drugs, and so forth, because the cost of such measures across the wider population tends to eclipse any savings generated by cutting down spending once people have a given illness.
What this means in reality, is that by using rosy assumptions about the projected savings from prevention, the White House will be able to come up with a low ball figure on the cost of health care legislation.
Paul Krugman Spreads the Left-Wing Hate
Posted by on 6.12.09 @ 10:10AM
A chill wind blows.
In light of the horrific murder of a security guard by an alleged extremist at the U.S. Holocaust Museum, liberal pontificator Paul Krugman of the New York Times is the latest unhinged pundit to join in the left's campaign to silence conservatives and libertarians.
His latest column is filled with lies and distortions about the discredited, now-withdrawn Department of Homeland Security report on "rightwing extremism" that labeled all conservatives, libertarians, and returning veterans as potential terrorists and directed law enforcement officials across the country to act.
Shame on him.
Krugman should remember that the hate-crimes legislation that the left has been hysterically demanding for years could one day be used against him.
(I had a vigorous discussion yesterday about the shooting and the left's reaction to it with progressive talker Thom Hartmann on his show yesterday.)
Knocked Up
Posted by on 6.12.09 @ 9:53AM
I'm late to this discussion, but let's just say that David Letterman knows something about getting unmarried women "knocked up."
Punk.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 6.12.09 @ 9:40AM
- Spitzer was once feared throughout New York. Now he is crying over hot dogs in the middle of the day in Central Park (Vanity Fair)
- Krauthammer really isn't lightening up on Obama, to say the least (Washington Post)
- What do you know, the big banks managed to fritter away TARP money senselessly (Econbrowser)
- Good thing Barney Frank will be involved with setting executive compensation, since he knows so much about getting paid by banks (Cafe Hayek)
- Obama is simply making stuff up -- a good review by Victor Davis Hanson (National Review)
- Feminists gave Letterman a free pass on his chauvinistic comments about Sarah Palin (Salon)
End the Fed!
Posted by on 6.12.09 @ 9:39AM
At last night's 25th anniversary Competitive Enterprise Institute dinner, BB&T chairman and former CEO John Allison gave a rollicking keynote address attacking the bailout, the "misregulation" of the financial industry, and the spirit of "altruism" that he said dominates our politics. But more surprisingly, he also suggested that the Federal Reserve should be replaced with the gold standard and a more privatized banking system.
Afterward, I asked a staffer for Congressman Ron Paul if Allison had been a Paul donor in 2008. "He should have been!" he replied. During that campaign, I was mystified by Paul's insistence on talking about the Federal Reserve and monetary policy. Although I broadly agreed with his Austrian analysis, it seemed to me that his time would have been better spent emphasizing fiscal policy: the fact that he'd never voted for a tax increase or an unbalanced budget, his opposition to most major spending programs, his support for all of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts.
Yet on the campaign trail, I repeatedly saw kids with pink hair and nose rings shouting, "End the Fed!" Paul himself seemed surprised by the reaction, noting that at one campaign appearance college students started burning Federal Reserve notes (that's quite a few 25-cent drafts they were sacrificing in the process). The financial crisis has increased the salience of the monetary issue in some quarters. Paul's bill to audit the Fed now has more than 218 cosponsors -- 222 at last count -- including members of the House Republican leadership, the head of the Republican Study Committee, and the head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
Leading Dem Reveals "Public Option" Really A Route to Single-Payer
Posted by on 6.12.09 @ 8:25AM
Yesterday, Ezra Klein interviewed Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, about his fresh idea of introducing a "co-op" health care plan as an alternative to the government-run plan favored by liberals. There are a few things in the interview worth noting: 1) Conrad says Democrats don't have the votes to pass heath care legislation that includes a government plan, which supporters call the "public option" and 2) Conrad says that he doesn't think they can pass health care legislation by using the process of reconciliation, which would theoretically enable Democrats to pass a bill with a simple majority of 51 votes.
But I want to focus on a passing comment Conrad made toward the end of the interview. Asked how his more liberal colleagues reacted to his proposal for an alternative to the public option, Conrad responded:
"I think it's fair to say mixed. Those who really want public option because they really want single payer, this does not satisfy their position."
Over the course of the ongoing health care debate, conservatives have been trying to point out that the so-called public option is merely a way for liberals to achieve a single-payer health care system over time. But liberals, at least publicly, have protested this characterization, and insisted that the public option was merely a plan that would offer more choice to consumers and (in President Obama's words) "help keep the private sector honest." Yet in this interview, Conrad, a high-ranking Democrat, openly admits that a good number of liberals who are touting the government plan are doing so because "they really want single payer..."
Grand Health Care Alliance Begins to Fracture
Posted by on 6.12.09 @ 8:05AM
For months, I’ve been reporting on the fact that many of the industry groups that opposed past attempts by Washington to overhaul the health care system are onboard with the Democrats this time around. But suddenly, that’s starting to change.
On Thursday, the New York Times reported that the American Medical Association would oppose the creation of a new government-run plan modeled after Medicare, which is supported by President Obama. This is a significant development, even though the group subsequently released a vague statement saying it may support some variations of a government plan.
But this wasn’t the only such example.
On Thursday, representatives from several business groups appeared before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee and delivered strong statements against the idea of a mandate requiring employers to provide health coverage or pay a fine. The groups said the cost of the mandate would have to be recouped somehow, meaning either job losses or lower wages for employees.
Randel Johnson of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce called the idea a “sweeping new burden on businesses” and delivered a blistering criticism of the way Democrats were trying to ram through legislation in a matter of months. He said for all the flak Hillary Clinton received for conducting meetings behind closed doors during the 1993 health care drive, that was “a model of transparency” compared to the current process.
Taken together, this shift could complicate matters for President Obama and Democrats in Congress. For liberals, abandoning a government-run plan and employer mandate would take the teeth out of health care reform, and for some, make it simply not worth doing. The optics of Democratic lawmakers abandoning such ideas to win over industry groups would not go over well among the party’s activist base. At the same time, if Democrats insist on ramming through very liberal legislation without any Republican votes or support of doctors, insurers, and businesses, they won’t have any cover if (or I should say when) their program fails.
Republicans Warn Against Rushing Health Care Reform
Posted by on 6.12.09 @ 7:31AM
While Republicans have not yet unified around a broad strategy on health care, for now they seem to be coalescing around the argument that any legislation should not be rushed.
While President Obama was in Wisconsin yesterday and railed against “endless delay” in passing health care legislation, Republican lawmakers emphasized that the issue was too important to be rammed through the Congress without taking the time to get it right.
Sens. Richard Burr and Tom Coburn, who introduced a Republican alternative bill, spoke at a Thursday event on Capitol Hill organized by the Manhattan Institute. Burr explained that under the accelerated schedule, amendments to the legislation proposed by Democrats on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee this week would be due by 2 p.m. on Monday, and the process of rewriting the bill (known as “markup”) would begin on Tuesday – even though three parts the bill haven’t been finished yet.
“We have one opportunity to do this right,” Burr said. “If we fail, it will take a generation of Americans to fix those failures.”
Coburn said it was “absolutely asinine” that they wouldn’t even know the Congressional Budget Office’s assessment of the legislation’s price tag by the time they huddle in committee to work on the bill.
“A criticism of Congress right now might be, ‘Sure we want health care fixed, but we don’t want to fix it just to say you fixed it, we want you to really fix it, so take your time to do it right,'” Coburn said. “We’ll win that debate.”
In his opening statement during a public hearing on the bill, Mike Enzi, the ranking Republican on the HELP Committee, conveyed a similar sentiment.
“We shouldn’t be subject just to timetables,” Enzi said. “We should be subject to doing what’s right.”
Obama has pushed for an expedited timetable under which the House
and Senate would pass their own versions of health care
legislation next month, and work out their differences in the
fall -- allowing him to sign something by the end of the
year.
Dems Health Care Proposal Would Kill Successful Prevention Program They Tout
Posted by on 6.12.09 @ 7:09AM
If you want a good example of the wide gulf between Democrats’ rhetoric on health care and the real world implications of their policy proposals, you need look no further than the issue of prevention and wellness.
President Obama and Democrats have made cost control central to their health care push, and a key part of their argument has been that we have to encourage people to live healthier lives so they don’t get sick in the first place.
Grocery chain Safeway has been one of the leading success stories on this front, because it’s been able to keep its health care costs flat by providing financial incentives for its employees to be healthier. Obama met with the company’s CEO, Steve Burd, last month and praised the company as being among “the best practitioners of prevention and wellness…in the private sector.”
Under the Safeway program, employees pay less for their health care if they refrain from smoking as well as maintain a reasonable weight, blood pressure, and cholesterol level. This has encouraged workers to drop their bad habits so that they can save money, and as a result Safeway boasts lower obesity and smoking rates than the national average. Burd described the program before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on Thursday – and received praise from both Republicans and Democrats.
But there’s one big problem. The current Democratic health care legislation that emerged from the committee this week contains a provision known as “community rating,” a popular feature of many liberal proposals, which bars insurers from charging people higher premiums based on a person’s health status. So in other words, if you’re a marathon runner with ideal health habits, you have to pay more or less the same for health insurance as an obese smoker with heart disease.
When asked in his testimony, Burd acknowledged that if community rating were adopted, Safeway would be unable to continue its program – the very program that Obama and Democrats are holding up as a model for the nation as to how to reduce costs by providing incentives for healthy living.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
What Dirt Does NACA Have on NC Gov. Bev Perdue?
Posted by on 6.11.09 @ 4:47PM
The far-left community group NACA just squeezed taxpayer dollars out of the state of North Carolina.
NACA (Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America) is a very aggressive ACORN wannabe and it played a role in the subprime mortgage collapse by using the Community Reinvestment Act to hound banks into lending money to people they should have known wouldn't be able to pay it back.
The state's Democratic governor, Bev Perdue, is even bragging about surrendering the $1 million grant from the One North Carolina Fund on her website.
The grant is going to help NACA expand its operations.
In her press release, the governor also promotes NACA's jobs fair happening tomorrow and Saturday in Charlotte. Perdue does her constituents a disservice, though, by not reminding them that a criminal record --or at least the ability to intimidate people-- might be a prerequisite to land a job with NACA.
It's unclear what kind of dirt blackmailer Bruce Marks, the head of NACA who glibly calls himself an "urban terrorist," had on Gov. Perdue. Perhaps a Freedom of Information Act request would be in order. (Here's a North Carolina Business Journal article on the grant.)
(Hat tip to Paul Chesser)
Another 'Green' Policy That Leads to Death
Posted by on 6.11.09 @ 3:07PM
Looks like public hospitals in British Columbia, Canada, will have to cut patient services in order to comply with global warming laws established by the provincial government. The Surrey Leader reports:
The Lower Mainland’s health authorities will have to dig more than $4 million a year out of their already stretched budgets to pay B.C.’s carbon tax and offset their carbon footprints.
Critics say the payments mean the government’s strategy to fight climate change will further exacerbate a crisis in health funding.
“You have public hospitals cutting services to pay a tax that goes to another 100 per cent government-owned agency,” NDP health critic Adrian Dix said.
“That just doesn’t make sense.”
The Fraser Health Authority will pay $616,000 in carbon tax this year, rising to $821,000 next year, officials there said.
And by 2010 Fraser will also be paying $1.3 million a year to the province’s Pacific Carbon Trust to offset its projected 52,600 tonnes of carbon emissions released….
Vancouver Coastal Health Authority also expects its costs will be close to $2 million next year in combined carbon tax and offset payments.
And while human life is threatened, of course, the stated objective of global warming kooks is once again undermined:
Dix warned that some of the potential cuts – such as closing the ER at Mission Memorial Hospital – would actually increase carbon emissions by sending patients further afield.
“Obviously when you shut down regional centres it makes people travel farther to get to their health care facility,” he said.
Meanwhile a hospital executive states his greater concern for plant life than heartbeats:
Vancouver Coastal chief financial officer Duncan Campbell said his health authority believes the payments are appropriate and isn’t asking for any exemption from Victoria.
“For us to go back and ask for an exemption wouldn’t fit in well with our green care plans,” he said.
Did they hire this guy away from Planned Parenthood?
Cross-posted at Globalwarming.org.
Are You for Stuff or Against It?
Posted by on 6.11.09 @ 1:33PM
Daniel Larison points out that some of the foreign-policy language in the Pew survey isn't terribly helpful either.
The Politics of the Holocaust Museum Murder
Posted by on 6.11.09 @ 11:14AM
Another sad aspect of tragedies such as yesterday's is that they must instantly play out within our noxious political culture. It's really sickening to see how liberals can hear that a security guard got shot to death in a an attack on an insititution dedicated to memorializing the systematic murder of millions of innocent people, and instantly think of how they can exploit the event to score cheap political points. But I don't think conservatives are innocent here either, and I don't think the way to respond to the absurd claims on the left is to try to turn the tables in an attempt to tie liberals to this atrocious act of violence. At some point, we have to say, enough is enough. This has got to stop. I disagree with liberals ideologically, and I'm passionate enough about my own beliefs that I made a career out of defending them. But however passionately I may disagree with liberals, I do not think --other than the fringiest of the fringe -- that they want to see a U.S. soldier killed at a recruiting station. Why can't we acknowledge that there are some absolute lunatics in this world who will commit violence for all sorts of reasons, and that they have nothing in common with people -- left or right -- who are merely vocal about politcal views. David Berkowitz (aka Son of Sam) killed because he believed he was ordered to do so by a demon who posessed a dog, and John Hinckley shot Reagan because he was obsessed with Jodie Foster. Anybody who murders another innocent human being -- whether an abortion provider, a soldier, or a museum guard -- is operating on a whole different level than a television host or political blogger. We all know this. Why can't we just be grownups about it and just honor the memory of the dead in these circumstances, rather than turn it into another bitter political battle?
More Help from an Unexpected Corner
Posted by on 6.11.09 @ 11:07AM
Joining Wonkette in the small group of non-conservatives who aren't losing their credibility, libertarian Jesse Walker of Reason identifies the precise motivation for the left's willingness to use yesterday's tragedy at the Holocaust Museum as a talking point used against the right:
The effect [of the DHS report on "right-wing extremism" isn't to make right-wing terror attacks less likely. It's to make it easier to smear nonviolent, noncriminal figures on the right, just as the most substantial effect of a red scare was to make it easier to smear nonviolent, noncriminal figures on the left. The fact that communist spies really existed didn't justify Joseph McCarthy's antics, and the fact that armed extremists really exist doesn't justify the Department of Homeland Security's report.
That's exactly right. If you are so cynical as to use the occasion of a security guard laying down his life to protect museumgoers under attack from a lone, crazed gunman as an opportunity to score points against your political opponents, then you do not have journalistic integrity.
Oh, and by the way, yesterday's killer hates neocons and Bill O'Reilly. For what it's worth.
The Fredo Factor: How to Deal With a Republican Punk
Posted by on 6.11.09 @ 10:11AM
Matt Lewis works out on David Frum:
The debate over the heart and soul of conservatism continues, and the latest skirmish is apparently between neoconservative David Frum and yours truly . . . .
[F]rom the very beginning of his excoriation of me, Frum misleads the audience. . . .
Frum is angry that I have questioned his conservative bona fides, primarily because his solutions to the problems conservatives face always seem to involve conservatives becoming more liberal. Plus, I find it insultingly ironic that a neocon Bush speechwriter would be giving conservatives advice on how to be popular. . . .
Much more where that came from, and a hat-tip to Hot Air Headlines. Lewis's response to Frum caught my attention because I was reflecting this morning on how conservatives have allowed themselves to be disrespected by Republican "leaders" in Washington.
It's
like The Godfather, where Fredo gets slapped around by
Moe Green, until Michael shows up to set things straight. The
fundamental question for conservatives is:
What kind of Corleone are you?
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
The Left Won't Let This Shooting Go to Waste
Posted by on 6.10.09 @ 5:56PM
An alleged extremist named James Wenneker von Brunn shot a security guard at the United States Holocaust Museum here in Washington, D.C. The shooter, who was himself shot by police, is reportedly in critical condition and, sadly, the security guard he shot has died.
This shooting is, of course, a terrible crime committed on sacred ground that all reasonable people should condemn.
But the left-wingers in the blogosphere and the commentariat are already claiming that because the shooter was an alleged right-wing extremist, specifically a racist neo-Nazi, Janet Napolitano's Department of Homeland Security was right to identify conservatives, libertarians, and returning veterans as potential terrorists in the controversial (and recently withdrawn) directive to law enforcement officials across the country.
This is the worst kind of smear but it's par for the course for the left.
BarbinMD at the loathsome Daily Kos website writes
With the second rightwing political shooting in as many weeks, will the conservative media apologize for their "outrage" at the Department of Homeland Security report on "rightwing extremism"?
Predictably David Neiwert of Crooks and Liars gloats, "Anyway, it's not like we didn't warn that this was going to happen."
Similarly, Andrea Nill at the Wonk Room at Think Progress writes, "Brunn's hateful rhetoric followed by today's violent outburst chillingly echoes a controversial warning issued by the Department of Homeland Security concerning a rise in 'rightwing extremist activity.'"
Michelle Malkin has rounded up some other reactions from the loony left.
The reprobates at the left-wing smear site Media Matters for America must be jumping for joy at this seemingly heaven-sent opportunity to advance the progressive cause. By sheer coincidence, at the website of the journalistic equivalent of a roving, extremely well-funded death squad, left-wing hate purveyor Eric Boehlert put up a post last night called "O'Reilly and Fox News will have more right-wing vigilantism to explain."
No doubt Boehlert's going to get a raise from the Media Matters boss and founder serial liar David Brock. Two months ago Media Matters mocked conservatives when they raised legitimate concerns about the report.
By comparison, TPM Muckraker's post is mild and factual. Its authors don't seem to be trying to capitalize on today's events.
None of this changes the fact that Napolitano's politically motivated directive was wrong then and remains wrong now. As I wrote in an article called "Thoughtcrime Redux," it was a malicious un-American smear calculated to ridicule and intimidate opponents of the left's policy goals. It goes without saying that police need to be on guard against right-wing extremists, left-wing extremists, and anyone planning to carry out violent attacks. But police should not be on guard against or investigating individuals and groups solely because they don't happen to agree with the Obama administration or the Democratic majority in Congress.
Just a few minutes before the shooting occurred I happened to be at an ACLU-sponsored meeting about reconsidering the Patriot Act and a presenter, who identified himself as a former FBI agent, denounced the DHS report for being "overbroad." He's right.
Meanwhile, expect the liberals' hate fest to continue and probably intensify. The leftists may even say today's events prove that stronger hate-crimes legislation is needed. Perhaps the attack today will serve as a new rationale for other parts of the left's agenda too.
I would not be surprised to hear a strongly worded comment from the highest levels of government: Never let a good shooting go to waste.
(crossposted at Capital Research Center)
Updated: Shame on me for missing this idiotic mini-rant from Andrew Sullivan, this garbage from Gawker, and this particularly shameful post from the highly overrated Matthew Yglesias of Think Progress whose pontifications are funded by the George Soros-led Democracy Alliance. (hat tip to Joseph Lawler)
Score One for Wonkette
Posted by on 6.10.09 @ 5:55PM
The proper reaction to the murder perpetrated to a crazed lone gunman today at the Holocaust Museum is horror and sorrow.
But as long as intemperate liberal bloggers are using the occasion to score points against "the right," who they somehow connect to the murder of George Tiller and the shooting at the Holocaust Museum, it's worth reading what the usually reliably Wonkette has to say:
Maybe we should just thank James von Brunn today for shooting a human at the Holocaust Museum, because look at all the political points he's allowing liberal bloggers to score immediately today! Why it's the best thing to happen since Columbine, when we finally got to stick it to that Marilyn Manson for making all the kids shoot each other, with his rock songs.
'The Socialism of Fools': Jew-Hating and the Externalization of Inadequacy
Posted by on 6.10.09 @ 5:36PM
Not long after it was reported that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright blames "them Jews" for his estrangement from President Obama, a gunman opened fire in the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington.
As if to prove August Bebel's maxim that "anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools," the suspect in the museum shooting created a Web site for his rantings against "Illuminati," bankers, "JEWS-NEOCONS-BILL O'REILLY" -- it's all a conspiracy, you see.
Whereas the standard-issue socialist rants again capitalism, "greed" and "corporate America," the anti-Semite concentrates his resentment more specifically. Like the socialist, the conspiracy-minded anti-Semite seeks an ironclad theory that explains what is to him otherwise inexplicable, most especially including his own insignificance or failure. It isn't merely about disliking Jews; rather, it is about externalizing blame.
Externalizing blame is a natural psychological defense mechanism by which the ego protects itself from the negative feedback that psychologists describe as cognitive dissonance. We all wish to think well of ourselves, but for most of us, this positive self-image is regularly challenged by evidence that (a) we aren't as wonderful as we might like to think, and (b) others hold us in lower esteem than we would wish.
A healthy mind responds to this cognitive dissonance by accepting personal responsibility for failure and taking positive measures toward self-improvement. Yet the pathological temptation -- to deny our shortcomings, shield our self-image from negative feedback, and externalize blame on some scapegoat -- is always present.
In its basic psychological motivation, then, anti-Semitism resembles the attitude of the whining ungrateful child who blames his own unhappiness or failure on a sibling, a parent, a classmate or a teacher. The brat steadfastly refuses to accept responsibility for his own actions and the consequences of those actions, no matter how patiently the true situation is explained to him.
By the same token, the man who imagines that "the Jews" are to blame for society's ills cannot be persuaded by any contrary argument. The stubborn irrationality of the belief testifies to the important psychological function of the fallacy.
Both the Rev. Wright and the museum shooting suspect represent extreme examples of this. For the Rev. Wright, no amount of evidence can disprove his irrational belief that the 9-11 attacks were "chickens coming home to roost" -- the necessary payback for America's alliance with Israel. For Jim Von Brunn, belief in a sinister Jewish-Illuminati banking cabal was sufficient that he attempted to take hostage the Federal Reserve in 1981 and, if initial reports of today's attack are correct, shot three people at the Holocaust Museum.
As media commentators and Internet pundits rush to assign blame for the museum shooting -- Michelle Malkin has a round-up of the finger-pointing -- it is important to understand what really caused this irrational violence. Von Brunn was no more a "right-wing" critic of U.S. monetary policy than the Rev. Wright is a "left-wing" critic of U.S. foreign policy. Their irrational beliefs transcend any ordinary policy criticism, instead representing the pathological result of extreme mental weakness.
That pathological temptation must always be resisted, and so whenever I seek the source of my own disappointments, the true scapegoat stares back from my mirror. It's all my fault -- because I suck.
Falling Belief in Man-Made Global Warming
Posted by on 6.10.09 @ 4:09PM
Bad news for environmental extremists. Despite control of the government and media, the alarmists are losing the battle for public support. Reports Rasmussen Reports:
The new survey also finds that 39% of voters believe global warming is caused by human activity, up from 34% in April. However, 44% say long-term planetary trends are most to blame for global warming. Last month, 48% cited this reason.
Despite the rise in voters who say human activity is to blame, the overall results represent a complete reversal from a year ago, when 47% blamed human activity and only 34% blamed planetary trends.
Democratic congressmen from blue collar districts should think very hard before they vote to wreck the economy with Waxman-Markey or anything similar.
Pew's Social Conservatism
Posted by on 6.10.09 @ 2:23PM
The study (.pdf) on which John Avlon hangs his latest call for a fiscally conservative, socially liberal Republican Party is impressive in many ways. But its index of social conservatism is a bit shoddy and likely to exclude a high percentage of educated people. By this index, I only unambiguously count as a social conservative according to one statement -- "I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage" -- and could maybe stretch to agree with at most one other: "Clear guidelines about what's good or evil apply to everyone regardless of their situation."
I don't broadly speaking think we should "ban books that contain dangerous ideas" or send women back to the kitchen. The latter is a particularly antiquated definition of social conservatism, given that the candidate who most excited social conservatives in 2008 was a working mother whose teenaged daughter had a baby out of wedlock. As for school boards being allowed to fire teachers who are known to be gay, Ronald Reagan opposed a ballot initiative that would esssentially have done just that -- in 1978. Was he not a social conservative?
Now, I don't dispute that younger and independent voters skew to the left of other voters -- and my own views -- on a number of salient questions, including same-sex marriage. But the Pew study offers a cariacture of social conservatism that is especially unlikely to find many takers among these groups.
UPDATE: I have my own thoughts on the state of social conservatism in today's Politico.
Guard Shot at Holocaust Museum
Posted by on 6.10.09 @ 1:53PM
A man armed with a "long gun" entered the Holocaust Museum this afternoon and fired at a security guard, and then was shot by two other security guards, according to the United States Park Police.
In a press briefing that aired on Fox News Channel, Sergeant David Schlosser of the U.S. Park Police said that both the gunman and the guard who was shot were rushed to George Washington University Hospital. The shooting occured at about 10 minutes to 1 p.m.
Schlosser said there was no evidence of another shooter in the building, but they have shut down the museum and are searching just to be sure.
UPDATE: Shooting suspect identified as white supremacist James Von Brunn, born in 1920 (so either 88 or 89 years-old).
Friction Growing Among Parties in Health Care Debate
Posted by on 6.10.09 @ 1:01PM
Last month I wrote about how a handful of Republicans were confidently touting the possibilities for bipartisan health care reform, but in the past few weeks, the gulf between the two parties has begun to widen. Take the cases of Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, and Mike Enzi -- Republicans that would have to be onboard if the White House has any hopes of making this a bipartisan effort.
In May, Grassley met with President Obama in the White House and came away satisfied -- even floating the idea that health care legislation could get 80 votes in the Senate. Yet this past weekend, Grassley lashed out at Obama's handling of health care in a series of angry Twitter posts.
When I heard Hatch speak at the Kaiser Family Foundation last month, he said that "meaningful reform" through bipartisan compromise was achievable this year. Yet this week he has become more outspoken in his opposition to the creation of a new government-run plan, and along with other Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee (including Grassley and Enzi), raised alarms over the idea in a letter to President Obama.
And when I expressed skepticism to Enzi last month about the intentions of Democrats after he gave a speech at the Heritage Foundation, he told me, "I wish you could be in some of the meetings I've been in that are far more encouraging than what you're reading in the paper..."
But after Democrats on the on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, chaired by Ted Kennedy, released their own proposal yesterday, Enzi (the ranking Republican on the committee) was blistering in his criticism.
“For health care reform to work and have broad support, it needs to be bipartisan,” Enzi said in a statement. “Unfortunately, the draft bill that Democrats released today is a partisan wish-list that will put us on the road to government-rationed health care." Today, he followed up by warning that the Democrats' proposal to expand Medicaid eligibility "would lock 50 million Americans into a second-tier health care program" and drive up the cost of care on everybody else because providers would be forced to jack up rates to recoup the lower reimbursements charged to government programs. To be sure, Enzi said that he still intends to work hard to achieve bipartisan reform, but clearly his statements are less effusive than they were just last month.
UPDATE: I just got off the phone with Craig Orfield, Enzi's communications director, who told me that Enzi was "very disappointed" with the release of the Kennedy bill, and said the senator feels that all the time Republicans spent talking to Democrats may have been in vain since the majority wasn't listening to them. Orfield said the HELP Committee did not have as open a process as the Finance Committee. Last month, Enzi was skeptical about the idea of a GOP alternative, but may be warming up -- Orfield said that when the Senate Republican "working group" on health care meets this afternoon, they'll likely be discussing whether to present an alternative.
Poll: 45 Pct of Americans Want to Cancel Rest of Stimulus
Posted by on 6.10.09 @ 10:32AM
A new Rasmussen poll out this morning shows finds that 45 percent of Americans favor canceling the rest of the stimulus money, compared to just 36 percent who disagree and 20 percent who aren't sure (the question was phrased, "about $36 billion of the approved new government spending has already been spent. Should the rest of the new government spending be cancelled?")
Some other numbers:
--Only 31 peercent of respondents said that government spending creates jobs, compared to 48 percent who think it doesn't.
-- 39 percent said speeding up the deployment of the stimulus money will be good for the economy, compared to 44 percent who say it would be bad.
It's worth putting some degree of caution on these numbers because ever since the stimulus debate started at the beginning of this year, Rasmussen's numbers have tended to show less support for it than has been reflected in other polls. With that said, as I wrote yesterday, I think that there's ample reason to believe the White House is starting to get worried about public skepticism of the administration's signature legislation to date.
Obamaflation Watch
Posted by on 6.10.09 @ 10:13AM
As readers may know, I've been tracking the likelyhood of inflation on this site, and in today's WSJ Arthur Laffer lays out the case for why we're at risk of inflation, and predicts it's going to get pretty bad:
It's difficult to estimate the magnitude of the inflationary and interest-rate consequences of the Fed's actions because, frankly, we haven't ever seen anything like this in the U.S. To date what's happened is potentially far more inflationary than were the monetary policies of the 1970s, when the prime interest rate peaked at 21.5% and inflation peaked in the low double digits. Gold prices went from $35 per ounce to $850 per ounce, and the dollar collapsed on the foreign exchanges. It wasn't a pretty picture.
He also provides this illustration of the stunning increase in the money supply, "the largest increase in the past 50 years by a factor of 10."
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 6.10.09 @ 10:07AM
- Hmm... very shortly after his brother becomes chief of staff for the new president, Ariel Emanuel shocks Hollywood by ascending to power broker status. Helps to have friends in high places, I guess (NY Times)
- The end of private health insurance (Reason)
- A Socratic dialogue on the welfare state (EconLog)
- Self-recommending: Anne Applebaum on Soviet spies and sympathizers in the U.S. (The New Republic)
- What the pope understands about Judaism that Obama doesn't (Spengler/First Things)
- Social conservatives got screwed by the people who were supposed to be in their pocket. (W. James Antle, III in the Politico)
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Kennedy Health Care Plan Released
Posted by on 6.9.09 @ 6:18PM
The health care legislation supported by Democrats on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, chaired by Ted Kennedy, has now been officially released after being leaked earlier.
I looked through its 615 pages quickly, for some of the main features of the plan, and here are the highlights:
--A requirement that insurers cover everybody who applies for coverage, regardless of health status or preexisting conditions along with community rating so that everybody gets charged the same price for coverage with some wiggle room when it comes to age (but the rate differential is still capped at 2:1).
--A mandate forcing individuals to purchase health insurance.
-- An expansion of Medicaid eligibility, and subsidies to purchase health care on an insurance exchange.
--Instead of a single national exchange, it will provide funding for states to start their own exchanges, called "gateways," which will offer a public option.
--Measures to reduce costs through the use of information technology and improved preventive care.
While I intend to take some more time to look at the specifics, at first blush, this unsurprisingly is a very liberal proposal. While it promotes itself as the "Affordable Health Choices Act" the reality is much different. It certainly wouldn't be affordable to taxpayers, and the choices offered would be limited to what would be deemed "qualified plans" by the government. Also, while individuals would be able to choose whether or not to participate, the exchange would also be open to employers -- meaning if businesses decide to dump their employers on the exchange, individuals won't actually have much of a choice. And of course, it says that each exchange, "shall include a public health insurance option" (pg 43), which of course is a way of migrating more people to government health care over time.
31 Questions for ACORN
Posted by on 6.9.09 @ 5:55PM
Marcel Reid wants answers.
Reid, of the ACORN 8 (a breakaway group of ACORN officials demanding an accounting from ACORN's leadership) posed 31 questions to an ACORN-CCI executive board meeting in July 2008 but failed to get answers. CCI, which stands for Citizens Consulting Inc., is the ultra-secretive financial heart of the ACORN network through which millions of dollars routinely pass.
Reid told me this afternoon that if these 31 questions had been answered ACORN's internal problems could have been dealt with. "Those are the questions we asked to get a handle on the situation," she said.
ACORN gave a halfhearted attempt in October to answer some of these questions, Reid said.
Instead of fixing its internal problems, they have been allowed to fester and as I write this ACORN is undergoing a period of intense turmoil.
The criminal charges are piling up. Voter registration fraud charges are pending against ACORN and ex-employees in Nevada. Voter registration fraud charges are pending against its former canvassers in Pennsylvania. An assortment of charges is pending against a man in Ohio whom ACORN repeatedly registered to vote. The man is actually charged with fraudently voting too, something we keep hearing from ACORN's supporters never happens. Not surprisingly, ACORN is under investigation in Ohio too.
Reid and the other members of the ACORN 8 are asking bloggers to help out with the research by googling, accessing databases, and tracking down the missing information wherever it may be.
Here are the 31 questions (two are boldfaced because, I'm told, they are particularly important):
1. Listing of all ACORN related entities; by name, function, organizational type and tax exempt status (with contact information).
2. Organizational Chart of all ACORN related entities.
3. Complete Listing of all ACORN related management and staff (with contact information); i.e., a copy of all ACORN related Corporate / Staff Directories.
4. Listing of all Accounting Firms (with contact information) for all ACORN related entities.
5. Copy of all existing contracts with the Accounting Firms for all ACORN related entities.
6. Listing of all present or former Law Firms (with contact information) for all ACORN related entities.
7. Copy of all existing contracts with the Law Firms for all ACORN related entities.
8. Listing of all Management Agreements (with contact information) for all ACORN related entities.
9. Copy of all existing management contracts for all ACORN related entities.
10. Listing of all ACORN related real estate or leased property.
11. Copy of all existing ACORN related leases.
12. Organizational Structure of all ACORN related entities.
13. Listing of all ACORN related banking and financial accounts.
14. Account numbers of all ACORN related banking and financial accounts.
15. Copy of all ACORN related leases made with Wade Rathke controlled entities.
16. Copy of all ACORN related lease payments made to Wade Rathke controlled entities.
17. Listing of all ACORN donors / funders (contact information).
18. Copies of all "settlement agreements" made with ACORN related entities.
19. Copy of all organizational documentation for the "Chief Organizer Fund".
20. Copy of all ACORN related payments made to the "Chief Organizer Fund".
21. Total Number of missed payroll checks from ACORN related employees.
22. Listing of ACORN employees with missed payroll checks (with contact information).
23. Total Number of ACORN related draft payments over last six months.
24. Listing of every ACORN member whose checking account has been drafted multiple times within a thirty day period (with contact information).
25. Listing of the Total Number of missed Tax Payments for ACORN employees.
26. Copy of Citizen Consulting Inc. (CCI) management / consulting contract.
27. Copy of Citizen Consulting Inc. (CCI) organizational structure.
28. Copy of Dale Rathke repayment agreement.
29. Copy of Dale Rathke repayment promissory note.
30. Listing of all ACORN related computer networks, servers websites and corresponding network addresses and passwords (with system administrator contact information).
31. Listing of all entities in which Wade Rathke, Dale Rathke or Beth Bumpers are owners, officers, directors or beneficiaries (past or present).
If you're not familiar with the back story, read this and a mountain of articles and blog posts I've written about ACORN at the Capital Research Center website and here at the American Spectator website.
Looking North
Posted by on 6.9.09 @ 4:41PM
David Gratzer, a physician originally from Canada, writes, "Americans need to ask a basic question: Why are they rushing into a system of government-dominated health care when the very countries that have experienced it for so long are backing away?"
McAuliffe Camp Cites Internal Poll Showing Dead Heat in VA
Posted by on 6.9.09 @ 2:26PM
In a matter of weeks Terry McAuliffe, the well-funded former Clintonite and DNC chair, has gone from the odds on favorite to win the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in Virginia, to the underdog heading into today's primary. Recent polls have shown a surge by the more moderate Creigh Deeds, with McAuliffe and Brian Moran fighting it out for second place.
With everything now hinging on turnout, Mo Elleithee, McAuliffe's senior campaign strategist, just sent out an email touting an internal poll showing him in a dead heat for first:
We conducted a poll over the last three nights - with 200 interviews a night. We never base decisions on one night's worth of interviews because the sample is too small. But throughout this campaign our night-by-night numbers have been reliable and have picked up trends such as the recent increase in support for Deeds. I am encouraged that last night's interviews have us tied with Deeds.
McAuliffe: 33
Deeds: 33
Moran: 21While this is not definitive, last night's trend shows this is a competitive race and we need to make sure that every vote counts and we need to make every effort to turn out our voters today.
Mark my words: we can win this thing tonight. There are three key things to take away from our polling research.
Elleithee argues that McAuliffe's support for stricter gun control is resonating, that he is the most electable, and that the campaigns field operation will make the difference in a fluid race. The fact that the McAuliffe people, in an effort to boost Election Day turnout, are touting an internal poll showing him tied with somebody who was in distant third just a few weeks ago, probably isn't the greatest sign. But then again, I remember that I was talking to McAuliffe in New Hampshire the moment the AP called the primary for Hillary Clinton, in what was a stunning upset. So we'll have to wait and see how credible this email proves to be.
Socialized Medicine and Single-Payer Health Care
Posted by on 6.9.09 @ 1:50PM
Ezra Klein argues against the conflation of single-payer health care and socialized medicine:
Socialized medicine is a system in which the government owns the means of providing medicine. Britain is an example of socialized system, as, in America, is the Veterans Health Administration. In a socialized system, the government employs the doctors and nurses, builds and owns the hospitals, and bargains for and purchases the technology. I have literally never heard a proposal for converting America to a socialized system of medicine. And I know a lot of liberals.
Single-payer health care is not socialized medicine. It's a system in which one institution purchases all, or in reality, most, of the care. But the payer does not own the doctors or the hospitals or the nurses or the MRI scanners. Medicare is an example of a mostly single-payer system, as is France. Both of these systems have private insurers to choose from, but the government is the dominant purchaser.
Liberals prefer the more academic sounding "single payer" term to "socialized medicine" but in reality it this is a distinction without a difference. When government is the sole purchaser of health care, makes the regulations, and sets the nation's health care budget each year it controls the health care system. In such a system, doctors and hospitals aren't private in any meaningful way. One of the main arguments in favor of a single-payer system, is that by pooling resources, a single large purchaser can reduce costs by using its bargaining power over providers. Whether a doctor is literally employed by the government or simply compensated with taxpayer dollars at a salary contingent upon a budget set by the government doesn't seem to me worth making much fuss about -- unless, of course, your goal is to make Americans more open to the idea of a government takeover of health care.
Sometimes You Want to Blog Where Nobody Knows Your Name
Posted by on 6.9.09 @ 12:46PM
Ed Whelan's outing of the liberal legal blogger Publius has started some debate over anonymous and pseudonymous blogging. Personally, I woudn't have outed him -- a position Whelan himself now come around to -- for his offenses. But not all reasons for anonymity strike me as equally valid.
One of Publius' reasons for wanting to remain anonymous was that his political opinions differed from his family's. It seems to me that the solution to that is to keep quiet about your political opinions. Even as a political commentator, I don't like to shove my politics down people's throats. I figure people who visit political websites, read newspaper op-ed pages and political magazines, and tune into political shows on TV or radio are fair game because they are actively seeking out political commentary. But I don't forward my articles to friends and family who haven't expressed an interest. I don't go out of my way to share my opinions with people I meet in a non-political context. And I only recently and reluctantly began posting my articles on my Facebook page, at the request of my more political friends.
But I am not going to start writing under the name Rhinocerous 55 because I have friends and family members who will undoubtedly disagree with my political opinions. Having people disagree with you -- even people you are close to -- is the price of making political commentary. If you don't want to pay it, then you should probably try stamp collecting or some other hobby. Concealing your identity so that people will not know your actual beliefs -- while criticizing people who write under their own names -- is quite a bit less honorable than concealing your identity to protect your family's physical security.
National Conservative Leaders Applaud Supreme Court's Stay on Sale of Chrysler
6.9.09 @ 12:30PM
A group of prominent conservatives last night issued the following statement on the Supreme Court decision:
"We applaud the Supreme Court stay of the sale of Chrysler in the bankruptcy court. The sale irreparably harms teachers and other public employees whose retirement funds were invested in Chrysler. It ignores the rule of law and tramples the sanctity of contract that protects these retirement funds. We urge the full Supreme Court to take this case and review the sale of Chrysler to make sure that the rights of these retirees and all secured creditors have been protected fully."
The statement was signed by the following conservative leaders:Duane Parde, President, National Taxpayers Union
James C. Miller III, former Reagan Budget Director
Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform
Wendy Wright, President, Concerned Women for America
William Wilson, President, Americans for Limited Government
Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council
David Keene, Chairman, American Conservative Union
Kenneth Blackwell, former Treasurer, State of Ohio
Richard Viguerie, Chairman, ConservativeHQ.com
David McIntosh, former U.S. Representative, Indiana
Herman Cain, President, THE New Voice, Inc.
Fred Smith, President, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Tim Phillips, President, Americans for Prosperity
Alfred Regnery, Publisher, American Spectator
Ed Meese, former Attorney General
Stimulus Math and Health Care
Posted by on 6.9.09 @ 12:20PM
Bill McGurn has a good piece in the Wall Street Journal today about the double standard in which the media allows the Obama administration to get away with its "saved or created" formulation to describe the success of the stimulus package. But I think yesterday's announcement by the White House was an indication that it's starting to sense the American people are getting antsy and want to see actual results from the stimulus.
Keep in mind that on a conference call nearly two weeks ago, Jared Bernstein, who is Joe Biden's chief economic advisor, said that the stimulus package would create or save another 600,000 jobs in its second 100 days. Yet yesterday, the White House orchestrated a whole P.R. campaign to announce plans to "accelerate implementation" of the stimulus, complete with a cabinet meeting, a new website, and Roadmap to Recovery report, all focused on saving or creating 600,000 jobs -- the same number as they were already projecting before all of these plans were announced.
What happened in the intervening time period is that news came out showing the unemployment rate surging to 9.4 percent, with more than 1.6 million jobs having been lost since the passage of the stimulus, so clearly the White House felt it needed to do something. And this leads me to my other point.
Public perception of the stimulus will play a crucial role in the upcoming health care battle. Many Americans following the debate won't be wading into the policy details. Instead, they'll be exposed to claims and counterclaims -- Obama and Democrats saying their health care legislation will make things better, and Republicans (if they get their message together) most likely arguing that it would have disastrous implications. With both sides throwing statistics back and forth a lot of it will come down to a credibility issue, and whoever the American people trust more will win the debate. Will Americans trust Obama that he can insure everybody, control costs, allow everybody to keep the insurance they have, improve the quality of health care, avert a government takeover of medicine, avoid rationing, and avoid raising taxes on 95 percent of the population? Or will Republicans be able to convince Americans that he's misleading them, that insuring everybody will require higher taxes, that expanding health care will raise costs unless the government imposes rationing, and that Obama's plans will inevitably lead to a government takeover? So, if people start to get skeptical about the results of the stimulus package, then it will make it harder for Obama and Democrats to sell the public on their health care claims, and it will be easier for Republicans to attack any legislation.
I Was In Fact a Murdering, Torturous Bastard
Posted by on 6.9.09 @ 11:23AM
The fascinating trial of the Khmer Rouge's top jailer, Comrade Duch, continues, with him refuting yesterday evidence that would have spared him at least a little culpability. He would have none of it:
Duch went on to dispute testimony from last month in which an American expert witness presented a list of prisoners who appeared to have been released from Tuol Sleng (the Phnom Penh prison where an estimated 17,000 began their path to execution).
"The people who were arrested and sent (to Tuol Sleng), they were all killed," Duch said, refuting the idea that the list cast him in a more favourable light.
"I did not release anyone... It is not exculpatory evidence at all because I am responsible for my crimes. I cannot accept that document," he added.
Duch also explained that Cambodian dictator Pol Pot mixed a vicious cocktail of the communist theories of Marx, Lenin, and China's "Gang of Four." This may have been the most evil regime ever, but then again, who keeps tallies of such things?
Doubling Down on Failure
Posted by on 6.9.09 @ 10:29AM
The Harvard economist Edward Glaesary makes a key point about the recent calls for increased regulation over the financial sector: if the government fails spectatularly at regulating the first time around (the financial crisis), why would you then want to increase the government's involvement in regulation? It would be better to implement regulations that work the first time around, not more regulations.
Holder's Assault on Democracy
Posted by on 6.9.09 @ 10:24AM
Jennifer Rubin was right all along when she wrote piece after piece during the transition arguing that Eric Holder was unfit to be Attorney General. The man is on a mission to undermine the very rules of representative democracy. Hans von Spakovsky has perhaps the most important column of the year so far in today's Wall Street Journal, explaining the myriad ways that Holder is rigging the rules. Letting Black Panthers go scot free; forbidding Georgia from making sure that only citizens vote; refusing to make Missouri clean up its voter rolls; on and on it goes. This is dangerous. Indeed, it is worse than dangerous, but I fear saying what it is because Holder would find a way to send his goons after me for some newly invented category of hate speech.
This rigging of the rules through the Justice Department is exactly what I warned against in my very first post-election column last November. Here are some excerpts:
These New Alinskyites who are taking over the White House, combined with the most leftist congressional leadership in memory, will not let us play by the same rules under which conservatives recovered from those earlier debacles. They will try to drastically tilt the playing field, seed our side of the field with land mines and, in short, rig the process to make it next to impossible for the political right, or Republicans, to recover. And they are likely to succeed in at least some of these designs. It will begin with their efforts to secure a filibuster-proof majority of 60 senators (including the two independents)....
Watch the left use these tactics and others to pass even more liberalized voting laws -- an open invitation to even more fraud that is more creative, easier to hide, and less challengeable in court.
Watch the left use these tactics and others to pass even more liberalized voting laws -- an open invitation to even more fraud that is more creative, easier to hide, and less challengeable in court.
Watch what Michael Barone called the Obama "thugocracy" use the Justice Department to stifle dissent. Anybody who complains about vote fraud will be charged with "vote suppression." Anybody who complains about DoJ's actions will be charged with interfering with an investigation. Anybody who denies having interfered will be charged with perjury.
Meanwhile, we now await further word from the Supreme Court on whether or not they will stop the Obama administration from trampling over the constitutional contract clause and its bankruptcy clause. It already is misusing other "authority" falsely claimed under the already constitutionally dubious TARP. And so on, in an "industrial policy" suspiciously reminiscent of Mussolin's economic fascism. But keep watching: Holder Justice Department is Ground Zero for the ground assault against the building blocks of representative democracy. These legal maneuvers must be smothered in their cradles.
Pulitzer Prize Commentary at Work
Posted by on 6.9.09 @ 9:14AM
The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in commentary "for his eloquent columns on the 2008 presidential campaign that focus on the election of the first African-American president, showcasing graceful writing and grasp of the larger historic picture."
Today, he shares with us this observation:
I used to fear that President Obama was overestimating the power of his personal history as an instrument of foreign policy. Now I wonder if he might have been underestimating.
The rest of the column is dry recap of the speech Obama delivered last Thursday, without any examples of how the speech produced tangible benefits beyond the fact that somebody in the audience shouted to Obama, "We love you!" and that, "The Associated Press reported Sunday that the Iranian-backed, Lebanon-based guerrilla group Hezbollah, an influential radical Saudi cleric and the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood all warned followers not to be taken in by Obama's seductive words -- which suggests a fear that Obama had been dangerously effective. A Web site that often reflects the thinking of al-Qaeda referred to the president after the speech as a "wise enemy."
But this was enough for Robinson to conclude:
The fact that many Muslims now see a sympathetic figure in the White House creates new possibilities. It turns out that being Obama matters more than I thought.
In case you're wondering, Robinson doesn't inform us what those "new possibilities" are, but that shouldn't prevent you from enjoying his marble prose.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Democrats Declare War on the Poor
Posted by on 6.8.09 @ 9:23PM
Given the abject failure of the War on Poverty -- as Ronald Reagan said, "Poverty won" -- now Democrats apparently have decided to go right for the heart of the problem, by making war on the poor.
That's the only plausible explanation for S.500, the "Protecting Consumers from Unreasonable Credit Rates Act of 2009," introduced earlier this year by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois). The bill would limit interest rates in such a way that pawn shop owners say it would drive them out of business. Currently under consideration by the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs committee, this legislation could only make sense to someone who (a) knows nothing about pawn shops, and (b) knows nothing about economics.
Having once been a penurious college student and struggling rock musician, I had a lot of dealings with pawn shops back in the day, and respect the straightforward nature of their business. You have an amp or a guitar and need money, you hock it until you can afford to get it back. And if you don't redeem it, the pawn shop keeps it and sells it (thereby providing a source of cheap second-hand guitars and amps for other struggling musicians).
The pawn shop business is very easy to understand, and if the interest rate seems exorbitant to middle-class folks and liberal do-gooders, maybe it's because they don't understand how grateful pawn shop customers are for the service. Who else offers on-the-spot credit to those who might otherwise have no source of quick cash?
It is idiotic that, on the one hand, Democrats demanded that taxpayers bail out the mortgage industry, while on the other hand they are trying to put pawn shops out of business. Given President Obama's promise to "save or create" hundreds of thousands of new jobs over the next 100 days, do Democrats really want to destroy an entire industry, one that provides emergency financial services to so many of the poor people whom the Democratic Party claims to represent?
Here's hoping S.500 dies quietly in committee. Otherwise, once the Chinese get tired of buying U.S. debt, the federal government could have no place else to turn.
ACORN Enters the Highly Lucrative Global Warming Hysteria Business
Posted by on 6.8.09 @ 6:56PM
Now the ACORN crime family is jumping on the global warming alarmism bandwagon, according to (the left-leaning) Worldwatch Institute.
The radical community group, which is now facing voter registration fraud charges in Nevada, has joined forces with Al Gore and other groups for the ultimate taxpayer shakedown: carbon emission controls.
From the Worldwatch article:
Brian Kettenring, ACORN's deputy director of national operations, said his group - the largest grassroots community organization of low- and moderate- income people in the United States - was inspired to join the Climate Equity Alliance and work with groups such as the Sierra Club after seeing the vulnerability of cities such as New Orleans to rising sea levels and more intense climatic events. The group, which lobbies for affordable housing and improved education in urban areas, is also encouraged by the hope of "green jobs," environmentally sustainable employment opportunities.
"ACORN families understand that building a green economy that's sustainable and builds jobs for working families is good for them, good for the environment, and good for communities," Kettenring said.
ACORN's contribution will include direct lobbying of Congress. In the long term, Kettenring expects more ACORN chapters to become involved in green jobs initiatives, such as efforts to collect federal funding for weatherizing urban buildings. [...]
Maybe the corrupt ACORN network needs more money to pay its back taxes and mounting legal bills.
Supreme Court Blocks Chrysler Sale to Fiat
Posted by on 6.8.09 @ 4:25PM
The Supreme Court has stepped in after investors complained about the (essentially) forced deal with Fiat. Reports MarketWatch:
The U.S. Supreme Court blocked the sale of Chrysler's assets after a group of Indiana pension funds appealed the sale. The funds argued that the sale of Chrysler to Italian automaker Fiat is unconstitutional. A court spokesman said that the sale is stayed "pending further order of the court."
I still wouldn't be surprised if the Court doesn't lift its stay after a hearing, but maybe the Constitution and rule of law aren't completely dead. For the Court to block the administration plan would be a major blow.
Biden: "I'm Sorry I'm Not an Economist"
Posted by on 6.8.09 @ 3:04PM
Vice President Joe Biden said on a Monday conference call with reporters that it was “above [his] pay grade” to explain in detail the methodology the White House uses to estimate the number of jobs created or saved by the economic stimulus legislation, but stressed that there had been no “reasonable” challenges to the estimates.
During the call, Biden said that the stimulus package, which was signed into law in February, saved or created 150,000 in its first 100 days, and he outlined White House plans to accelerate the pace so that 600,000 more jobs will be saved or created in the second 100 days this summer.
Asked by Jonathan Riskind of the Columbus Dispatch to explain how the White House determined these numbers, Biden said that the Council of Economic Advisers makes its estimates based on measuring what the U.S. employment level would have been without the stimulus, and then comparing it to the nation’s actual employment level.
“I’m sorry I’m not an economist,” Biden said as he was describing the methodology. “My background is foreign policy and the constitution. “
The White House estimates also consider the number of jobs needed to complete certain projects funded by the stimulus, and take into account the “spinoff effects” of spending programs. For instance, tax credits and subsidies for weatherization of homes and wind farms boost contracts for businesses that may not be receiving stimulus money directly, the vice president, who is spearheading the implementation of the program, said.
“I’m a little above my pay grade here as I try to explain in more detail how they count spinoff effects of actual jobs created, “ Biden said.
“It’s complicated,” he acknowledged. “But the fact is that there has been no challenge to the methodology the Council of Economic Advisers has come up with, known to national economists as being reasonable to the estimates we have as to the actual jobs saved or created.”
Later in the call, he said that while it was hard to take solace in the fact that the unemployment rate has increased to 9.4 percent, Biden insisted it would have been worse without the stimulus legislation.
“There’s no doubt that the unemployment rate would be considerably higher than it is now," he said. "The estimates range from we would have lost … one million to four million additional jobs depending on whose model you look at, were it not for the Recovery Act.”
'I Am Criminally Responsible for Killing Babies'
Posted by on 6.8.09 @ 2:07PM
The words of a repentant American abortionist? Fat chance.
Instead it's the confession of the chief prison-keeper and executionist of the Cambodian Khmer Rouge regime, Kaing Guek Eav (or Comrade Duch), who is the first of late dictator Pol Pot's lieutenants to be tried for war crimes.
Duch, the first of five senior cadres to face trial for the 1975-79 reign of terror in which 1.7 million Cambodians died, said he accepted responsibility for the children's deaths but was following orders.
"When children arrived at the center I gave the order to kill them because we were afraid those children would take revenge," the 66-year-old told the court.
"I had to implement the policy of the Communist party," said the former chief of the S-21 interrogation center where more than 14,000 men, women and children were killed.
As you can imagine, it is tremendously sobering to visit the Cheoung Ek killing field just outside Phnom Penh, and the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum (the S-21 site) within the city limits. These places are testimony to the chilling potential of human evil. As Duch recounted a Khmer Rouge policy on detained children: "There is no gain to keep them, and they might take revenge on you."
If you've never heard Duch's story, a fascinating read is Nic Dunlop's "The Lost Executioner." It's an account of the Irish photojournalist's journey to track down the evasive Duch, which culminates in a compelling confrontation. By the way, Duch claims to have become a born-again Christian, which Dunlop seems skeptical about. I tend to believe it.
Another Day, Another Czar
Posted by on 6.8.09 @ 2:02PM
The President will name a “Pay Czar.” A pay czar! Enough already with the unelected, unconfirmed, unaccountable czars. With all these czars, has the Cabinet become the Siberia of the Obama administration?
Another Day, Another Czar
By Asher
Embry
Barack will name a “Czar for Pay”;
Another czar, another day.
There’s one for cars and one for drugs;
And one who’ll look for cyber-bugs.
A czar for nationalizing health;
One czar makes bankers share their wealth.
One’s focused on the wars we fight;
Another combats urban blight.
A czar for secrets, spooks and spies,
A czar for spending waste and lies;
One czar considers immigration;
One expanded regulation.
A czar who TARP funds oversees,
A czar to find efficiencies;
One czar will turn our country “green”;
Another keeps Great Lakes pristine.
There’re others still we barely know;
Are more to come? We sure hope so!
We need a czar for empathy;
And every Gitmo detainee.
A czar for strawman arguments
And moral equivalence;
A czar for symbols, one for staging;
Unilateral disengaging;
A czar to speed-read Waxman’s bills;
A czar for pundits’ leg-felt thrills;
A “date night” czar; and one perhaps;
For Larry Summers’ rants and naps;
A czar to make sure “life is fair”;
A czar for Biden’s gaffes and hair;
A czar for Rahm’s oft-hidden charm,
And Axelrod’s relentless smarm.
One czar, Obama’s smokes will nix,
Not so his adulation fix.
A czar to make apologies;
One more for making more of these.
This all may seen ridiculous;
But czars are quite insidious.
They’re crucial as Obama tries
To fundamentally change our lives.
Their fiefdoms are a wasteful lark,
Designed to keep us in the dark,
As monumental change occurs
All cloistered from our strong demurrers.
The reason we must make this fuss:
They’re not accountable to us.
We all should thank our lucky stars,
“O” hasn’t named a Czar for czars.
(You can read more of Asher Embry's Political Verse at www.politicalverse.com.)
Hire My Wife -- Please!
Posted by on 6.8.09 @ 1:08PM
Following up on my piece last month for AmSpec Online about the troubles of Mike Easley, the doo-doo is only getting deeper for the former North Carolina governor. As I wrote, the U.S. Attorney here in Raleigh has convened a grand jury to investigate charges of free plane trips, free vehicle use, a great land deal, plus a cushy, do-nothing job for Easley's wife Mary at N.C. State. The chairman of the board of trustees and the provost at the university initially denied any special treatment for Mrs. Easley but later resigned after admitting they discussed the job for her, and now this morning the N.C. State chancellor has resigned after (almost) admitting he lied too.
But the biggest revelation that The News & Observer of Raleigh is reporting this morning is that Governor Easley himself was involved in the hiring of his wife.
Are we looking at another governor gone bad? Consider also this deeply buried nugget in this morning's N&O story about Mrs. Easley's job, in which part of her responsibilities was to entice big-name politicos for a speaker's series at N.C. State:
Easley also got some speakers at a discount. (Former President) Clinton waived his typical fee, appearing this year in exchange for travel expenses and other costs that totaled more than $15,000. The Easleys campaigned for Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2008 election.
The story explains how Mrs. Easley had a very difficult time drawing big-names, and sometimes even resorted to the Washington Speakers Bureau to get them. As Jeff Taylor of the John Locke Foundation colorfully wonders (along with me) about the Clinton deal, did Gov. Easley "go all Blagojevich and sell his endorsement to Hillary Clinton?"
Update 3:55 p.m.: The governor's wife has been fired by N.C. State.
Kennedy Healthcare Bill Leaked
Posted by on 6.8.09 @ 12:47PM
Keith Hennessy, who was an economic advisor to President George W. Bush, got his hands on what purports to be a draft of Sen. Ted Kennedy's healthcare bill.
I haven't read the whole document and don't have any thoughts on it yet but thought it should be posted here for public consumption.
Here is the PDF version and here is the Word version.
The Spectator's esteemed Philip Klein, who has been toiling away in the Martha's Vineyards of healthcare policy, posted a good related item earlier today.
Measuring the Stimulus
Posted by on 6.8.09 @ 12:20PM
With the unemployment rate at 9.4 percent, the Obama administration announced today a new set of plans to accelerate the spending of stimulus money and "save or create" 600,000 jobs over the summer. In case you're keeping score at home, since the economic stimuls legislation passed, the U.S. economy has lost over 1.6 million jobs. But the White House has claimed the program has been succeeding, because it saved or created 150,000 jobs.
Buying Health Insurance at a Government Store
Posted by on 6.8.09 @ 10:49AM
Bloomberg News reports that:
House Democrats are weighing a new proposal in response to Obama’s request for legislation. An outline of the plan obtained by Bloomberg News would require Americans to have insurance with some exceptions.
It would probably exempt those who can prove they can’t find an affordable policy. There could be a tax penalty for those with adequate financial resources who don’t elect to get insurance, according to the outline.
The outline suggests consumers could elect to keep their individual health insurance policies. Still, it says that “by and large” the nation’s market for individually purchased health insurance policies would move to a new federally operated exchange. It would permit both individuals and employees of small firms to buy policies at less expensive group rates.
Let's set aside for a now the fact that such a proposal would require Obama to reverse his position on an individual mandate from the campaign, and just focus on the matter of choice. Under the current system, according to Kaiser Family Foundation data, only about 6 percent of the covered population obtains their insurance on their own. About 31 percent already have government health care of some sort, while 63 percent obtain it through their employers. While Democrats talk of people being able to keep the insurance they want, it won't really be feasible under the system they're proposing. Anybody who receives health care through their employer is limited to whatever health plans their employer chooses under the current flawed system, and if employers decide to start dumping their employees on to the national insurance exchange, then suddenly they'd be losing their plans and forced to pick new ones from the national exchange. And as the article states, at least under this one proposal, the remaining individual market would "by and large" move to the national exchange.
While the promise of the national exchange is that it will be a giant buffet with lots of plans to choose from offering comprehensive coverage at lower rates, without discriminating against those with preexisting conditions, the reality will be a lot different. Government will be running the exchange, offering a government-run plan under Obama's vision, and regulating what participating insurers can or can't cover. To borrow and expand on an analogy once used by Regina Herzlinger, this would be the equivalent of a having everybody purchase their cars at a government auto dealer in which the government dictates what colors cars can be, whether or not they have a leather interior, or heated seats, or satellite radio, or any other features. This isn't reform, it is merely doubling down on the failed system that we already have in place, in which states mandate the type of benefits insurance policies have to cover, driving up the cost of insurance and restricting choice.
Must-Reads
Posted by on 6.8.09 @ 10:32AM
- Dept of Invidious Comparisons: Ahmadinejad '09 is just like Bush '04 (The New Republic)
- Uh-oh, Obama's economic team is apparently wracked by dissension because of one Larry Summers (NY Times)
- A few liberal bloggers get pwned by a conserative-libertarian economist tag-team (Overcoming Bias)
- Self-recommending: Kissinger on North Korea (Real Clear World)
- The greatest sports section in the history of journalism (Sports Illustrated)
- More on the climate-change denying physicist Freeman Dyson (Yale Environment 360)
Obama: Winning Personality, Losing Policies?
Posted by on 6.8.09 @ 9:07AM
President Barack Obama continues to win a high personal approval rating, but his policy initiatives aren't doing so well. His rating on controlling federal spending is down. Reports Gallup:
While 67% of Americans view President Barack Obama favorably, his overall job approval rating and his ratings on specific areas are less positive. At the low end of the spectrum, only 45% of Americans approve of Obama's handling of federal spending, and 46% of his handling of the federal budget deficit.
That's still too high. After all, he is dedicated to dramatically hiking federal outlays, not reducing them. Nevertheless, there is hope that people increasingly will watch what the man behind the curtain is actually doing. Then it will be up to the Republican Party to provide a credible alternative.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Smoot-Hawley Lives
Posted by on 6.7.09 @ 11:30AM
As I wrote previously, it seems as if the disastrous Smoot-Hawley protectionist statute has been quietly revived. Protectionism has come back to America, and only now have we begun to notice.
Predictably, the Canadian Federation of Municipalities has endorsed a plan to support communities that refuse to buy products from countries that slap trade restrictions on Canadian products and services, Reuters reports:
The measure is a response to a provision in the U.S. economic stimulus package passed by Congress in February that says public works projects should use iron, steel and other goods made in the United States.
The United States is Canada's largest trading partner, and Canadians have complained the restrictions will bar their companies from billions of dollars in business that they have previously had access to.
"This U.S. protectionist policy is hurting Canadian firms, costing Canadian jobs and damaging Canadian efforts to grow our economy in the midst of a worldwide recession," said Sherbrooke, Quebec, Mayor Jean Perrault, also president of the federation that represents cities and towns across Canada. [...]
It's only going to get worse.
