- 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, August 15, 2009
RightOnline: Changing the World, One Mind at a Time
Posted by on 8.15.09 @ 6:24PM
PITTSBURGH, Pa. -- Donna Scala was surprised to find she felt so at home among her fellow attendees at this weekend's RightOnline conference.
"I've never been in a room with this many conservatives before," Ms. Scala, a Democrat from Beaver Falls, Pa., said after attending the two-day conference sponsored by the Americans For Prosperity foundation.
During Saturday afternoon's final panel discussion, Ms. Scala drew applause when she stood up to ask a question, which she prefaced by introducing herself as "a Democrat who did not vote for Obama."
A trio of panelists -- Red State's Erick Erickson, Robert Bluey of the Heritage Foundation and Matt Lewis of AOL's Politics Daily -- had been discussing how conservatives can have influence with Democrats controlling both the White House a majority in Congress. Ms. Scala stood up to say that many of her Democratic friends have been dismayed by the broken promises of the Obama administration.
"I'm talking to Democrats who voted for Obama, but this isn't the 'Change' they voted for," she said.
In an interview afterwards, Ms. Scala explained that many Democrats in her community are "disappointed, but they're afraid to speak out, because they've always been just Democrats."
Ms. Scala said she was excited to learn the online technology skills taught during RightOnline seminars. A fan of Fox News and radio talk-show host Glenn Beck, she said that Twitter fit Beck's advice to "find one thing and focus on it."
Such moments of discovery are encouraging to RightOnline's director, Erik Telford.
"Honestly, for me, the highlights [of the conference] are seeing the grassroots activists who come to learn how to start their own blogs, how to use Facebook, Twitter and other online tools," said Telford, who estimated the total attendance at the Pittsburgh conference as exceeding 700.
Among the speakers at the conference were Michelle Malkin, James Pinkerton, Ed Morrissey of HotAir.com, the Wall Street Journal's John Fund and Stephen Moore, and Pennsylvania Senate candidate Pat Toomey.
While many older activists were learning New Media technology, there was no shortage of young grassroots conservatives on hand -- an encouraging development, said Barbara Espinosa, who traveled from Scottsdale, Ariz., to attend the event.
"If these young bloggers are the future of the news media then we are in for a treat in reading the daily news. The attendees were all age groups involved and active in their community and politics," Ms. Espinosa wrote on her American Freedom blog.
Ms. Espinosa, a widow, grandmother and native Texan who does not wish to disclose her age, said that the first Republican presidential candidate for whom she voted was Ronald Reagan in 1980.
At Least 13 Blue Dogs Oppose Health Care Bill, 4 Support
Posted by on 8.15.09 @ 10:52AM
David Hogberg and Sean Higgins of Investor's Business Daily report that at least 13 Blue Dog Democrats oppose the House health care bill in its current form and 4 support it, based on news reports and their own survey of members. Others were either undecided or non-responsive. With Alabama Rep. Arthur Davis, who is not a member of the Blue Dogs, also having said he opposes the legislation, Democrats need at least 15 of 52 Blue Dogs to support the bill to secure passage if Republicans remain unified in opposition.
Meanwhile, at a town hall meeting, Jack Murtha -- not a Blue Dog member -- made comments suggesting that at the minimum, he had reservations about the current bill and expected the timeline to slip further.
Obama Enthusiasts Fail to Back Obamacare
Posted by on 8.15.09 @ 7:54AM
It's a lot easier to campaign against the incompetent, big-spending, war-mongering Republicans than to convince the American people that they would be better off if the post office provided their health care. At least, that appears to be the lesson of the current health care battle.
At her home on Tom Sawyer Road here the other night, Bonnie Adkins agreed to begin spreading the word that President Obama's embattled health care plan needed help.
Ms. Adkins, who for the past two years devoted hundreds of hours helping Mr. Obama get to the White House, hosted a potluck supper that was advertised to Democrats in this eastern Iowa town along the Mississippi River. People were invited to bring a favorite salad or dessert - and their cellphones - to make calls drumming up support for the president's agenda.
She wondered whether her house would hold everyone, but there was no reason for worry.
"We had 10 people. Not a huge number, but good," said Ms. Adkins, 55, who has been an Obama volunteer since the first day she saw him during a stop here on March 11, 2007. "The enthusiasm is not there like it was a year ago. Most people, when they get to Nov. 5, put their political hat away and it doesn't come out for three years."
As the health care debate intensifies, the president is turning to his grass-roots network - the 13 million members of Organizing for America - for support.
Mr. Obama engendered such passion last year that his allies believed they were on the verge of creating a movement that could be mobilized again. But if a week's worth of events are any measure here in Iowa, it may not be so easy to reignite the machine that overwhelmed Republicans a year ago.
This should surprise no one. There were lots of reasons people voted for Barack Obama last November. The best and most convincing arguments for him never were actually "for" him, but were against John McCain and the GOP. Most of Obama's voters, at least those who put him over the top, never wanted a federal takeover of their medical care.
The president is now learning the ugly facts of politics, to his great cost.
Drug Industry Pushes Out Dick Armey
Posted by on 8.15.09 @ 7:43AM
Alas, the pharmaceutical industry appears to have completed its switch to the Dark Side. Not only is it supporting a government takeover of health care, but it is sacrificing its one-time allies. Reports the New York Times:
Dick Armey, the former House Republican leader, has quit his job with the lobbying firm DLA Piper amid complaints from its drug company clients about his work opposing President Obama's health care overhaul.
His departure is the latest example of the confusing entanglements arising from the health care debate.
To review the facts of this case: the drug companies who helped defeat the Clinton administration health care effort 15 years ago have now turned on Mr. Armey, who then was one of their most important Congressional allies. Now, having cut a deal with this administration to limit their share of the costs, the drug companies are on the other side. Foreseeing new profits from the expansion of health coverage, they are spending as much as $150 million on advertisements to support the president's plan.
To their embarrassment, however, Mr. Armey has continued to oppose the plan as the chairman of the independent conservative group FreedomWorks. The group has helped turn out rowdy demonstrators at town-hall-style meetings with lawmakers around the country. And some liberal Web sites began connecting Mr. Armey's fight against the health care legislation to his other work for DLA Piper's drug company clients.
Government subversion of industry is not new with this particular battle. But it is another reason to redouble efforts to stop this attempt to turn even more decisions involving Americans' health care over to government.
And kudos to Dick Armey for standing firm.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Greybeards Hanging in There at PGA
Posted by on 8.14.09 @ 8:23PM
It already looks like Tiger Woods is gonna make this PGA boring by running away with it. Ho, hum. So I take this chance to applaud the older guys who are hanging in there by making the cut. Mike Allen, age 50. Tom Lehman, age 50. Corey Pavin, age 49. Fred Couples, age 49 and right on the cusp of 50. Kenny Perry, 49. Bob Tway, 50. Tom Watson and Sam Snead notwithstanding, that's a pretty remarkable performance for six guys either on the Senior Tour, or eligible for it within the next year, all to be playing the weekend of a major featuring 98 of the top 100 players in the world. Good stuff. I applaud.
FYI Major Garrett: Reaganite Gets Axlerod E-mail
Posted by on 8.14.09 @ 7:09PM
A former Reagan and Bush 41 administration official, long out of government, has found herself on the receiving end of one of those White House e-mails from Obama aide David Axelrod. I have seen the e-mail.
She never wrote to the White House. Just as Fox's Major Garrett has been revealing with others.
Back in campaign season, however, she signed up for Obama campaign e-mails out of curiosity to see how the Obama campaign was marketing itself.
Which would seem to indicate that the Obama team has merged its campaign e-mail lists into those of the White House and the government.
Hmmmm.
Vile Smear by Maddow vs. Shirley and Banister
Posted by on 8.14.09 @ 4:01PM
Newsbusters has the story here. MSNBC has gone so far off the rails, it's absurd. Shirley and Banister, in short, were accused of something with which they have absolutely nothing to do. The great conservative PR firm responded with this threat, which is very well aimed: "If a retraction is not forthcoming today we will pursue legal action against you, MSNBC, NBC Universal and General Electric." Again, click the link to read all about it.
Too Lenient on Violent Criminals
Posted by on 8.14.09 @ 3:44PM
The Heritage Foundation is having a very important event on Monday at 11:30, in conjuction with the release of a new book by Charles "Cully" Stimson" and Andrew Grossman, about the problem of treating violent criminals too leniently just because they aren't yet 18. The forumis called "Adult Time for Adult Crimes: Exposing the Movement to Set Free Juvenile Killers and Violent Offenders." In addition to Stimson, a senior legal fellow at Heritage, the forum also features noted trial attorney David Horowitz and Paul Wallace of the Delaware Department of Justice. (Grossman just left Heritage to take up a federal court clerkship.) The book is embargoed until Monday, but suffice it to say that it is chock full of examples of horrible violent criminals who darn well were old enough to nkow exactly what they were doing, and who are extremely dangerous, who nevertheless get treated with, yes, kid gloves, and then get let out to terrorize other innocent victims. Do be on the lookout for the book, available from Heritage.
Grassley Vs. Specter, The Twitter War
Posted by on 8.14.09 @ 2:17PM
A dispute over the end of life provision in the House Democrats bill has caused a war of words between Senate collegues Arlen Specter and Chuck Grassley that has spilled over to Twitter.
It started earlier this week when Grassley told the audience at a town hall meeting, "we should not have a government program that determines if you’re going to pull the plug on grandma.”
Then this morning at the liberal Netroots Nation conference, Specter boasted that he could get Grassley to support Democratric legislation, Dave Weigel reported. “I’m close to Chuck Grassley; we came in at the same time,” Specter said. “You don’t need any help with Senator Snowe.” Then, in talking about Grassley's statements about end of life counseling, Specter said, “He’s in The New York Times this morning and he’s wrong. I’ll call him today.”
Weigel writes:
That prompted shouts of “Call him now!”
“They’re saying ‘call him now,’” said moderator Ari Melber.
“Whoever said that, join me backstage and watch me dial.” Specter held his hand up, and wiped his mouth, smiling; the crowd ate it up.
Not only did Specter follow through on his promise (photo here), he wrote on Twitter, "Called Senator Grassley to tell him to stop speading myths about health care reform and imaginary 'death panels.'"
A clearly bothered Grassley snapped back on Twitter, "Specter got it all wrong that I ever used words "death boards". Even liberal press never accused me of that. So change ur last Tweet Arlen."
No word back from Specter yet, but I'm sure we haven't heard the last of it.
The Good War
Posted by on 8.14.09 @ 1:00PM
Headline from today's Greenwire:
"Marines undertake green audit in Afghanistan"
Organic, Fresh Harvest Whirlwind
Posted by on 8.14.09 @ 12:28PM
Whole Foods CEO John Mackey sowed the wind in a recent WSJ op-ed favoring free-market health care reform, and now apparently he's reaping the whirlwind of his urban, elite, left-leaning clientele.
ABC News reports,
Joshua has been taking the bus to his local Whole Foods in New York City every five days for the past two years. This week, he said he'll go elsewhere to fulfill his fresh vegetable and organic produce needs.
Like many of his fellow health food fanatics, Joshua said he will no longer patronize the store after learning about Whole Foods Market Inc.'s CEO John Mackey's views on health care reform,
"I will never shop there again," vowed Joshua, a 45-year-old blogger, who asked that his last name not be published...
Needless to say, John Mackey is quaking in his boots.
It is a little ironic, though. The Joshuas of this world want to punish John Mackey for his ruthless capitalism by taking their grocery dollars elsewhere... i.e., ruthless capitalism.
I did appreciate this quote, though:
"You should know who butters your hearth-baked bread, John," wrote the commenter. "Last time I checked it wasn't the insurance industry conservatives who made you a millionaire a hundred times over."
Hearth-baked bread... delicious. And if anyone did in fact butter John Mackey's hearth-baked bread, it would have been a Whole Foods employee for whom, as we find out in Mackey's op-ed,
...Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums...for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees' Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness.
Wow, sounds like this guy really hates the working class. Sounds like he's a real free-range, 100 percent organic anti-union, libertarian dick.
UPDATE: I see that Doug Bandow beat me to the punch by seven minutes. Oh well, I'll apologize to him for doubling up on this topic in the check-out line at WF.
Time to Shop at Whole Foods?
Posted by on 8.14.09 @ 12:21PM
My eating habits are pretty simple--and awful, so I just shop at the closest supermarket. But opponents of a government health care takeover might want to consider dropping by Whole Foods. It seems that some advocates of nationalized medicine are boycotting the store after its CEO, John Mackey, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal opposing Obamacare.
Joshua has been taking the bus to his local Whole Foods in New York City every five days for the past two years. This week, he said he'll go elsewhere to fulfill his fresh vegetable and organic produce needs.
"I will never shop there again," vowed Joshua, a 45-year-old blogger, who asked that his last name not be published.
Like many of his fellow health food fanatics, Joshua said he will no longer patronize the store after learning about Whole Foods Market Inc.'s CEO John Mackey's views on health care reform, which were made public this week in an op-ed piece he wrote for The Wall Street Journal.
Michael Lent, another Whole Foods enthusiast in Long Beach, Calif., told ABCNews.com that he, too, will turn to other organic groceries for his weekly shopping list.
"I'm boycotting [Whole Foods] because all Americans need health care," said Lent, 33, who used to visit his local Whole Foods "several times a week."
"While Mackey is worried about health care and stimulus spending, he doesn't seem too worried about expensive wars and tax breaks for the wealthy and big businesses such as his own that contribute to the deficit," said Lent.
In his op-ed, "The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare," published Tuesday, Mackey criticized President Barack Obama's health care plan.
With Wal Mart providing the famous "stab in the back" by supporting health care "reform" in order to gain an advantage over some of its competitors, it is good to see at least one company stand on principle.
Dem vs. Dem
Posted by on 8.14.09 @ 12:08PM
The timeline to pass health care legislation slipped not because of attacks by Republicans, but because of infighting among Democrats who have large enough majorities in both chambers of Congress to pass a bill without a single Republican vote. Bloomberg reports that Senate Democrats are also fighting among themselves about the national energy tax that was passed by the House:
The U.S. Senate should abandon efforts to pass legislation curbing greenhouse-gas emissions this year and concentrate on a narrower bill to require use of renewable energy, four Democratic lawmakers say.
“The problem of doing both of them together is that it becomes too big of a lift,” Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas said in an interview last week. “I see the cap-and-trade being a real problem.”
Meanwhile, Harry Reid has said, "I don’t think we are going to take to the Senate floor a bill stripped of climate provisions."
House Democrat Says Health Care Bill With Cover Abortion
Posted by on 8.14.09 @ 11:35AM
David Brody has posted video of Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California admitting that health care legislation would cover abortion.
Here's a transcript of the exchange, which kicks in around the 6:51 mark:
QUESTION: "[This is a ] health care plan that is covering abortion, which we know that over 90% of abortions are purely elective, not medically necessary. Why is this being covered when abortion is clearly not health care?"
REP. LOFGREN: "[This is a] basic benefit plan developed by, um, health professionals... I am sure Abortion will be covered as a benefit by one or more of the health care plans available to Americans, and I think it should be...I will say this, that we have made sure that the federal contribution will not pay for that procedure."
Jim Antle explained earlier this week why, in practice, it would be impossible to prevent taxpayer funds from subsidizing abortions under Obamacare.
The Return of the Libertarian West
Posted by on 8.14.09 @ 11:21AM
Attitudes concerning Obama harden in the Mountain West, which had been starting to trend Democratic.
Remembering Schiavo
Posted by on 8.14.09 @ 10:57AM
A number of readers have objected to this section from my article today on the main site:
In 2005, the Terri Schiavo tragedy became a heated national political issue, because an accident left the Florida woman incapable of expressing whether she wanted to be kept alive with the aid of life-sustaining technology, and there wasn't any clear record of what her own wishes would have been.
The main complaint is my suggestion that that Schiavo was "kept alive with the aid of life-sustaining technology." As a number of readers pointed out, she was given food and water through feeding tubes. We can quibble about whether or not feeding tubes constitute technology, but I probably should have been more precise in my language so as to avoid a dispute over semantics. Either way, I don't think it changes my main point. If Schiavo had a living will or some form of advance directive about what her own wishes would have been regarding the level of medical intervention she would have wanted, then her tragedy wouldn't have become a heated national political issue involving courts, the Congress, and the White House.
The GOP Takes the Lead on Health Care
Posted by on 8.14.09 @ 10:49AM
The administration's push-back against the "mobs" at town halls doesn't seem to be working. According to Rasmussen Reports:
For the first time in over two years of polling, voters trust Republicans slightly more than Democrats on the handling of the issue of health care. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that voters favor the GOP on the issue 44% to 41%.
Democrats held a four-point lead on the issue last month and a 10-point lead in June. For most of the past two years, more than 50% of voters said they trusted Democrats on health care. The latest results mark the lowest level of support measured for the party on the now-contentious issue.
Public support for the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats has fallen to a new low with just 42% of U.S. voters now in favor of it. That's down five points from two weeks ago and down eight points from six weeks ago.
TheRepublican Party needs to stand firm. So often the phrase "the truth will triumph" is just an empty claim. But this time it actually appears to be true.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 8.14.09 @ 10:40AM
- A one-way conversation, Obama out-speaks public by 8 to 1 margin at town hall (FoxNews)
- Yale Free Press chickens out, doesn't publish Danish Muhammad cartoons in a book about the cartoons (CommentaryMagazine)
- The terrorist stimulus plan. Gitmo detainees could keep Michigan prison from closing (Christian Science Monitor)
- California stops issuing IOUs, but the not-so-golden state is expected to borrow $10.5 billion by the end of the year (Wall Street Journal)
China and Economic Policies and Non-policies
Posted by on 8.14.09 @ 10:11AM
Bentley economist Scott Sumner has written a sweeping blog post collating several different lines of thought on Chinese economics. For folks like me, more or less completely ignorant of what's going on with the one-sixth of the world that live in China, it's fascinating to read about the various economic policies that have succeeded and failed in different provinces in China, and the naturally arising ground-up non-policies that helped lead to the incredible growth China has enjoyed over the past few decades.
Stable Quality Care
Posted by on 8.14.09 @ 8:19AM
Part of the reason regular citizens are so agitated about the health care debate is because they sense intuitively that they have been sold out by everybody in Washington. One might think that at least physicians would be concerned about the well being of their own patients, if not for their own professional integrity. One would be wrong.
It is almost comical how much abuse these groups will take and still keep licking the boots of their Washington masters. The sado-masochism of this charade is enough to make John Waters gag. Obama accuses doctors of ripping out children’s tonsils and amputating the feet of diabetics, all to put a few bucks in their pockets, and the AMA announces it is joining an advertising effort to spend $12 million to support the very president who is so contemptuous of them.
Mike Allen of the Politico reports, “The new group, funded largely by the pharmaceutical industry, is called Americans for Stable Quality Care. It includes some odd bedfellows: the American Medical Association, FamiliesUSA, the Federation of American Hospitals, PhRMA and SEIU, the service employees’ union.”
Let’s see – “Stable Quality Care.” Is that the kind of health care horses get?
Allowing Trees to Sue in Court
Posted by on 8.14.09 @ 8:12AM
Should trees have standing to sue in court? Answering yes in a famous (for law students, anyway) article decades ago was Prof. Christopher Stone. Unstated was Prof. Stone's assumption that he, and leftie-enviro activists like him, would be allowed to decide who the trees sued and what remedies they desired. Prof. Stone & Co. alone would be considered experts in tree-speak.
It turns out that President Barack Obama's science and technology adviser rather likes the idea--or did some number of years ago. Reports Cybercast News Service:
Since the 1970s, some radical environmentalists have argued that trees have legal rights and should be allowed to go to court to protect those rights.
The idea has been endorsed by John P. Holdren, the man who now advises President Barack Obama on science and technology issues.
Giving "natural objects" -- like trees -- standing to sue in a court of law would have a "most salubrious" effect on the environment, Holdren wrote the 1970s.
"One change in (legal) notions that would have a most salubrious effect on the quality of the environment has been proposed by law professor Christopher D. Stone in his celebrated monograph, ‘Should Trees Have Standing?'" Holdren said in a 1977 book that he co-wrote with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich.
"In that tightly reasoned essay, Stone points out the obvious advantages of giving natural objects standing, just as such inanimate objects as corporations, trusts, and ships are now held to have legal rights and duties," Holdren added.
Actually, I always rather like the idea. As long as I could speak on behalf of the trees. You see, I suspect that they are bored standing around doing nothing in some park where bugs and disease can attack them. Far better to end up helping to construct a nice home for a family and many families to come. Or, even better, providing the material for a fine dining room table or china cabinet. How better for a tree to finish out its life than as part of an object of beauty and function, to be admired for generations to come?
Anyway, that's what "my" trees would say if given standing in court.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Macaca, Sarah Palin, GOP Media 'Strategery' and the Republican Road to Dunkirk
Posted by on 8.13.09 @ 9:45PM
After years of watching the Republican Party try -- and fail -- to deal effectively with liberal media bias, conservatives may be tempted to throw up their hands in despair. However, my campaign-trail excursions last year brought me into direct contact with a major cause of this chronic problem:
To say that Republican political operatives treat reporters like dirt would be to suggest that Republican political operatives have an unusually fanatical hatred of dirt, because in more than two decades of journalism, I have never experienced the kind of frigid hostility I encountered when I went out and tried to cover the McCain campaign. ("Tried" being the key word, since it's very difficult to cover candidates who almost never hold press conferences and instruct their campaign staff not to talk to you.)
Republican leaders habitually blame media bias for all their woes, but rank-and-file Republicans need to start asking to what extent this media bias is fomented and exacerbated by the cluelessness of GOP leadership and the insulting arrogance of GOP political operatives.
H.L. Mencken once said that the only way a journalist should ever look at a politician is down. Imagine, then, a reporter's reaction when he goes out on the road to cover a candidate and finds himself being bossed around by some rudely superior-acting 23-year-old punk fresh out of a College Republican club. . . .
It's long -- 3,800 words -- but I urge conservatives to read the whole thing, if you want to know why the Republican Party's media "strategery" so often backfires disastrously.
Sheila Jackson Lee Is A Liar, And Not A Convincing One At That
Posted by on 8.13.09 @ 7:03PM
Queen Sheila, known more informally as haughty Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), doesn't even have the decency to apologize for gabbing away on her cellphone during a healthcare townhall meeting and ignoring a concerned woman who was asking her a question.
In the video immediately below, audience members can be heard saying of Her Majesty "she's not even listening" and "seriously, I mean, come on, dude!"
In a rambling, incoherent, contradictory answer to CNN's Rick Sanchez, Her Majesty seemed to dismiss the suggestion that her behavior, captured on video, was rude at all.
"Townhall meetings are by their very nature informal," she told CNN's Rick Sanchez in a reassuring tone.
She also offered alternate versions of what really happened, throwing them out there to see what might stick.
The video might have been doctored, she said.
Her Majesty also contradicted herself saying she was calling a help line to help her better answer a question.
There you have it: 1) she did it but it was to help her answer 2) she didn't do and the video is a hoax.
The Queen can do no wrong.
(Hat tip: Matthew Balan of NewsBusters)
Les Paul, RIP
Posted by on 8.13.09 @ 6:27PM
The electric guitar and multitrack recording pioneer died at the age of 94. One of the greats, though he won't get a fraction of Michael Jackson's coverage.
Bruce Bartlett's Misplaced Rage
Posted by on 8.13.09 @ 4:34PM
Bruce Bartlett in effect says that conservatives who are angry at Barack Obama should look in the mirror: "Until conservatives once again hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats, they will have no credibility and deserve no respect." But even if he's correct that conservative credibility has taken a well-deserved hit because the right was too enamored of George W. Bush -- and I think he is -- it doesn't follow that conservatives are wrong to oppose a largely pointless stimulus bill, an increased federal role in the provision of health care that will cost even more than the Medicare prescription drug benefit, cap and trade, and other Obama policies.
To put it another way: Just because conservatives didn't make enough noise as Bush was running up a $1.2 trillion deficit doesn't mean they should shut up now that Obama is jacking it up to as much as $1.8 trillion. Obama supported Bush's TARP bailout, as did more Democrats than Republicans in Congress. The Democrats also favored an even more robust Medicare prescription drug benefit than the one irresponsibly enacted by Bush and the Republican Congress. And which of the policies that lead to our current mess -- artificially low interest rates, loose money, unfunded government spending, relaxed lending standards for politically favored groups -- has Obama decisively broken with now, much less opposed at the time? The Democrats were a little better on the wars' contribution to the health of the state, the Republican better on reining in Fannie and Freddie.
There are some gaps in Bartlett's history. He ignores the role the Republican Congress played, alongside Bill Clinton, in reforming welfare and cutting federal spending during the 1990s. He acknowledges Ronald Reagan's tax increases but neglects to mention that Reagan was a substantial net tax cutter, who brought the top marginal tax rate all the way down to 28 percent by the time he left office. Or as Bartlett -- who, by the way, told us in 2003 that the Iraq war would be a bargain -- put it in October 2003, "But at the end of the day, [Reagan] cut taxes more than he raised them. That is why conservatives forgave him and why they will probably forgive George W. Bush as well."
There also some gaps in Bartlett's version of current events. He describes conservative activists as "primarily Republican Party hacks trying to overturn the election results." (Since when did opposing policies with which one disagrees amount to overturning election results?) But many of the new activists are as angry as Republicans as they are Democrats. Just ask John Cornyn and any number of other pro-bailout Republicans who have been booed off the stage at various tea parties.
If conservatives focus exclusively on trying to elect people with the letter "R" next to their name no matter what they stand for or what the consequences of their policies are, it will indeed be self-defeating. Almost as self-defeating as letting the Obama administration wreck the country now in order to spite the people who were wrecking it seven months ago.
Toomey Beats Specter?
Posted by on 8.13.09 @ 3:19PM
Uh oh. Jim Antle wonders about Joe Sestak defeating Specter. The latest Rasmussen Reports poll has Toomey close to a majority against Specter:
Uncomfortable town hall meetings are just the tip of the iceberg for Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter He now trails Republican Pat Toomey by double digits in his bid for reelection next year and is viewed unfavorably by a majority of the state's voters.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Pennsylvania voters shows 48% would vote for Toomey if the election were held today. Just 36% would vote for Specter while four percent (4%) prefer a third option, and 12% are not sure.
These figures reflect a dramatic reversal since June. At that time, before the public health care debate began, Specter led Toomey by eleven.
Just 43% now have a favorable opinion of Specter while 54% offer an unfavorable assessment of the longtime GOP senator who became a Democrat rather than face Toomey in a party primary. Those numbers have reversed since June when 53% had a favorable opinion of him.
The current figures include 15% with a Very Favorable opinion of Specter and 36% with a Very Unfavorable view.
It's still a long way to the election, but this sure isn't what the ideologically-challenged Senator had in mind after his party switch. The Dems were supposed to clear the field. The Reps were supposed to nominate an unelectable candidate.
Oops!
A Golden State Opportunity?
Posted by on 8.13.09 @ 2:49PM
Chuck DeVore, a California assemblyman seeking to challenge Sen. Barbara Boxer in the 2010 U.S. Senate race, on Thursday blasted his potential rival for the Republican nomination, Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, as a "dilettante" and "rich moderate" who couldn't win statewide.
He also contended that Boxer was vulnerable in a general election due to her high negatives and rising unemployment.
"Never in California's history has a self-funded dilettante ever won any top office, Governor or Senate," the candidate said this morning at a breakfast sponsored by TAS and Americans for Tax Reform, when asked about a potential primary challenge from Fiorina. DeVore pointedly told attendees that Fiorina was fired from Hewlett Packard and from the McCain campaign for making several gaffes. He criticized her for supporting the financial bailout and said her views on most policy issues were unknown. Moreover, he questioned whether Fiorina's wealth, which he estimated at around $40 million, would even allow her to self-fund in a state such as California, with a population of 37 million and many expensive media markets. He also took issue with Sen. John Cornyn, chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee for "already making up his mind" to support Fiorina, even though she hasn't declared her candidacy.
DeVore described himself as a movement conservative with a libertarian streak on issues concerning civil liberties and law enforcement. DeVore had previously worked in the aerospace industry for thirteen years, and served in the Defense Department under President Reagan. He has supported off-shore drilling, nuclear power, and allowing the growth of hemp for industrial uses. He emphasized that his campaign would utilize the internet in ways not previously practiced by Republican candidates, pointing to the success of his Barbara Boxer "Dr. Evil" Youtube video as a way of spreading name recognition. He asserted that he was running a grassroots campaign, doubling his email base in the last month. Using the phrase "asymmetric warfare" to describe his tactics, DeVore questioned the value of TV advertising, especially considering that the candidates in the gubernatorial race would flood the airwaves during the same cycle. DeVore reported that he has raised $500,000 with 8,000 contributors, but that only seven of those donors had maxed out. DeVore believes he needs to raise close to $10 million to be competitive. Almost half of his money comes from outside California.
This internet strategy may help to raise money with many donors, but it still seems to fall short with respect to addressing the need to generate name recognition with voters. Both Boxer and Fiorina have name recognition due to previous national exposure. He will likely need to find ways to reach out to lower income voters, and to more socially conservative voters that helped propel the passage of Proposition 8.
If DeVore can raise enough money, he might be able to make this race competitive by playing to his strengths. DeVore pointed out that Boxer has high negative ratings, and is currently taking criticism for going on reading tours of her novel instead of scheduling town halls to discuss healthcare reform. He also noted that unemployment in California is projected to reach 14 percent, and said she's never had to run in such a bad economic climate. If Boxer and the Democrats continue to alienate Californians, a conservative candidate such as DeVore could have a chance.
Benedict Arlen Afraid To Meet With His Constituents?
Posted by on 8.13.09 @ 2:18PM
Poor Arlen Specter.
The Pennsylvania senator who ditched the Republican Party to become a Democrat is getting tired of his constituents yelling at him for supporting President Obama's plan to nationalize the healthcare industry.
Specter attended a safe, friendly healthcare event yesterday in Duncannon, Pa., organized by Organizing for America (OFA), which is an arm of the Democratic National Committee. The OFA wesbite (my.barackobama.com) carried the following listing for the event:
THE DETAILS
Standing up for insurance reform in Duncannon with Sen. Specter (Health Care Public Event)
Our representatives are under attack by Washington insiders, insurance companies, and well-financed special interests who don't go a day without spreading lies and stirring up fear. We need to show that we're sick and tired of it, and that we're ready for real change, this year.Please come to the Health Care event, and make sure that the most powerful voices in this debate are those calling for real reform.
Please arrive early; space is available on a first-come, first-served basis.
Time: Wednesday, August 12 from 2:00 PM - 3:00 PM
Host: Organizing for America
Location: Penn Township Building (Duncannon, PA)
100 Municipal Building Road
Duncannon, PA 17020Maps:
* Google Maps * MapQuest * Yahoo! Maps
Other Signups
48 people have signed up to attend this event.
I am informed by my sources in Pennsylvania (I used to be a reporter in Harrisburg at the Central Penn Business Journal) that a few dozen people showed up for the event at Penn Township Building.
Gallup Finds Independents Sympathize With Protesters
Posted by on 8.13.09 @ 12:22PM
Yesterday I noted that Democratic attacks on town hall protesters were failing to boost support for health care legislation, but now a new USA Today/Gallup poll shows that self-described independents have been siding with opponents of Obamacare:
In a survey of 1,000 adults taken Tuesday, 34% say demonstrations at the hometown sessions have made them more sympathetic to the protesters' views; 21% say they are less sympathetic.
Independents by 2-to-1, 35%-16%, say they are more sympathetic to the protesters now.
The findings are unwelcome news for President Obama and Democratic congressional leaders, who have scrambled to respond to the protests and in some cases even to be heard. From Pennsylvania to Texas, those who oppose plans to overhaul the health care system have asked aggressive questions and staged noisy demonstrations.
And don't forget, the August recess was the time period during which Democrats were supposed win over skeptics, but instead, the early indication is that numbers are moving in the opposite direction, and the attempted demonization of their opponents appears to have completely backfired.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 8.13.09 @ 12:15PM
- Exactly the same thing, right? Hillary compares 2000 Florida recount to rigged Nigerian elections (ABC News)
- Cash for clunkers cars turn out to often be more beige than green as trucks and SUVs are being purchased with the federal money (Associated Press)
- These kids today.... The younger generation of Americans gives way too much moral credit to the Woodstock generation (Washington Times)
- Mayor Daley: Obama should take a pay cut (Chicago Sun Times)
"You can’t just make stuff up"
Posted by on 8.13.09 @ 12:04PM
That's what candidate Obama declared last fall. But President Obama, even as he accuses others of spreading myths and "scare tactics" about health care legislation has himself been loose with the facts. During Tuesday's town hall meeting in New Hampshire, Obama lied by denying he has expressed support for a single-payer health care system.
During the same town hall meeting, Obama said:
All I'm saying is let's take the example of something like diabetes, one of --- a disease that's skyrocketing, partly because of obesity, partly because it's not treated as effectively as it could be. Right now if we paid a family -- if a family care physician works with his or her patient to help them lose weight, modify diet, monitors whether they're taking their medications in a timely fashion, they might get reimbursed a pittance. But if that same diabetic ends up getting their foot amputated, that's $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 -- immediately the surgeon is reimbursed. Well, why not make sure that we're also reimbursing the care that prevents the amputation, right? That will save us money.
Last night, the American College of Surgeons fired back:
Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation. Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for this service.
The full statement here.
DHS: Extremist Crackpot Websites Say Conservatives Are Extremist Crackpots
Posted by on 8.13.09 @ 11:41AM
Mark Tapscott reports that a FOIA request by the Americans for Limited Government has exposed the DHS's sources for their infamous April report warning of a rise in right-wing extremism. And the truth doesn't flatter Ms. Napolitano and her crew:
Instead of intelligence reports, DHS used unverified allegations and speculations it found on the internet.
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano's researchers liked one particularly apocalyptic web site so much that they cited it 11 times in their report. This site - called "What It Means" - often warns that the world is about to end, as with this recent headline: "Deaith Star Pandemic of 2009-2012: End of Age Begins."
Sleep tight tonight, folks, because your government knows what it all means.
I wonder if the good folks at What It Means knew that they were the Obama DHS's go-to source.
Specter Attacks Limbaugh, Talk Radio for Rumors
Posted by on 8.13.09 @ 10:54AM
Yesterday, the day after the headline making town hall meeting in nearby Lebanon, Pennsylvania, Senator Arlen Specter called the area's largest newspaper, the Harrisburg Patriot-News, to request time with the editorial board and local reporters. Specter faced off yet again yesterday with an angry crowd over health care, this latest one in State College, home of Penn State. "Good morning" said one student. "Is it?" Specter snapped. A transcript of the later editorial board meeting was published today.
Beginning by saying "we have to acquaint the American people with the facts" and that "there are a lot of rumors," he answers the second question by zeroing in on Rush Limbaugh and talk radio, later adding that the raucous town hall meetings across Pennsylvania have in fact "influenced" him and that he "didn't expect" what went on in Lebanon.
The question asked by the Patriot-News was: "What message is not getting out correctly to Pennsylvanians?"
Specter replied:
"The message that is being circulated is filled wit h rumors and influenced very heavily by talk radio. Rush Limbaugh can reach more people than your editorial today. What can be done to acquaint (the) American people with the facts?"
For a moment he appears to endorse a "requirement" that "every insurance plan" have a provision for an "annual exam paid for by the insurance company." Immediately, as if realizing he is already in the troubled waters of government mandates on the private conduct of individuals, he backtracks: "Not mandatory, but voluntary and paid for to encourage people to take it."
Having been pounded relentlessly on Tuesday with talk of death panels and euthanasia, he says: "Nobody ought to decide for anyone else what kind of medical care they get in the final days, weeks or near end of life. But people ought to be informed. I got informed by my wife years ago about a 'living will' and I said 'yes, ma'am' and we had a living will."
Praising the savings this could generate, he is asked if this could be enough savings "without increasing taxes." Specter: "Yes, without increasing taxes."
Asked if his town hall meetings were "poor timing," he responds by saying he's done them for 30 years and the current round was "scheduled long ago." But he added: "I didn't expect what went on in Lebanon."
Patriot-News: "Have your views shifted at all based upon the comments you are hearing at these town hall meetings?"
Specter: "It has influenced me. Even though they may not be representative, they are significant, and the temperature is boiling.…The people who are going to these meetings are on the edge of the ledge. Even if the whole country isn't this way, if this many people are feeling this, we have to take it into account. And you don't know that if you sit in the Senate Office Building. If you stay inside the Beltway, it's a great cocoon."
Asked what advice he would give President Obama "based on what you are hearing at these meetings," Specter says: "The principal piece of advice I would give -- and I intend to pass this on personally, not just to you -- is to specify how he is going to fulfill his statement of no addition to the deficit. Tell us what the programs are going to cost to insure the 47 million…what are the president's figures….If we could deal with the deficit, there would be a lot more acceptance."
Specter ended this way, in a response to the question "Is there anything you can compare this to in your career?"
Specter, who as a young lawyer served on the staff of the Warren Commission investigating the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, answered with a wry reference to the man who killed presidential assassin Lee Harvey Oswald:
"No…Maybe questioning Jack Ruby."
Killing the "But We Have Medicare" Argument
Posted by on 8.13.09 @ 10:26AM
Manning my trusty treadmill at the gym last night, I watched Laurence O'Donnell debate a woman who had passionately called at a townhall for a return to the kind of nation the founders envisioned. His primary strategy was to ask her if she wanted to repeal Medicare, which he characterized as "smart, pragmatic socialism."
The idea here is that, hey, Medicare works to cover seniors and therefore we could just cover everyone with a Medicare style plan.
This idea, voiced by Laurence O'Donnell who should know better, is not a good one. Medicare works, to the extent that it does, because it is basically parasitic on the private market for healthcare. Doctors are able to earn reasonable compensation (given their training, skills, and level of difficulty of the work) because of the existence of that private market. All Medicare does is to provide a way for a segment of the market, lower income seniors, to pay for healthcare. Many physicians will accept that reduced payment from Medicare because:
They want to help patients, including those who often can't pay much
They have the money earned in the private market to allow them to handle the poor payments from Medicare.
Without the private market, can you imagine doctors paying for their substantial overhead (including massive prices for malpractice coverage) on what they make from Medicare alone? Government solutions work somewhat acceptably at the margins, but not when they overtake the market completely. Pointing to Medicare is not a way to win the argument for a government option available to everyone.
Why We Don't Want Government-Run Health Care
Posted by on 8.13.09 @ 9:56AM
Writes commentator Deroy Murdock:
Imagine that your two best friends are British and Canadian tobacco addicts. The Brit battles lung cancer. The Canadian endures emphysema and wheezes as he walks around with clanging oxygen canisters. You probably would not think: "Maybe I should pick up smoking."
The fact that America is even considering government medicine is equally wacky. The state guides health care for our two closest allies: Great Britain and Canada. Like us, these are prosperous, industrial, Anglophone democracies. Nevertheless, compared to America, they suffer higher death rates for diseases, their patients experience severe pain, and they ration medical services.
Look what you're missing in the U.K.:
* Breast cancer kills 25 percent of its American victims. In Great Britain, the Vatican of single-payer medicine, breast cancer extinguishes 46 percent of its targets.
* Prostate cancer is fatal to 19 percent of its American patients. The National Center for Policy Analysis reports that it kills 57 percent of Britons it strikes.
* Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development data show that the U.K.'s 2005 heart-attack fatality rate was 19.5 percent higher than America's. This may correspond to angioplasties, which were only 21.3 percent as common there as here.
* The U.K.'s National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) just announced plans to cut its 60,000 annual steroid injections for severe back-pain sufferers to just 3,000. This should save the government 33 million pounds (about $55 million). "The consequences of the NICE decision will be devastating for thousands of patients," Dr. Jonathan Richardson of Bradford Hospitals Trust told London's Daily Telegraph. "It will mean more people on opiates, which are addictive, and kill 2,000 a year. It will mean more people having spinal surgery, which is incredibly risky, and has a 50 per cent failure rate."
* "Seriously ill patients are being kept in ambulances outside hospitals for hours so NHS trusts do not miss Government targets," Daniel Martin wrote last year in London's Daily Mail. "Thousands of people a year are having to wait outside accident and emergency departments because trusts will not let them in until they can treat them within four hours, in line with a Labour [party] pledge. The hold-ups mean ambulances are not available to answer fresh 911 calls. Doctors warned last night that the practice of ‘patient-stacking' was putting patients' health at risk."
Shouldn't "reform" make us better off?
Palin Is Not Wrong
Posted by on 8.13.09 @ 8:53AM
As virtually everybody in America now knows, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin posted the following on her FaceBook page:
The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
Naturally, she was roundly reviled for these comments. One person quoted by the New York Times replied, “One problem: None of the bills emerging from various committees includes the kind of ‘death panel’ that Ms. Palin says would be rationing care.”
I guess that’s that, eh? Mrs. Palin should go back to shooting elk and stop irritating the New York Times.
Well, not so fast.
It’s true the bills don’t explicitly identify a “death panel,” but there is plenty that would lead to exactly that outcome. Some of it is already law, in fact.
First, Congress already enacted, as part of the stimulus package, $20 billion for Health Information Technology, or HIT. This is designed to get every doctor and every patient wired up to a national database of health information. Every disease, diagnosis, prescription, and treatment will be submitted to this national database and made accessible to researchers, payers, and law enforcement. This is not speculation; it’s the law.
Next, the stimulus package also appropriated money to create a “comparative effectiveness research” program. Its proponents claim this will only be “research” to determine what treatments work best for large populations, using the health information database to make their determinations.
This is based on Britain’s “NICE” (National Institute for Clinical Effectiveness) program. NICE determines the dollar value of a “quality adjusted life year” (QALY) and allows payment for drugs and treatments that are lower than that number and disallows those that cost more. NICE has already disallowed cancer drugs and treatments such as hip replacements for elderly people and stopped allowing injections of steroids for people with severe back pain.
Of course, just doing research doesn’t sound threatening. Research is good, isn’t it? We all love research.
This is where the current bills come in. To hold down the costs of Obama’s health care program, the administration has come up with a whole menu of activities—chronic disease management, pay-for-performance, wellness incentives, and so on.
I know, I know, the eyes glaze over at this kind of bureaucratic gobbledygook. Who really knows what any of it means? That’s why Sarah Palin is so dangerous. Her controversial statement cut through all the fog and made people sit up and take notice.
In fact, these are the kind of programs that take benign “comparative effectiveness research” and put some teeth into it. Suddenly it isn’t just research. Suddenly we are using that research to decide how much to pay doctors. That is the whole purpose of pay-for-performance (or P4P among policy wonks.)
Physicians will be paid more if they follow the guidelines established by the yet-to-be-named research group. (My suggestion for a name is Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission of the United States, or CERCUS.) The HIT will be able to alert the CERCUS as soon as any doctor tries to violate the P4P guidelines. Uh-oh! A warning will pop up on the doctor’s computer: YOU ARE TRYING TO VIOLATE THE GUIDELINES! EXPLAIN YOUSELF!!
Your doctor may be able to fill out all the paperwork to get an exception, and appeal any denial, but it will be an uphill slog. More likely, the doctor will go with the flow and accept the higher level of payment for being obedient.
That’s where Mrs. Palin comes in. She would like her son Trig to live. She will need to appeal the decision to . . . whom? Very likely a panel much like what she describes.
Only it won’t be called a Death Panel. It may be called the LIFETIME Panel: “Listening to Irritating Families Explain Their Insistence on a Medical Examination.”
Greg Scandlen is director of Consumers for Health Care Choices at The Heartland Institute.
Cap-and-Trade Creator Disses His Baby
Posted by on 8.13.09 @ 6:00AM
Oops!
Four decades ago graudate student Thomas Crocker cooked up the idea of cap-and-trade. Now retired economist Thomas Crocker disses the idea as House Democrats would apply it.
Reports the Wall Street Journal:
In the 1960s, a University of Wisconsin graduate student named Thomas Crocker came up with a novel solution for environmental problems: cap emissions of pollutants and then let firms trade permits that allow them to pollute within those limits.
When he was a graduate student in the 1960s working to reduce pollutants, Thomas Crocker devised a cap-and-trade system similar to one being considered in Congress.
Now legislation using cap-and-trade to limit greenhouse gases is working its way through Congress and could become the law of the land. But Mr. Crocker and other pioneers of the concept are doubtful about its chances of success. They aren't abandoning efforts to curb emissions. But they are tiptoeing away from an idea they devised decades ago, doubting it can work on the grand scale now envisioned.
"I'm skeptical that cap-and-trade is the most effective way to go about regulating carbon," says Mr. Crocker, 73 years old, a retired economist in Centennial, Wyo. He says he prefers an outright tax on emissions because it would be easier to enforce and provide needed flexibility to deal with the problem.
The House has passed cap-and-trade legislation. The Senate could take up a measure in September. But Republicans strongly oppose the idea -- arguing that it is a tax that will hurt the economy -- and Democrats are struggling to come up with an approach that apportions the inevitable cost of a cap-and-trade system among different interests, from consumers to utilities to coal plants.
Mr. Crocker, who went on to become a professor at the University of Wyoming, is one of two economists who dreamed up cap-and-trade in the 1960s. The other, John Dales, who died in 2007, was also a skeptic of using the idea to tame global warning.
Of course, the bigger question is whether global warming is actually a crisis requiring drastic action to cut energy consumption and limit if not end economic growth. But if Congress plans on adopting hugely expensive measures to reduce pollution, shouldn't it at least use the most cost-effective approach?
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Why Sheila Jackson Lee Is the Least Respected Lawmaker in Congress
Posted by on 8.12.09 @ 8:00PM
During a townhall meeting, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), stopped to take a call on her cellphone.
This is par for the course for Queen Sheila.
Cost of Government Day: VATs and Other Bad Ideas
Posted by on 8.12.09 @ 5:48PM
Today is Cost of Government Day--the day that you stop working to pay for the total cost of government (spending plus regulation). To state the obvious, it's August. The latest this day ever used to come was mid-July. In fact, the day has advanced by nearly a month since last year, thanks to TARP and stimulus (not to mention shrinking national income).
I spoke at the event wearing my hat as Executive Director of AmericanShareholders.org, a free market group which works on investor class issues. I decided to highlight the international angle in the report.
There are two inter-related appendices in the report. One is on the issue of worldwide taxation with deferral, and the other is on a value-added tax (VAT). On deferral, it's pretty clear where Obama, Rangel, et al want to go. They would like to see all worldwide income of U.S. companies taxed immediately by the IRS, and probably without a foreign tax credit. Each of these would add a full day to the Cost of Government.
As a "solution," many domestic manufacturers and other victims of our needlessly punative and complex international tax system want to swap out our corporate income tax for a VAT. The thinking is that the border adjustability of a European-style VAT would be beneficial to them, and would raise as much money as the corporate tax at much lower rates.
Bad idea.
As Dan Mitchell (back when he was at Heritage) pointed out, VATs in Europe started small and got big. The average VAT rate has climbed from 5 percent in 1970 to 20 percent today. In fact, there is a 15 percent minimum VAT rate needed to join the EU. His research also shows that as the VAT rate rose, other taxes rose at the same time. So, VATs simply fed the bottomless gullet of government. VATs are opaque, since they are part of the price of a good, not on top of them like a US-style sales tax.
Others look to a VAT as the "least bad" way to fill in the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare. As the report demonstrates, this would require a VAT rate of 12.75% at the end of the 75-year actuary predictions. This is on top of the 15.3% FICA rate we already have. Again, a bad idea.
What about healthcare reform? Suppose we wanted to break the logjam that House Democrats find themselves in (surtax vs. taxing health benefits) with a new VAT? Assuming a European-style VAT, you would be able to fund a $300 billion per year health plan (a high estimate, but a fair one, of H.R. 3200) with a VAT rate of between 5-6 percent. That would be like doubling the sales tax in every state in America, but hiding it inside the price of the good.
Attacks on Protesters Fail to Boost Support for Obamacare
Posted by on 8.12.09 @ 4:25PM
Thus far, the coordinated effort by Democrats to portray Obamacare critics as un-American angry Astroturf mobsters who are tools of the insurance industry engaging in political terrorism, has not reaped dividends. While it's still early, the polling evidence we have thus far suggests that demonizing the opposition has not boosted support for Obama or Democratic health care proposals. When the White House and Democrats launched their attacks on protesters early last week, Obama's approval rating stood at 55 percent in the Gallup daily tracking poll, with 38 percent disapproval. In today's poll, his approval is back down to 53 percent, while his disapproval is at 40 percent -- even though the intervening period brought a better than expected unemployment report. More specifically, Gallup found his approval rating on health care has barely budged from three weeks ago, with 43 percent now approving and 49 percent disapproving (compared with 44 percent and 50 percent, respectively, three weeks ago). Meanwhile, Rasmussen found that support for health care legislation proposed by Obama and Democrats has dropped 6 points in the past two weeks, to 42 percent, while a 53 percent majority now oppose.
Keep in mind that with legislation behind schedule in Congress, August was supposed to be a month for Obama and Democrats to regain the momentum and build public support for what they're trying to do going into fall. We still have a long way to go, but based on what we have to go on thus far, it doesn't seem that attacking their opponents has helped win over any skeptics.
Democratic Congressman Calls Obamacare Protesters "Political Terrorists"
Posted by on 8.12.09 @ 2:45PM
Indiana's Democratic Rep. Baron Hill has said, "I don't mind people disagreeing with you, but just to blow up a meeting is an act of political terrorism."
Question For A Democrat On Health Care?
Posted by on 8.12.09 @ 2:04PM
Obama Human Props
Posted by on 8.12.09 @ 1:02PM
Sometimes I am in awe of Michelle Malkin. Her "Illustrated Guide to Obama Human Props" is absolutely priceless. One of these days, maybe, perhaps, if we are lucky, the Obama people will get lazy in their screening and actually let an intelligent, courageous critic of Obama to ask a question at one of his "unscripted town meetings." Until then, we'll need to rely on Michelle Malkin to call "BS" on the Obamites. Bless her for it.
Liberal Condescension Watch
Posted by on 8.12.09 @ 1:01PM
It is hard to get more insufferable than the following quote given to the Los Angeles Times: "I think it is very hard because [Democrats] don't have the message machine the Republicans do," said George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley linguistics professor who has advised some Democrats on how to sharpen their message. "The Democrats still believe in Enlightenment reason: If you just tell people the truth, they will come to the right conclusion."
Yeah, that's it. Keep sharpening that message.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 8.12.09 @ 12:55PM
- Obama compares health plan to the post office (Washington Post)
- Taking a mulligan on free enterprise, pro-Chavez officials shut down golf courses, calling the game a "bourgeois sport" (New York Times)
- Say hello to my little friend -- $1 million worth of cocaine found north of Miami (Miami Herald)
- Must watch: Congresswoman Jackson-Lee chats on cellphone, ignores questioner at town hall (Red State)
Khmer Rouge Jailer: Stone Me
Posted by on 8.12.09 @ 12:09PM
I am usually pretty understanding about how and why the formerly mainstream media chooses the stories it covers or runs, but I am perplexed by their near-total ignorance of the trial of Kaing Guek Eav (Comrade Duch), the former Khmer Rouge torturer who is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Cambodians (and a few others) in the 1970s. After all, you've got one of the highest profile criminals from the regime verifying the horrific activities that took place at the S-21 prison, and in some cases correcting testimony in ways that reflect even worse upon himself. Duch has spoken about, and shown strong evidence, that he became a born-again Christian years ago (even working voluntarily in refugee camps for World Vision).
Why should more American media be paying attention? Well, it is a story of an evil dictatorship responsible for deeds at least on the level of the Nazis, if not worse (as the Cambodians say, Hitler killed millions of non-Germans; Pol Pot murdered a quarter of his own people). And like it or not, the Khmer Rouge's rise to power is at least tangential to American involvement in the Vietnam War (many liberal journalists partially blame the U.S. for Cambodian atrocities, which is all the more the reason for the formerly MSM to cover the story). Finally, it's just flat-out fascinating -- how often in history have you heard of a bloodthirsty Communist loyalist (or a lieutenant of any dictatorial regime) exhibit extreme repentance with tears of sorrow for his victims? Read "The Lost Executioner" for a fascinating page-turner about how Irish journalist Nic Dunlop (who doesn't necessarily believe his religious conversion) sought and found Duch. The media is totally missing it. Is race an issue here? Are these people just not important enough?
Well, time appears to be almost up now. The UN-backed court is winding down and Duch is addressing sentencing scenarios:
"If there is a Cambodian tradition -- like it existed in the past when people threw rocks at Christ to death -- Cambodian people can do that to me. I would accept it," said Duch....
"I will accept without challenges... all judgments which will be made by this chamber, the judgment of my role as the chairman of S-21 and all the crimes committed there," he said.
"I am humble before the Cambodian people, I accept all of these crimes and would like the Cambodian people to condemn me to the strictest level of punishment."
"My life is just one life and cannot compare to those lives which were lost during the period," he added.
I don't believe Duch is likening himself to Christ, but that he would accept whatever death penalty is prescribed to him. And skeptics will likely say -- justifiably -- that it's easy for Duch to make such statements because the death penalty has been ruled out in his case. But again, his sincerity would be a subject of a much larger debate if only people were paying attention.
A Specter Haunts Arlen Specter
Posted by on 8.12.09 @ 11:41AM
Time asks if Joe Sestak can beat Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania's Democratic primary. I'm increasingly convinced the answer is yes. It will take resources to overcome the party establishment, but Specter's ideological zig-zagging and commitment to no principle higher than the idea that there must be a Sen. Arlen Specter has gotten ridiculous enough to irritate voters across the political spectrum.
Happy Cost of Government Day!
Posted by on 8.12.09 @ 11:41AM
Congratulations! Today is the day in the year, according to the Americans for Tax Reform, that you can start working for yourself. 224 days of working just to pay taxes leaves a meager 141 days out of the year in which the money you earn is legally yours. That's 26 more days of taxation than we endured just last year. Frederic Bastiat would be horrified.
Read the full ATF report on the cost of government here.(PDF)
Support for Nationalizing Health Care Continues to Fall
Posted by on 8.12.09 @ 11:34AM
As the reality of health care "reform" continues to sink in, public support continues to fall. Not only are most Republicans strongly opposed to expanding federal control, but so are independents.
According to Rasmussen Reports:
Public support for the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats has fallen to a new low as just 42% of U.S. voters now favor the plan. That's down five points from two weeks ago and down eight points from six weeks ago.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that opposition to the plan has increased to 53%, up nine points since late June.
More significantly, 44% of voters strongly oppose the health care reform effort versus 26% who strongly favor it. Intensity has been stronger among opponents of the plan since the debate began.
Sixty-seven percent (67%) of those under 30 favor the plan while 56% of those over 65 are opposed. Among senior citizens 46% are strongly opposed.
Predictably, 69% of Democrats favor the plan, while 79% of Republicans oppose it. Yet while 44% of Democratic voters strongly favor the reform effort, 70% of GOP voters are strongly opposed to it.
Most notable, however, is the opposition among voters not affiliated with either party. Sixty-two percent (62%) of unaffiliated voters oppose the health care plan, and 51% are strongly opposed. This marks an uptick in strong opposition among both Republicans and unaffiliateds, while the number of strongly supportive Democrats is unchanged.
Sorry to contradict you Mr. President. But it appears that it is the grassroots which has been speaking against your proposals after all.
Non-Contradiction
Posted by on 8.12.09 @ 11:01AM
Jonathan Cohn argues that one of the reasons Democrats are having trouble defending their health care policies is that conservatives are making "arguments that cut in completely opposite directions." Namely, one the one hand, conservatives are arguing that costs will explode, yet on the other hand, arguing that President Obama is so dedicated to cost controls that he'll institute rationing. But I don't really see these arguments as being at odds, for several reasons.
First off, there's an important distinction between overall health care expenditures -- i.e. the total amount of money the whole country spends on health care each year -- and the amount of money the government spends on health care. In 2007, for instance, our overall health care expenditures were $2.24 trillion. Of that, about 46 percent was spent by government at some level, or $1.04 trillion, according to data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. When Obama and others talk about "bending the health care cost curve" what they're talking about is the overall number, which is currently projected to grow to nearly $4.4 trillion by 2018. However, at the same time, Democrats are proposing policies that would substantially increase the government's share of the national health care dollar. They are proposing a massive expansion of Medicaid as well as huge subsidies for individuals to purchase health insurance through an exchange. So, it's completely feasible that government, through rationing, could decrease the United States' overall spending on health care, while at the same time dramatically increasing our national debt. It would just be a matter of government taking a much larger slice of a smaller piece of pie.
There's another scenario that I think is more likely. If health care legislation passes, I imagine at first that the administration would resist rationing or any sort of unpopular cost controls. But what will happen is that all the free and subsidized health insurance will drastically pump up consumption and drive health care spending out of control. Obama's attempts to rein in costs through wider adoption of information technology, preventive medicine, wringing efficiencies out of Medicare, and cutting down on waste, fraud, and abuse within the system will not work. That's when the government will start to ration care as they do in other countries. The comparative effectiveness research panel is just one example of a provision that creates the infrastructure for future rationing. While Obama argues that the this would just be about providing information that would not be binding, if you read Tom Daschle's book Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis, he describes a similar Federal Health Board, and explains how government could compel wider adoption of the recommendations. For instance, there could be a requirement that all government programs would have to abide by its recommendations, that requirement could extend to any private insurer participating in the exchange, and as Daschle wrote on page 179, "Congress could opt to go further with the Board's recommendations. It could, for example, link the tax exclusion for health insurance to insurance that complies with the Board's recommendations." And remember, this is a man Obama originally tapped to lead his health care effort, and Obama specifically said in a blurb on the back of Daschle's book that, "his Federal Reserve for Health concept holds great promise for bridging this intellectual chasm and, at long last, giving this nation the health care it deserves."
Either way, Obama has run into trouble because he isn't being honest about the tradeoffs that exist. He's trying to make people believe that we can expand coverage, save money, and do so without resorting to the kind of rationing that other nations do. For good reason, the American people aren't buying it.
Cowardice in the Extreme
Posted by on 8.12.09 @ 9:37AM
While lively health care townhalls have been conducted elsewhere in the country, here in North Carolina the Democratic congressmen have been criticized for refusing to hold such forums for fear of constituent harassment or worse. That was until last night when 1st District Congressman G.K. Butterfield, a Congressional Black Caucus member in an extremely safe district, conducted an open meeting. At least he showed up and gave a respectful ear to the few dissenters who showed up.
The same can't be said for 2nd District (and my) Congressman Bob Etheridge, who likes to pass himself off as moderate but is really a reliable liberal (ADA rating for 2008: 85%). Tonight this Pyrite Medalist for cowardice will show up for a townhall meeting hosted by the local chapter of the Service Employees International Union -- or as Michelle Malkin describes them today, the "Purple Shirts." Pretty amazing that he would hide behind these bouncers in a Right-to-Work state where they wield much less influence than the rest of the country.
Obama vs. Obama
Posted by on 8.12.09 @ 8:17AM
Heritage has put together this devastating 17-second video exposing Obama's lie from yesterday that he never advocated a single-payer health care system.
Stimulating Pork, not Economic Growth
Posted by on 8.12.09 @ 6:35AM
Yet more examples of how the "stimulus" bill has promoted pork rather than growth. Reports the New York Times:
A $14.7 million stimulus project to replace an airport on a remote island in Alaska was one of several airport stimulus projects that were questioned in an advisory issued last weekby the inspector general of the Transportation Department. The airport averages only 42 flights a month.
The advisory found that the Federal Aviation Administration had awarded $38.5 million to low-priority airport projects of questionable economic merit, and that it had awarded $15 million more to four airports whose operators had been cited in the past for trouble managing federal grants. The aviation agency selected the projects as part of a $1.1 billion stimulus program for improving airports around the nation.
Two of the airports the inspector general cited were in Alaska. The $14.7 million project calls for replacing the airport in Ouzinkie, a village of around 170 people, mostly of Russian Aleut ancestry, located on an island about 12 miles north of Kodiak. The second calls for spending $13.9 million to replace the airport in Akiachak, a remote Yup'ik Eskimo village in western Alaska with a population of around 660.
The advisory said they were among several low-priority airport projects that were selected in part because the F.A.A. wanted to "ensure widespread geographic distribution of funds," even though that was not a requirement of the stimulus law, the advisory found.
What is truly amazing is that anyone could have believed that it would have turned out any differently.
Politicians: So Quick to Demonize
Posted by on 8.12.09 @ 4:54AM
Politician advocates nationalizing industry. Private companies resist. Politician terms private companies villains.
So goes the health care battle. Unfortunately, many Americans apparently share this assessment.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared last week that health insurance companies are "villains," and 25% of U.S. voters agree with her.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 37% disagree with the speaker and don't believe health insurers are "villains." Virtually the same number (38%), however, are not sure, a finding which should give insurers pause as the health care reform debate intensifies.
Many of us have had frustrating experiences with health insurance companies, but they are as they are largely because of government policy. States and the federal government mandate coverage for a multitude of products and services; the tax system pushes people to treat insurance like pre-paid medical expenses rather than real insurance. The rise of third party payment, driven by government, separates patient from payer, with the former wanting everything covered to the max, while the latter has an incentive to pay for as little as possible. Congress has promoted cost shifting by imposing price controls through Medicare and Medicaid and mandating treatment even of those in America illegally.
In short, the villains are the politicians who have created such a messed up system to begin with. The answer, then, is to treat the politicians like the villains they are and push them out of the picture. Certainly villainous politicians should not be given more power over Americans' health care.
Communist Green Jobs Czar's Group Takes Aim at TV's Glenn Beck
Posted by on 8.12.09 @ 1:42AM
The particularly unsavory left-wing pressure group Color of Change has an axe to grind with Glenn Beck -- and it's personal.
The extremist racial grievance group isn't happy that Beck did several news packages on Van Jones, President Obama's controversial green jobs czar who describes himself as a communist. (Green really is the new red.)
Jones is a founding board member of Color of Change, but Color of Change doesn't want you to know that. Maybe having an avowed America-hating radical on the group's board is bad public relations.
The group deleted references to Jones on its "about" page. That page used to say, "James Rucker and Van Jones came together in the wake of [Hurricane] Katrina to use the organizing power of the Internet to give Black Americans and our allies a renewed and strengthened political voice."
But now it doesn't.
The old page still exists in the Google cache. (The cache will eventually be cleared, so for safekeeping, I made a PDF of the page here.) The 501(c)(4) group's 2006 and 2007 tax returns (IRS Form 990) show Jones as a director.
Jones was also on the board of the Apollo Alliance, a hard-left environmentalist group that is now running large chunks of the Obama administration. Beck pounded away at the Apollo Alliance and Jones on a recent show.
On its website, Color of Change invited people to sign a petition to spare the life of convicted multiple murder Stanley Tookie Williams. From the petition:
Stanley Tookie Williams has become a true asset to our community. As a co-founder of the Crips, Tookie created untold suffering and death. There is nothing romantic or glamorous about the kind of violence the Crips unleashed. But Williams has taken responsibility for the harm he's done. And since then, he has saved the lives of countless young Black males. He will continue to do the same-but only if he's allowed to live. It would be senseless for the State of California to kill a man who is working every day to stop the madness of gang violence.
Mass murderers don't usually get clemency. Williams was executed in 2005.
The race-baiting conspiracy theorists of Color of Change appear to be enjoying some success in their campaign to convince advertisers to boycott the "Glenn Beck Program," which airs at 5 p.m. Eastern time on weekdays.
The group's co-founder James Rucker gloats in an op-ed at the Huffington Post that Progressive Insurance and several other advertisers have dropped Beck's show since Color of Change started promoting a boycott. Of course it's not all that surprising that Progressive Insurance dropped Beck. After all, the company was founded by left-wing philanthropist Peter B. Lewis.
Rucker is a former MoveOn.org organizer. He is also a co-founder of the Secretary of State Project, the group that helped to elect Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie. Ritchie, a former community organizer who has worked hand in hand with ACORN, helped set the stage for Sen. Al Franken (D-ACORN) to steal the 2008 Senate election in Minnesota.
(Hat tip as to the existence of the boycott: Jeff Poor @ NewsBusters)
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
A Spraypainted Swastika Suddenly Appears
Posted by on 8.11.09 @ 11:37PM
Remember Rep. David Scott (D-Georgia)?
He's that liberal lawmaker who made a fool out of himself by angrily attacking a constituent of his who dared to ask a healthcare-related question at a public meeting. A few days later the lawmaker tried to deflect criticism over his temper tantrum by suggesting race had something to do with the national healthcare debate. Scott's got a nasty temper. When I used to be a financial reporter covering House Financial Services Committee hearings, I got to see his outbursts from time to time.
And now a spraypainted swastika has suddenly appeared at Scott's district office in Smyrna. Scott is a victim, apparently, but who is the perpetrator?
I wouldn't be surprised if an investigation ultimately revealed that an ObamaCare supporter put the swastika there in an effort to paint the opposition to socialist healthcare as racist.
That's the kind of false flag operation Saul Alinsky would approve of, especially when a massive chunk of the U.S. economy was at stake. Weekly Standard blogger John McCormack also suggested hours ago that this might be a fake hate crime.
The timing on this seems all too convenient.
Racism and Healthcare???
Posted by on 8.11.09 @ 10:30PM
Regrettably, my gym tends to feature MSNBC on the television screens. Between Rachel Maddow and other hosts, I've seen the mystifying assertion repeatedly made that opposition to nationalizing health care is somehow tied to racism.
This may the easiest argument to refute in the history of arguments.
If we replaced Barack Obama with his clone, but the clone was in favor of dealing with the health care issue through a massive federal lawsuit reform bill, does anyone think conservatives would fail to support him?
Uh, no. Race has nothing to do with it. Simple prudence has everything to do with it.
People oppose the healthcare bill because:
They don't think the government should determine how a legitimate commercial exchange between consenting adults occurs. OR Because they are satisfied with their current insurance. OR Because they suspect government does not make a good provider of a vital service the private sector can and does provide. OR Because they fear government intrusion would slow or stop the amazing pace of innovation in American medicine. OR Because they are worried about the fiscal impact of national healthcare plans on the debt.
OR any of a dozen other highly legitimate reasons. Try dealing with a few of them.
'Investigative Journalism At Its Finest'
Posted by on 8.11.09 @ 10:06PM
No, not the latest gossip-rag interview with Levi Johnston. That quote is from blogger Melissa Clouthier talking about Dan Riehl's new report on anti-Palin blogger Jesse "Gryphen" Griffin:
All the puzzle pieces are not together yet, but a picture is starting to form and it is looking very suspect. . . . The players include a supposedly anonymous blogger, a Montessori school owned by Democrats where the blogger has never been seen but is, ostensibly employed, a big Democratic donor, tax liens, stimulus funds, health care reform, and Democratic political campaigns.
Dan Riehl's report is here, and I've got some background on the story at the Hot Air Green Room. As the anti-Palin blogger himself is fond of saying, we're just asking questions . . .
PREVIOUSLY at AmSpecBlog:
- Alaska Blogger Who Pushed Palin 'Divorce' Rumor Resigns From Anchorage School August 6, 2009
- CNN Bozo Accidentally Outs His Source; Palins Threaten Legal Action On Divorce Smear August 2, 2009
- 'If Your Mother Says She Loves You, Check It Out' August 1, 2009
- Palin Divorce Gossip 'Completely False' August 1, 2009
Politics Won't Save Us From Bad Food
Posted by on 8.11.09 @ 5:59PM
In a review of Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma, David Frum gets a little crunchy and wonders why conservatives haven't embraced health-increasing foods like those at Whole Foods. After all, he notes, conservatives have a long history of caring about public fitness and strength. Furthermore, if conservatives will defend luxury cars and $20 cigars, why not $4 half-gallons of organic milk from Whole Foods? In conclusion, the right needs to embrace policies that promote better public health and fight obesity. He lists a few regulations and taxes that might serve this purpose.
It's interesting that he uses the example of Whole Foods. Although Whole Foods is the very symbol of white, urban, elitist progressivism, its management has strong pro-free market sympathies. John Mackey, its CEO, is a professed libertarian. For a time Whole Foods was a model corporate citizen, hiring no lobbyists. But after an FTC antitrust lawsuit in 2007, the company realized that simply in order to compete, they were going to have to lobby the federal government. As the Examiner's Tim Carney documented, they are now allied with other big businesses in trying to bend the government's interference to their own advantage.
So Frum's argument is that rich people can afford to buy healthy food like $4 bottles of Whole Foods milk, and they owe it to the poor to help them be just as healthy in their diet, using the government to coerce them. Meanwhile, Whole Foods, like other big companies, is conspiring how to use the government to prevent competition and thus is making everyone else, including the poor, poorer.
It seems like Frum has it backward: wouldn't it be better to make the poor people richer so they too would want and could afford the $4 organic milk? And wouldn't one way to make people richer be to attack the government handouts and regulations favorable to big businesses like Whole Foods?
A Liberal Defense of White Southerners
Posted by on 8.11.09 @ 4:10PM
From the always-interesting Michael Lind.
WGA Continues Lockdown on WCI
Posted by on 8.11.09 @ 4:10PM
Continuing on a story I've reported about a few times on Spectator's main site (links embedded in this post), the National Taxpayers Union has fired the latest (and probably its last, as it has bigger fish to fry with health care and Waxman-Markey in Washington) salvo in its effort to convince the members of the Western Governors Association that it needs to uphold its promise of transparency and audit the secretive Western Climate Initiative.
To recap, in June NTU wrote to WGA then-chairman Jon Huntsman Jr., Republican governor of Utah (soon to be ambassador to China) expressing concern about the degree that WGA manages and controls WCI without apparent unanimous support of WGA’s member governors. Among other concerns, NTU questioned whether taxpayer dues in states that were not members of WCI ended up supporting it anyway, and why WGA took on such a large role with WCI when it apparently was not sanctioned by all the Western governors.
But rather than address the concerns of a respected taxpayer advocacy group seeking protection for its members in the West, WGA took umbrage at the inquiry. WCI project manager Patrick Cummins composed a scathing “how dare you”-type retort in which he accused NTU of “false accusations and innuendo” which “recklessly defame the reputation of WGA…our names and that of our citizens.” Cummins, a Kerry- and Obama-supporting global warming alarmist whose reputation and salary are apparently dependent on the success of WCI, persuaded the new WGA chairman (Democratic Governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer) and vice-chairman (Republican Governor of Idaho, Butch Otter) to sign his missive. The remaining 17 WGA governors did not sign the letter.
Now NTU has responded to Cummins/WGA, recognizing that the WCI project manager’s feelings were hurt while still seeking answers about the alarmist-driven WCI:
WCI isn’t even mentioned on WGA’s “Climate Change” page… We contend that to an outside observer, these facts might indicate that either WGA does not wish to give the impression of associating itself with WCI, or that some WGA members are uncomfortable with discussing WCI….
The analysis NTU conducted of the financial records released by WGA staff shows clearly, in our view, that WGA staff spent an extraordinary amount of time promoting the agenda of the WCI. The records that you provided do NOT confirm whether WGA was completely “reimbursed” for that time, nor can they answer other legitimate questions raised by NTU’s analysis….
We raise these concerns not out of disrespect for the integrity of WGA, but rather our past experience with the interplay of funds in other organizations. As Governor Otter well knows, for example, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act he opposed while in Congress provided some $60 million in taxpayer funding each year to environmental groups supposedly for official activities and purposes only. Back then there was an obvious concern that organizations with left-leaning agendas could be playing fast and loose with taxpayer dollars….
NTU’s Pete Sepp closes the letter reiterating his organization’s mission: to assure that taxpayer dollars and interests are accounted for and transparent — principles echoed in the past by Governor Otter. “These principles were our only motivation in making our original inquiry and call for disclosure of WGA, an organization that receives public funds,” Sepp wrote. “Based on your reply, WGA does not seem interested in providing such disclosure proactively.”
Indeed, as long as the Western governors allow an alarmist-advocate-with-an-attitude like Cummins to be the shielder of their activities and a thuggish bullhorn to drive off inquirers, then their reputation will continue to slide.
Cross-posted at Globalwarming.org.
One Bit of Good News for Harry Reid
Posted by on 8.11.09 @ 3:00PM
Rep. Dean Heller isn't running. He polls the best against Harry Reid and national Republicans have been trying to coax him into the race. But with Reid polling so poorly, it's hard to believe someone won't take a serious look at taking him on.
Yes, Euthanasia
Posted by on 8.11.09 @ 2:45PM
The left is fighting back against the "euthanasia" meme, but there is very good reason to believe that such a thing could very, very likely be the end result. As a reminder, see our Washington Times editorial from July 29. It mentioned this Jeff Emanuel column. Fred Thompson weighed in, too. And even the WaPost's Charles Lane said, with caveats, that there is something to worry about. Actually, we at the WashTimes began worrying about this way back on May 1. And no, Dear White House, this information isn't "fishy." And we won't shut up about it -- because we didn't create the mess. The left created the mess. And now Obama wants to make it messier. Except at the end of life, when things may be oh-so-antiseptic. Deadly so.
That does it: The climate is doomed
Posted by on 8.11.09 @ 2:30PM
The trade publication Greenwire delivers this treat today about UN peacekeeping forces, excerpted for your reading pleasure. Go ahead. Read this and tell me you're surprised:
UNITED NATIONS: Environmental demands grow for peacekeeping troops
UNITED NATIONS -- Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's visit today to Goma, a city in the heart of the war ravaging the Democratic Republic of the Congo, is meant to draw attention to renewed U.S. support for U.N. peacekeeping and to press thinly stretched troops deployed there to do more to protect innocent civilians.
But how much more can overburdened peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and elsewhere be expected to do? Increasingly -- and controversially -- they find themselves busy doing environmental cleanups, climate change mitigation projects and providing relief from natural disasters on top of their security duties.
For example, troops with MONUC -- the French acronym assigned to the U.N. Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo -- have spent time planting trees in their area of operation, a scene repeated at other peacekeeping operations in Africa, East Timor, Lebanon and elsewhere.
"MONUC was one of the biggest missions involved in planting the trees, but we have this 1 billion tree campaign, and most of the missions were involved in this reforestation effort," explained Edmond Mulet, assistant secretary general for peacekeeping operations at U.N. headquarters. "On the issue of environment, we are also very much involved in that."
..."This is an emerging trend, but one that is still at an early stage," said Richard Gowan, an associate director at the Center on International Cooperation, a think tank at New York University that often advises U.N. officials on peacekeeping. "It's combining hearts and minds and humanitarian outreach with, shall we say, the new vogue of environmental priorities."
Critics out to discredit the U.N. system often point to instances in which peacekeepers seemed incapable of defending civilians in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Darfur, the Central African Republic and elsewhere from marauding rebels or lawless government forces.
The recent tree-planting endeavor, which the U.N. Environment Programme touted as part of the fight against global warming, only fueled criticism, and some worry that the growing trend toward using peacekeepers to do things other than keeping the peace could lead to real problems down the road....
Obama Lies on Single-Payer, Disses Post Office
Posted by on 8.11.09 @ 2:20PM
In a just-completed New Hampshire town hall meeting, President Obama stated that he never said he supported a single-payer health care system. But as clearly evidenced by this video, in 2003, he declared: "I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care plan."
Meanwhile, at another point of today's town hall meeting, Obama was pushing back against the idea that the creation of a new government-run plan would drive private insurers out of business, and he said that UPS and FedEx were doing fine, but "it's the post office that's always having problems." Oops!
The gaffe arose from the inherent contradiction of those arguing for the introduction of a government government-run plan. On the one hand, Obama and other supporters of the idea argue that we need to have a strong government plan to create more efficiency, drive down prices, and "keep private insurers honest." Yet at the same time, they have to make it appear weaker to push back against those of us who argue that it will threaten private insurance and move us toward a single-payer system. So then you get statements in which Obama, in the course of arguing for a government-run system, takes a shot at the government-run post office.
UPDATE: Here's the video.
Drudg-tapositions
Posted by on 8.11.09 @ 1:53PM
Sometimes the juxtapositions on Drudge are hysterically funny, whether intentional or not. Up right now:
Bill Clinton Celebrates His 63rd in Vegas...
'Progress' in herpes treatment...
Priceless.
Black Panther Update
Posted by on 8.11.09 @ 1:47PM
So now the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights might A) use its subpoena power and B) choose the Black Panther case as its study for its statutorily required annual report, in order to force the InJustice Department of Eric Holder to cough up answers about its corrupt dismissal of the voter intimidation case against the Black Panthers. This gets more and more interesting every day. The commission's powers are not inconsiderable. And Holder's corruption is considerable as well. I would hazard a guess that it springs from the president's own corruption.
Snarlin' at Arlen
Posted by on 8.11.09 @ 11:55AM
Arlen Specter faced voters at a town hall meeting today, and encountered a tough crowd.
In this first clip, a man presses Specter on card check and the national energy tax:
And tempers flare in this clip, when another man hollers about not being allowed to speak:
Still No Recalibrated Honduras
Posted by on 8.11.09 @ 11:04AM
President Obama said yesterday at the Three Amigos Summit that "we have been very clear in our belief that President Zelaya was removed from office illegally, that it was a coup and that he should return."
The only problem was that Zelaya's removal from the office of President of Honduras was completely legal. Constitutional lawyer Miguel Estrada raised this issue in a July 10 Los Angeles Times piece. Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution says:
"No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.
Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years."
Zelaya tried to pass a referendum that would have allowed for him to run for re-election in November. The Supreme Court of Honduras then issued a warrant for his arrest that the military carried out on behalf of the Court. The Honduran Congress affirmed the transition of power with a 122-6 vote. That's not a coup; that is an organized system of checks and balances in a democracy. The Obama administration might not want to be perceived as flip-flopping on this issue -- but it seems the State Department must at some point recognize its mistake and back the rule of law over the slide towards dictatorship.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 8.11.09 @ 10:25AM
- Must watch: Hillary, supposedly the nation's top diplomat, loses cool after bad translation (ABC News)
- Chavez threatens Colombia with war (Times Online)
- Senator Cornyn: immigration reform NOW, not next year (Houston Chronicle)
- It's been better for Senator Cardin -- more than 500 people come out to town hall as he gets booed, heckled over health care (Baltimore Sun)
Thin Reid to Lean On
Posted by on 8.11.09 @ 9:33AM
Harry Reid trails potential Republican challenger Sue Lowden by a 6-point margin, 48 percent to 42 percent, according to a poll that was published in today's Las Vegas Review-Journal. Lowden, the chairwoman of the Nevada Republican Party, hasn't announced she's running, but the newspaper reports that her supporters are using the polling results as part of efforts convince her to throw her hat in the ring. In other bad news for Reid, the poll found that only 39 percent of respondents had a favorable view of Reid, and just 34 percent said they would vote for him to be re-elected. Todd Vitale, who took the poll, said, "I've never seen an incumbent with numbers this bad who hadn't had some scandal."
(Via Jim Geraghty)
Hillary's Short Fuse
Posted by on 8.11.09 @ 9:08AM
In case you doubted Hillary Clinton's ability to handle minor misunderstandings in a thoughtful, calm way.
It turns out the translator made an error in re-stating the question. Next time, let's hope Hillary counts to ten before unloading.
The Price of Taking the King's Shilling
Posted by on 8.11.09 @ 9:06AM
When Brits accepted money from His Majesty's government for military service, they were said "to take the king's shilling." That obligated them to serve, and afterwards they could ill complain about being shipped off to fight a dubious war in an equally dubious colony far from home. In fact, all sorts of trickery was employed to get men "to take the king's shilling," thereby putting even the reluctant under arms.
No tricks were used to get American banks and other financial companies to take the king's shilling (or billions of the president's dollars). And now they are paying the price, as the salary czar rules on company compensation. Reports ABC News:
Who will get to keep his or her multimillion-dollar pay package and who will have to settle for less? It's a question that will face Obama administration pay czar Kenneth Feinberg this week as he starts reviewing compensation plans for the 100 highest paid executives at AIG, Citigroup, Bank of America, General Motors, GMAC, Chrysler and Chrysler Financial.
The seven firms, which have received the most in bailout funds from the government, must submit the plans to Feinberg by Thursday.
Feinberg, who will focus on the companies' 25 highest paid executives first, will have the power to scale back pay packages except for those set in contracts dated before Feb. 12, which will be "grandfathered" out of the government's compensation restrictions and Feinberg's authority.
Nevertheless, some say, even if Feinberg can't use the the law to force compensation down, he can still employ public pressure to convince firms to voluntarily renegotiate pay packages.
Making business benefits a matter of political discretion obviously is ridiculous. But not as ridiculous as forcing taxpayers to bail out failing businesses. Unfortunately, we all are paying a high price for the bail-out economy.
Judgment Day Coming for Georgia
Posted by on 8.11.09 @ 6:53AM
Georgia (theirs, not ours) appears headed towards a major embarrassment with the expected publication next month of a European Union report blaming the government of Mikhail Saakashvili for triggering last year's war with Russia. Reports Spiegel online:
Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili is preparing the Georgian population for the planned publication in September of the European Union's report into the five-day war between Georgia and Russia in August 2008. The document is expected to assign primary responsibility for the attack on the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali to Saakashvili -- with the qualification that Moscow provoked him.
As a counter-measure, the government in Tbilisi has already published a separate 190-page report concluding that it was Russia which "launched a large-scale assault on Georgia" last year. "Now the West can have no doubt who started the war, and why," commented Georgia's state minister on reintegration, Temur Yakobashvili.
However, NATO and EU experts have so far found no evidence to support Georgian claims that a Russian column of 150 tanks and armored vehicles had advanced into South Ossetia before the Georgian attack on Tskhinvali.
Georgian media has prominently reported on statements by Western politicians which support the Georgian position. However criticism of Georgia is suppressed or presented as the product of a conspiracy. After SPIEGEL in June reported on the provisional internal results of the EU investigative commission, the pro-government weekly newspaper Georgia Today explained the report's uncomfortable conclusion to its readers by falsely claiming that SPIEGEL had obtained its information from Russian intelligence. In addition, the newspaper made the completely untrue assertion that the German magazine is owned by a subsidiary of the Russian energy company Gazprom -- and is therefore a "mouthpiece for Putin."
Obviously, the Georgian government claims otherwise, and it has its supporters. But from the start of the war last year a diverse group of critics pointed the finger at Tbilisi. It is hard to believe that the European Union, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe observers, British military officers, and journalists all have been conspiring together at the behest of Vladimir Putin against Georgia. It also is worth noting that the Saakashvili government's human rights record is not good. Freedom House rates Georgia as "partly free," better than Russia, but not good for a NATO wannabe. Especially since Tbilisi's rating has been trending downward.
All of this confirms the wisdom of not expanding NATO any further. Georgia is a security black hole for the U.S., offering potential political instability and international conflicts with no comparable military benefits. And if Tbilisi was reckless when it was merely hoping to join the trans-Atlantic alliance, imagine how it likely would act as a member.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Convicted Gangster Ex-Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) & ACORN Go Way Back
Posted by on 8.10.09 @ 5:17PM
Birds of a feather flock together.
Let the record reflect that convicted gangster William Jefferson, a Democrat who used to represent New Orleans in the U.S. House of Representatives, has (or had might be a better word) ties to the radical activist group ACORN.
ACORN and Jefferson weren't exactly bosom buddies, but they did work together.
I call Jefferson a gangster, by the way, because last week he was convicted of racketeering.
ACORN helped get Jefferson elected years ago.
SEIU gave Jefferson's campaign $5,000 in the 2000 election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Two of SEIU's locals are part of the ACORN network. Local 100 covers Louisiana. Its chief organizer is disgraced ACORN founder Wade Rathke who remains at large despite his role in covering up his brother's nearly $1 million embezzlement for eight years.
Jefferson received ACORN's Friends of the Poor award from its Louisiana chapter. (Times-Picayune, Jan. 28, 1996)
Jefferson participated in an ACORN rally protesting proposed federal budget cuts. (Times-Picayune, April 12, 1995)
Jefferson doesn't appear to have had close ties to ACORN in recent years, though. Perhaps one day in the not-too-distant future we'll find out why.
Nicklaus or Woods
Posted by on 8.10.09 @ 4:45PM
Leaving politics again for more important things, Tim Joyce at Real Clear Sports has an excellent column comparing Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods. Myself, even as a Nicklaus fan nonpareil, I think that Woods at his best probably would have beaten Nicklaus at his best perhaps 11 out of 21 times. Nicklaus was a far better driver (far more consistently straight), but Woods' killer instinct and his prowess ALL around the greens, and from trouble off the fairway, seem to give him an edge. Nonetheless, one reason we'll never know for sure is that Woods' competitors have been virtual pygmies compared to Nicklaus' chief rivals. NOBODY, even once, has stepped up to birdie the closing holes of a major, or to hit chip-ins or other miraculous shots, to defeat Woods one-on-one the way that Lee Trevino and Tom Watson so often did to Nicklaus. Again and again we see major el-foldos from Woods' top competitors, the same way Padraig Harrington gagged his way from a one-stroke lead to a triple bogey on the 16th hole at Firestone yesterday. The ONLY people who haven't backed up in majors against Tiger were the journeymen like Bob May, Chris DiMarco and Rocco Mediate -- and even they merely hung tough rather than actually stepping up to make birdies or chip-ins on closing holes.
So consider Woods' competition: Singh, Mickelson, Harrington, and Els each have three major wins, with Goosen and Cabrera having two each. Compare that to Players' nine, Watson's eight (and almost a ninth last month!), Palmer's seven, Trevino's six, Floyd's four, and Irwin's and Casper's three each. Throw in Crenshaw and Hubert Green and Johnny Miller and Dick Stockton, with two each, and Tom Weiskopf and Tom Kite and Lanny Wadkins and Gene Littler and Don January with one each, and you have an incredible murderers' row of opponents. (You could also note that Jack won four of his majors after Severiano Ballesteros [five majors total] came on the scene.) And it's not as if Singh et al. have so few only because they've been losing to Tiger; when Tiger wasn't at his best, they have let people like Shaun Micheel, Todd Hamilton, Ben Curtis, Mark Brooks, Michael Campbell and Rich Beem take the trophies. Truly, these "rivals" of Tigers are merely very good, not all-time greats.
But here's a good way to think of it. Pair off Mickelson with his fellow San Diegan Billy Casper (they have nearly identical records) and Els, Singh, Harrington, Goosen and Cabrera with Irwin, Floyd, Green, Crenshaw and Miller (frankly, I'd rate the latter five much tougher competitors ANY day). Jack is left against Arnie, Gary, Tom, and Lee, while Tiger is left against.... exactly nobody worth considering in the top 20 of all time.
ANother way to look at it is to add up ALL the professional major titles of the most celebrated Americans under 50 right now (except Mickelson, already dealt with in the comparison to Billy Casper's 51 wins, three of them majors). Janzen and Daly with two each. Azinger, Couples, Pavin, Calcavecchia, Love, Leonard, Furyk, Toms, Duval, and Cink, with one major each. Now throw in Kenny Perry, Scott Verplank, Steve Stricker, Chris DiMarco, Brad Faxon, Rocco Mediate, and former US Amateur champ Billy Mayfair for good measure -- all with zero professional majors. (I take all these names from the top 40 or so on the career earnings list.) Hell, let's open this up to foreigners and throw in Sergio Garcia, Colin Montgomerie, Darren Clark, Lee Westwood, Miguel Angel Jimenez, and Paul Casey. Zero professional majors there, too. Grand total for 25 of the most accomplished players against whom Tiger Woods has had to compete: Just 14 majors combined, the same as Tiger himself has won. Nicklaus' competition was SO much steeper, so much tougher, so much more mentally strong, than Woods', there really is no comparison.
Remember, Nicklaus also had to contend with even more people far more accomplished than CInk and Verplank -- people like John Mahaffey, Jerry Pate, Frank Beard, Doug Sanders, Mike Souchak, Greg Norman (a small overlap with Jack), Tony Jacklin, Peter Thomsen (a small overlap), Dave Hill, Hal Sutton, Larry Nelson (small overlap), David Graham, Julius Boros, Al Geiberger, Bobby Nichols, Gay Brewer, George Archer, Bob Goalby, Fuzzy Zoeller (small overlap), Roberto DiVicenzo, and Bob Charles, and with Sam Snead playing for Nicklaus the Tom Watson role of greatly elder competitor(but far more often than Watson) by seriously competing for the PGA into his 60s. Granted, Tiger is only 33, so surely some of his current and future competitors will in their full careers resemble some of these very good-but-not-all-time-greats of the Nicklaus years -- and thus Tiger won't look quite so much like a man among pygmies when it is all said and done.
But the fact is, Jack Nicklaus had to beat people who did NOT back down from him. Tiger, for all his phenomenal play, has yet to have somebody stick a dagger deep into his guts the way Watson did three separate times to Jack (with birdies at the 71st hole all three times) or the way Trevino did by chipping in from all over creation to stop Jack's Grand Slam bid. None of TIger's chief competitors seem to have the same fortitude -- and the ones with fortitude, like Mediate and DiMarco, aren't even close to being second-tier greats, or any tier greats at all.
So we'll never really know what Tiger would have done against the likes of Watson, Trevino and Player -- or how much better Jack would have done if Harrington and Els had been his main, utterly outclassed, opponents.
Obama and Foreign Health Care
Posted by on 8.10.09 @ 3:58PM
President Obama said today that the Canadian system wouldn't work in the United States, while warning Canadians that their system would be painted as a "boogeyman" in the upcoming health care fight, the AP reports. It's worth noting this because it highlights Obama's double talk on the health care issue. We have him on record in 2003 saying he supports a single-payer health care system, which is what they have in Canada, and even as president he's continued to say that single-payer would be the ideal system if we were starting from scratch. In speeches, he talks about how other nations are getting better value for their health care dollar, and he's even lied repeatedly about how much less costly other systems are when compared to the U.S. system. In other words, there's ample evidence that he thinks other countries' government-run systems are better. Yet at the same time, he is saying that those of us who are criticizing other nations' health care systems are engaging in scare tactics, and he keeps saying that he supports a "uniquely American" solution. But the problem is that if he refuses to acknowledge that he wants to move us toward a Canadian or European health care system, the flip side is that he now has to explain how he's going to save money without implementing the same sort of spending controls and rationing that other systems rely on to contain costs.
Researcher Says CBO Understates Cost
Posted by on 8.10.09 @ 3:52PM
Steven Parente is an economist at the University of Minnesota and a principal of HSI Network, a health economics research firm. He wrote a short article for the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal in which he estimates the real cost of the House and senate bills currently on the table would be about double what CBO estimates. He writes, “The CBO is actually being kind to the would-be reformers. Its analysis likely understates—by at least $1 trillion—the true costs of expanding health coverage as current Democratic legislation contemplates.”
How can that be? Parente explains, “The discrepancies between our estimates and CBO’s stem from our different assumptions about a key issue.” CBO estimates only 11 million people would switch from private coverage to a “public option,” while Parente (and other researchers such as the Urban Institute) estimate it would be more like 40 million.
He further explains, “Why the difference in these estimates? We believe that we have better data on this issue than the CBO, which uses simulation models of health-insurance plans based on much older health-plan data—typically from 2001 or even 2000. Our estimates are grounded in 2006 commercial-insurance data to which the CBO doesn’t have access.”
The market and the available data have changed significantly between 2001 and 2006, largely because of the advent of Health Savings Accounts and other forms of Consumer Driven Health. We now know a lot more about how people respond to lower cost coverage options than we did in 2001.
Parente concedes that both estimates are just that – estimates – and could be wrong. However, “If the House or Senate bill passes, we should know who’s right by 2014–15, shortly after the bills take effect and costs start to explode.”
Abortion and Obamacare
Posted by on 8.10.09 @ 1:29PM
One of the "myths" liberals are starting to push back against is the idea that the main Democratic health care plan funds abortion. But even the most sympathetic reading suggests, absent any provision to the contrary, that the federal government would subsidize the purchase of health coverage that includes elective abortions even if it is not subsidizing the abortions directly. In practice, this is likely to prove a distinction without a difference. This will not change even if the bill is amended to allow the government-subsidized purchase of health care plans that do not cover abortion. Taxpayer funds will make possible the coverage and procurement of elective abortions.
CBO Pours Cold Water on Preventive Care Savings
Posted by on 8.10.09 @ 1:11PM
In our July/August print edition, I debunked the myth that preventive care would bend the health care cost curve, as the White House keeps insisting.
The Congressional Budget Office has now joined the push back:
Preventive medical care includes services such as cancer screening, cholesterol management, and vaccines. In making its estimates of the budgetary effects of expanded governmental support for such care, CBO takes into account any estimated savings to the government that would result from greater use of preventive care as well as the estimated costs of that additional care. Although different types of preventive care have different effects on spending, the evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall.
That result may seem counterintuitive. For example, many observers point to cases in which a simple medical test, if given early enough, can reveal a condition that is treatable at a fraction of the cost of treating that same illness after it has progressed. But when analyzing the effects of preventive care on total spending for health care, it is important to recognize that doctors do not know beforehand which patients are going to develop costly illnesses. To avert one case of acute illness, it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway. Judging the overall effect on medical spending requires analysts to calculate not just the savings from the relatively few individuals who would avoid more expensive treatment later, but also the costs of the many who would make greater use of preventive care.
AARP-- Where The Customer is Always Wrong
Posted by on 8.10.09 @ 10:43AM
Last week, many of you saw the video of a Dallas AARP town hall meeting on health care that AARP officials ended early after the audience raised too many objections. The woman leading the meeting, for instance, tried to shut up audience members who said they disagreed with her when she made assumptions about what she thought they would agree with her on. At one point, a man summed it up by asking, “Do you guys work for us, or do we work for you?”
As bad as the video made AARP look, on some level, you could write it off as an instance of a local AARP representative getting frustrated and simply not having the experience or temperament to deal with an audience that was pushing back against her talking points. That's why I found it much more damning when I saw AARP vice president and spokesman Drew Nannis appearing on Fox (clip below). Not only does he refuse to apologize for the woman's behavior, but he dismisses those dues-paying AARP members as "a bunch of people yelling." This is wrong on several levels. First off, AARP is an organization that claims to speak for its membership, but here we have a clear cut case of mounting opposition to Democratic health care policies among older Americans, not just in town hall meetings, but backed up by polling data showing they remain the most skeptical of Democratic proposals (see here and here). Yet instead of representing the concerns of older Americans, AARP is doing the reverse. Its CEO, Barry Rand, who was a major Obama donor, has gotten cozy with the administration, and along with the rest of the top brass at the Washington headquarters, has decided to support liberal policies. Now the group is actively working alongside the administration to sell these policies that their members are rejecting -- using their members money to do so. In a typically liberal and patronizing kind of way, they think they know what's best for their members, and they're trying to tell them what to think.
But beyond that, there's a basic customer service angle to this. I can, in some small sense, sympathize with the woman on the video. Back when I was 18, I worked at the box office of an Atlantic City casino, and have some experience dealing with frustrated customers, especially older Americans who can be quite, shall we say, persistent about getting what they want. If there was a dispute over a coupon or a comp they thought they deserved, you can bet they'd make their voices heard. At times this meant shouting at me, cursing at me, blowing smoke in my face, and so on. Yet even as a teenager, I had a basic understanding of the concept that the customer is always right, something that AARP evidently does not get. No matter how angry or unruly or even nasty these gamblers would act toward me, I knew it was my job to remain calm and try to pacify the situation rather than escalate the problem by shouting back. Yet, not only did the woman running the meeting decide to mix it up with dues-paying members, but a vice president from Washington went on national television and defended her actions. So let's just call a spade a spade. AARP is not an organization that represents its members, but a group that treats its members as dupes so it can suck up their money and use it to advocate a liberal policy agenda supported by its Washington leadership.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 8.10.09 @ 10:05AM
- Mark Sanford wins the John Edwards Award for spending $1265 of taxpayer money so he can get a haircut (CBS News)
- Bribery on the border, CBP agents face three times more corruption charges than they did two years ago (Associated Press)
- The 2010 census: expect 9 extra seats for California thanks to non-citizens (Wall Street Journal)
- Typical meandering UC Berkeley students or spies? Iraq makes plea to Iran for the three detained Americans to be released (Los Angeles Times)
- No astroturfing, just activism for money from progressive funds (Red State)
Same As It Ever Was
Posted by on 8.10.09 @ 9:54AM
Daniel Larison and I disagreed over whether there was anything to the Sonia Sotomayor "wise Latina" brouhaha, so not surprisingly we disagree about this: "What was more striking about the campaign to derail Sotomayor, which failed yesterday as everyone knew it would, was how it opened conservatives up to the most absurd, baseless charges of racism and lowered the standard by which an idea, statement or action should be considered racist." Consequently, conservatives are in a worse position to rebut Paul Krugman's imputation of racism to the most vocal opponents of the Democratic health care plan.
But Krugman's complaint has been a staple of liberal denunciations of conservatism since National Review sided with the South against the civil-rights movement, since Barry Goldwater won the Deep South after voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, since Richard Nixon and the "Southern Strategy," since Ronald Reagan talked about "welfare queens" and campaigned in a Mississippi town where civil-rights workers had been murdered, since George H.W. Bush and the Willie Horton ad, since Jesse Helms ran the "white hands" ad, since George W. Bush didn't sign onto a hate crimes bill bearing James Byrd's name, since Trent Lott wished Strom Thurmond a happy birthday -- all events far predating Sonia Sotomayor.
The only lowering of the bar that might have taken place is that each of the above controversies had an unmistakable racial element, just like Sotomayor's much-criticized comments (abandoned during her confirmation hearings). Krugman is charging racism where no explicit mention of race has even been made. But this line of argument predates the Sotomayor debate too. Krugman himself was making it before Sotomayor. The notions that conservative populism is inherently racist and so is criticizing a liberal black president are not new.
Perhaps conservatives will find it harder to push back against the Krugmans of the world after their criticisms of Sotomayor -- and I happen to think there are better examples of Republicans unjustly crying racism (subscription required) than that particular case. But I don't see the evidence. Look no further than the comments thread on Daniel's post: there are plenty of liberals who simultaneously find nothing wrong Sotomayor's "wise Latina" speech and think culturally conservative statements are basically racist.
Hillary vs. Nancy and Steny
Posted by on 8.10.09 @ 9:35AM
Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer have written a USA Today op-ed that argues protesting their health care legislation is "un-American." Hillary Clinton expressed a different view about dissent during the Bush administration.
Hearing Voices
Posted by on 8.10.09 @ 9:02AM
Sen. Roland Burris of Illinois--famed for his appointment by disgraced former Gov. Rod Blagojevich--is hearing voices. Sen. Burris, who had announced he would not stand for election, says he might run after all. Reports ABC News:
Illinois Sen. Roland Burris announced last month that he would not run to retain his Senate seat next year, but in his first television interview since making that decision, Burris told ABC News he could change his mind.
"You never say never," Burris told ABC News in a "Subway Series" interview for the ABC News program "Top Line." The "Subway Series," which debuts on Monday, features interviews with senators and other political leaders on board the Capitol Hill subway.
"What I'm still hearing," Burris said, is "people from all over the country and they are saying, 'Don't give up that seat.'"
He thinks the voices come from real people. I suspect they are in his mind. Time for a visit to a mental health professional?
Investigation for me but not for thee?
Posted by on 8.10.09 @ 8:02AM
I have the -- drum roll, please -- Letter of the Day in the Sunday Washington Times responding to what I hope sensible voices on Capitol Hill turn into a case study in being careful what one wishes for.
By all means, let's investigate subterfuge in climate advocacy. Let's start with who was it who told the young sage, Rep. Periello, that China and India have already adopted the Dems' desired global warming agenda(and who is going to be the one to break it to them so they stop looking silly with this "No.Never. Pay Me" mantra)?
Further Cracks in the Iranian Regime
Posted by on 8.10.09 @ 7:40AM
More public protests are being raised against the abuse of prisoners, and not just from Western-oriented liberals. Reports the Associated Press:
Iran's Prosecutor General Ghorban Ali Dorri Najafabadi called for those responsible for mistreating detainees to be punished, saying that the protesters weren't even meant to be taken to Kahrizak prison, which has been at the center of abuse claims.
"Unfortunately, negligence and carelessness by some officials caused the Kahrizak incident, which is not defendable," he told the state news agency. "During early days, it is possible there were mistakes and mistreatment due to overcrowding in the prison."
His comments were followed up by police chief Gen. Ismail Ahmadi Moghaddam who acknowledged protesters were beaten by their jailers at the same facility and its head has since been arrested along with three guards there and the prison closed down.
The existing regime has lost its legitimacy, which puts it at increasing risk from challenges not just by reformers but also by more pragmatic elements of the Islamic leadership. Demographics alone--Iran's population, like that in many nations in the Middle East, is very young--will push Tehran towards political change. Hopefully the next Iranian revolution will result in a more open society, democratic politics, and peaceful foreign policy.
The Peril of Al Gore
Posted by on 8.10.09 @ 7:23AM
My friend Marlo Lewis over at Competitive Enterprise Institute has put together a video explaining why Al Gore (or more technically, the sort of environmental policies advocated by Al Gore) is more dangerous the impact of global warming. Check it out here.
The Drugmakers: Supping with the Devil
Posted by on 8.10.09 @ 6:55AM
When the Clinton administration advanced its version of health care "reform," the pharmaceutical industry was firmly in the crossfire. The hostility didn't end with the Clinton administration. Even though drugmakers produced life-saving products, in 2000 Al Gore campaigned against them, lumping them with the tobacco industry.
This year the drug producers have attempted to buy the Obama administration's friendship by supporting "reform." Indeed, the industry is spending lavishly to back the administration's nationalization program. Reports the New York Times:
The drug industry has authorized its lobbyists to spend as much as $150 million on television commercials supporting President Obama's health care overhaul, beginning over the August Congressional recess, people briefed on the plans said Saturday.
The unusually large scale of the industry's commitment to the cause helps explain some of a contentious back-and-forth playing out in recent days between the odd-couple allies over a deal that the White House struck with the industry in June to secure its support. The terms of the deal were not fully disclosed. Both sides had announced that the drug industry would contribute $80 billion over 10 years to the cost of the health care overhaul without spelling out the details.
Unfortunately for the drugmakers, it appears that loyalty runs only one way. The industry's new friends already are welshing on the deal, and the legislation has barely moved in Congress. Just a few days ago the president pledged his eternal fidelity to the arrangement with the pharmaceutical producers. The New York Times explains:
Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion.
Drug industry lobbyists reacted with alarm this week to a House health care overhaul measure that would allow the government to negotiate drug prices and demand additional rebates from drug manufacturers.
In response, the industry successfully demanded that the White House explicitly acknowledge for the first time that it had committed to protect drug makers from bearing further costs in the overhaul. The Obama administration had never spelled out the details of the agreement.
"We were assured: ‘We need somebody to come in first. If you come in first, you will have a rock-solid deal,' " Billy Tauzin, the former Republican House member from Louisiana who now leads the pharmaceutical trade group, said Wednesday. "Who is ever going to go into a deal with the White House again if they don't keep their word? You are just going to duke it out instead."
But that was then. This is now. Congressional Democrats see the issue differently: drugmakers are just another interest group to be plucked. And the administration certainly doesn' intend to stand against Nancy Pelosi and company. As the New York Times tell us:
Caught between a pivotal industry ally and the protests of Congressional Democrats, the Obama administration on Friday backed away from what drug industry lobbyists had said this week was a firm White House promise to exclude from a proposed health care overhaul the possibility of allowing the government to negotiate lower drug prices under Medicare.
That didn't take long. The president didn't even respect a "decent interval" before selling out the industry.
Given how the pharmaceutical industry has been demonized in the past, its new strategy may come as no surprise. But the drugmakers should have known--and certainly are learning today if they didn't know--that you can't sup with the Devil. They will be used and then tossed under the bus whenever it's convenient for the administration. The industry then will find that it is stuck with a price control regime purchased partially by its own advertising dollars. And the rest of us will be stuck with poorer medical care with fewer options.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Frum, Health Care, Conservatives Cont'd
Posted by on 8.9.09 @ 12:36PM
One of the biggest mistakes conservatives made after defeating the Clinton health care plan in 1993-94 was to declare victory and go home rather than pursue policies that would create a freer market in health care. To the extent that Republicans got involved in health care policy at all, they either defended the status quo or promoted incremental steps toward a more government-controlled system -- Kennedy-Kassebaum, SCHIP, and the Medicare prescription drug benefit. The one exception has been relatively modest expansions of health savings accounts.
Republican presidential candidates tout more or less free-market health care plans on the campaign trail just to have something to say when they issue comes up. Then they promptly chuck these plans once the election has passed. The failure to present a real alternative means that even when we dodge a bullet, as we have done repeatedly since the Truman years, it's inevitable that the issue is going to come up again on liberal terms.
Defending Frum
Posted by on 8.9.09 @ 10:51AM
Robert Stacy McCain took issue with David Frum's blog post arguing that defeating Obamacare may prove a pyrrhic victory for conservatives, but I actually mostly agree with what Frum wrote in this case. Just take a deep breath and give me a moment to explain. As I have written repeatedly, conservatives should not be defenders of the status quo, because we do not have a free market health care system in this country. Nearly half of health care spending is already done by the government through entitlement programs that are bankrupting us at the state and federal level, and what's left of the private market is controlled by bad government policies. We have a tax code that discriminates against those who purchase insurance on their own rather than through their employer, which makes it impossible for somebody to take their health insurance with them from job to job and drives up costs because people always have the perception that somebody is else is picking up the tab. And those who do purchase health care on their own must navigate a highly-regulated individual insurance market in which they don't have the freedom to purchase the amount of insurance coverage they want, because states mandate how many benefits insurers must offer.
So, while it's encouraging to see the backlash against Obamacare, it's easy to see how many of the same arguments can be turned against any future effort to pass free market reforms of the health care system. If Obama, with the full backing of AARP, can't touch Medicare without getting scorched by seniors worried about losing coverage, then it's difficult to see older Americans digesting conservative entitlement reform proposals. If Democrats have had to shelve even tinkering with the employer-based health system, both because of bad polling and union opposition, then its hard to see how conservatives could successfully argue that we need to move away from it. And if conservatives have gained traction by noting that Obama's health care proposals will cause people to lose their current coverage, the argument could be turned around because transitioning to a free market system -- while, in my view, much better in the long-run -- would have to disrupt the employer system in a way that would likely result in some people losing current coverage. Now, as I said at the outset, I "mostly agree" with Frum, but not entirely. While watching this health care battle unfold demonstrates how difficult it would be to pass free market reforms, the passage of Obamacare would actually make real reform impossible. If we lose this battle we'll have a massive new entitlement in place that we won't be able to do away with and it really will be the coup de grace to limited government conservatism. I'd prefer to have a fighting chance.
