- 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, October 3, 2009
ACORN: Massive Layoffs, Closure of New Orleans HQ
Posted by on 10.3.09 @ 3:53PM
ACORN is shutting its New Orleans headquarters down and laying off all staff there.
Major layoffs are also planned for ACORN's offices in Washington, D.C., and New York City.
ACORN spokesman Scott Levenson denied it yesterday and told me I was wrong when I spoke with him by telephone yesterday.
I have the exclusive story at BigGovernment.
ACORN is not dead yet but it's in big trouble.
Newsweek Misrepresents the Sparkman Case
Posted by on 10.3.09 @ 1:22PM
This headline is blatantly misleading:
ANTI-CENSUS SENTIMENT
The recent hanging death of a census taker highlights growing controversies around the census.
The "hook" of Eve Conant's story is an unjustified assumption that Bill Sparkman's death in Clay County, Ky., was related to the 51-year-old's part-time job as a Census worker -- although the motive is unknown, no suspects have been identified, and law enforcement officials refuse to speculate about the case.
As a matter of fact, the dead man's 19-year-old son, Josh -- who was adopted as an infant by the unmarried Sparkman before he moved to Kentucky -- has complained that Kentucky State Police and other authorities refuse to rule out suicide as a cause of death:
"I look at it as disrespectful to be still throwing suicide and accident around," Josh Sparkman told The Associated Press in a phone interview Tuesday. "He didn't do this to himself. That's dishonorable. My dad was a good man. No person on this planet is going to fight cancer like he did, then turn around and kill himself a year or so later."
Furthermore, the coroner and state medical examiner have ruled that Sparkman's death was caused by asphyxiation, without saying whether this was due to the rope around his neck. His mouth was reportedly gagged with a cloth, bound with duct tape, and this may well have caused Sparkman's death although, again, it's important to emphasize that officials in Kentucky refuse to confirm or deny key details of the case.
However, officials have indicated that it was not a "hanging death" -- Sparkman's body was in contact with the ground when it was found, nude except for a pair of socks, according to the man who discovered the body. The rope around Sparkman's neck was tied to a tree limb, so as to suspend his body upright, but he wasn't dangling in mid-air.
Baseless speculation about this case -- and particularly, the attempt by some to make a political symbol of Sparkman's death -- was what motivated me to travel this past week to Kentucky, where I spent three days in Clay County and neighboring Laurel County, where Sparkman lived.
The involvement of the FBI in the case has resulted in an almost complete official silence from state and local law enforcement. However, residents of the area (including local journalists I interviewed at length) are profoundly skeptical of any suggestion that Sparkman was killed because of general "anti-government sentiment" (as the Associated Press was first to suggest) or the more specific "anti-Census sentiment" that is the subject of this Newsweek story.
"He knocked on the wrong door," was the way one resident described what most locals familiar with the case consider the most likely scenario for Sparkman's killing. As the Newseek story notes, eastern Kentucky is known as a haven of marijuana growers. The weed growers plant their crops in Daniel Boone National Forest, which sprawls across the mountainous region and encompasses half of Clay County,
What would be proven if we knew (as we do not) that Sparkman was engaged in Census work at the time of his disappearance -- most likely Sept. 9, three days before his body was discovered in the Hoskins family cemetery some 30 miles east of his home -- and "knocked on the wrong door"?
If the fatal door he knocked on was at the home of a marijuana grower or a drug dealer (methamphetamine and other drugs are also problems in the region), who killed him after mistaking Sparkman's federal identification as evidence that the stranger was a narcotics agent, is that an "anti-government" or "anti-Census" motive? Or is it merely a criminal seeking to prevent detection of his crimes -- the kind of killing that happens with unfortunate frequency in America all the time?
That, however, is strictly a hypothetical scenario. The haste of some journalists and bloggers to attribute Sparkman's mysterious death to a particular motive -- to give it a political meaning -- based on speculation and assumptions, is irresponsible in the extreme.
In a Sept. 28 front-page news article in the London (Ky.) Sentinel-Echo, the newspaper's managing editor Joseph Deal interviewed Kentucky State Police spokesman Don Trosper. Some widely quoted news accounts of Sparkman's death were based on "pure speculation," Trooper Trosper told Deal:
Trosper said it is official KSP policy "not to discuss ongoing investigations, especially specific evidentiary information. We will not talk about an investigation just to give information out there that could jeopardize the investigation. Our primary function is to investigate cases and bring positive results. A secondary function is things such as media contacts."
Trosper said he could not estimate how long the investigation would take, other than to say that "the investigation is ongoing and our officers are investigating it daily."
He said leaks, especially the dissemination of incorrect information, can be damaging to any investigation.
"Misinformation is much more damaging to our investigation than the correct or no information," he said. (Emphasis added.)
Bill Sparkman is dead, the investigation of his death is already three weeks old, and if this mysterious case is ever going to be solved, it won't be solved by uninformed speculation.
Post Cushions Olympian Obamas
Posted by on 10.3.09 @ 11:40AM
When Hell freezes over five times in succession and rhinoceri write sonnets on Pluto, the Washington Post's Robin Givhan will stop writing love letters to Michelle Obama. Here the Obamas broke precedent and put the prestige of the presidency on the line, as well as ignoring much more pressing problems at home, all for a spectacularly unsuccessful and remarkably narcissistic effort to secure the Olympics for the Chicago Way, and all Givhan can do is gush about how wonderfully Michelle Obama had performed anyway. Givhan wrote that the First Lady "was her team's most valuable player." And, quoting others, ""She was truly elegant, articulate and persuasive." Givhan again: "In the end, the failed bid notwithstanding, not even the leader of the free world managed to outshine the first lady. Officials who met with her were impressed, particularly with her ability to quickly shift gears as she chatted with everyone from up-and-coming athletes to heads of state."And: "The first lady could just as easily have received a gold star."
Meanwhile, the Post's other news stories spent paragraph after paragraph after paragraph providing excuses for why the Obamas fell short and why it wasn't their fault. Reading the coverage is enough to give you the sick feeling you get when you eat way too much cotton candy.
Here's the truth: Both Obamas' speeches to the Olympic voters were ridiculously self-referential and self-reverential.
The Prez: "I ran for President because I believed deeply that at this defining moment, the United States of America has a responsibility to help in that effort, to forge new partnerships with the nations and the peoples of the world.... Nearly one year ago, on a clear November night, people from every corner of the world gathered in the city of Chicago or in front of their televisions to watch the results of the U.S. Presidential election. Their interest wasn't about me as an individual. Rather, it was rooted in the belief that America's experiment in democracy still speaks to a set of universal aspirations and ideals."
Right, it's all about the message sent to the world by his own election.
Mrs. Obama: "I never dreamed that the Olympic flame might one day light up lives in my neighborhood....
I'm also asking as a daughter. See, my dad would have been so proud to witness these Games in Chicago. And I know they would have meant something much more to him, too.....If he had lived to see this day -- if he could have seen the Paralympic Games share a global stage with the Olympic Games, if he could have witnessed athletes who compete and excel and prove that nothing is more powerful than the human spirit, I know it would have restored in him the same sense of unbridled possibility that he instilled in me...."
This is solipsism at its greatest heights, or rather depths. The message wasn't about why Chicago itself is worthy and competent to hold the games, but about why the reflected glory of the Obama's should give an added glow to Chicago. Call it the penumbral theory of Olympic pitches.
Obviously, though, the Obamas' penumbras aren't anywhere near as bright as they themselves, much less the Post, seem to believe.
East German Apparatchik Still Defends the Berlin Wall
Posted by on 10.3.09 @ 6:49AM
Two decades ago the Berlin Wall fell. It is an event which lovers of liberty around the globe rightly celebrated. But not everyone was pleased. Like Egon Krenz.
The last leader of East Germany continues to defend his little socialist paradise, including its policy of shooting down citizens seeking to escape. He portrays himself as promoting a moral ideal, which unfortunately was wrecked by evil capitalists.
Of course, as was common throughout the communist world, he did very, very well while supposedly doing good. Reports Britain's Independent:
Yet Krenz did not always see himself as a victim. In Communist party terms he was a roaring success. He joined the East German Socialist Unity party in 1955 when he was 18 and moved steadily up the ranks, joining the politburo in 1983. For nearly a decade he was East Germany's "crown prince", the man most likely to succeed the state's veteran leader Erich Honecker.
He visited West Germany in the summer of 1989 when nobody suspected that the Wall would fall, still confident that his regime would survive him. Brigitte Schulte, a West German Social Democrat who accompanied him, described him as "utterly unsympathetic", and recalled how he spoke knowledgeably about choice foods, fine wines and all the privileges that were denied to ordinary East Germans. "He struck me as the consummate apparatchik, a true child of the system, surrounded by the oiliest advisers, the sort of people who would do anything," she said at the time.
The greatest long-term threat to human liberty might not be the Adolf Hitlers and Joseph Stalins, who concoct crazed schemes for mass murder, but the legions of faceless apparatchiks who carry out the totalitarian dictates of the Hitlers and Stalins. Without colorless bureaucrats like Krenz, communism never could have enslaved and killed hundreds of millions of people around the world.
We should remember the evil committed by the Otto Krenzs of the world as we celebrate the grand events of 20 years ago.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Re: Brooks Birdcaged
Posted by on 10.2.09 @ 3:54PM
Jeri Thompson is right. David Brooks' snobbery knows no bounds. Not only that, but he treats facts as malleable assets to be re-massaged by his own eminence without regard to their, well, actual factual-ness. For instance, Brooks writes:" "Before long, South Carolina looms as the crucial point of the race. The contest is effectively between Romney and McCain."
Uh, well, no. Not even close. The South Carolina primary was effectively a contest between McCain and HUCKABEE, not Romney. Here are the results of that primary: McCain 33%, Huckabee 30%, Fred Thompson 16%, Romney 15%. Uh.... that sort of throws Brooks' whole convenient narrative out the window. Fred Thompson, who had stumbled, still was able to relegate Romney to 4th place. Romney did not become a favorite of the talk radio until AFTER McCain became the clear front-runner, and then only in reaction to McCain -- who already by then was close to a lock. But in South Carolina, the race was seen as one where McCain was the anti-conservative and the other three were splitting various portions of the conservative electorate (even though Huckabee really isn't a conservative, and Romney is only partially one, but that's another story). The real story was that McCain, coming off of his big win in New Hampshire, was held to 33 percent while the "conservatives" combined, with the backing of talk radio, garnered 61 percent.
There was a time when Brooks wasn't such a cultural snob. There was a time when he liked Rush Limbaugh enough to include a piece by him in an anthology that Brooks edited. I wish I had a link, but here's the summary: Backward and Upward: The New Conservative Writing, edited with an introduction by David Brooks (Vintage, $ 13). Rush Limbaugh the Falstaff of conservatism? And Brooks did not mean it as an insult; instead, to cite a Wikipedia analysis of Falstaff, it was in the sense that "Falstaff has a unique, and undeniable depth of character. Beneath Falstaff’s contagious panache, he is a Homeric burlesque, an iconoclast, a philosopher, and a paradox."
Brooks was APPROVINGLY reprinting this Limbaugh essay: Why Libverals Fear Me. But that was before David Brooks got high and mighty, hobnobbing with the House Organ of the Left, the NYT. What a hypocrite.
Before I even saw Jeri Thompson's blog entry, I already was in a rage at Brooks' snotty column. She's right: It ought to be birdcaged.
Obama's Olympics, Bush's Socks, Carter's Rabbit
Posted by on 10.2.09 @ 3:24PM
In the fall of 1991, as his polls began sinking and America found itself in a recession, President George H.W. Bush was urged to show his compassion and concern for his fellow Americans. Thus pushed, Bush descended from Camp David to stroll into a local Thurmont, Maryland store to show his support for the economy by buying -- socks. A pair of socks.
Alas, as with Jimmy Carter's unfortunate tangle with a killer rabbit, the Bush socks episode became a metaphor for the Bush presidency. His opponents never ceased to portray this episode as an example of the "elitist" and "country club" conception of trickle-down economics. It was a small thing, but in the context of the day, like Carter's hapless episode with the rabbit, it became a metaphor for a presidency in trouble.
The Bush and Carter episodes come to mind watching this Obama jaunt to Copenhagen for the Olympics. Image making is a risky business in the White House. The Obama administration put their man out there front and center at what was a distinctly non-presidential task: getting the Olympics for Chicago. And he failed. Spectacularly.
Now casting this as a talking point about meeting General McCrystal to discuss Afghanistan won't wipe away the image created of a president rendered impotent -- this time not by a rabbit or a pair of socks, but by the International Olympic Committee.
Now that's an Olympic-sized political accomplishment.
ACORNs not far from White House tree
Posted by on 10.2.09 @ 3:20PM
Our own co-blogger here, Matthew Vadum, is the creme de la creme of experts on ACORN's malign influence. But just for another look at it, Carl Horowitz writing at the National Legal and Policy Center does a pretty good job connecting all the dots. While this won't be new to dedicated Vadum readers, the headline tells the tale:
Obama Political Director Gaspard Worked as Operative for ACORN
Fronts, SEIU.
Brooks Birdcaged
Posted by on 10.2.09 @ 12:52PM
While putting fresh newspaper in the birdcage this morning, I couldn't help but notice the New York Times column from David Brooks, who takes a potshot at conservative radio hosts who boosted presidential candidates, including Fred Thompson. When not taste-tasting the latest latte flavors at exurban malls, Brooks can be found on PBS doing his best imitation of David Gergen.
Brooks belittles "lazy pundits," of which he may be counted. How else to explain his attempt to portray conservatives as the entire Republican Party, or his seeming lack of understanding of the role individuals like Rush, Sean and Mark Levin play within the conservative movement?
It may be that Rush or Mark Levin, or now Fred, for that matter, endorse or encourage support for a particular cause, but conservatives, particularly grassroots conservatives, are independent thinkers. They do not simply walk in lock step with their radio overlords, unlike pundits in Washington who enjoy getting a call from the Obama White House and touting The One at every turn.
This is a good thing, not a failing. Republicans lost the election in 2008, not because of misplaced faith in the power of talk radio; they lost because as the party they broke trust with the conservative values that most Americans on some level agree with. And these are the same values many of our radio commentators espouse. And while conservative talk radio may not stuff the ballot box, it does have an impact: from the immigration debates of 2007-08 to the tea parties, the health care debate, and what I am sure now will be the critical debate over Obama's bungling of Afghanistan.
Men like Rush, Sean, Mark and Fred were sticking to their principles, and talking about those principles, like free markets, the rule of law, respect for life, federalism, long before the 2008 campaigns, and have continued to do so. They haven't shifted with the political winds. The same cannot be said for Mr. Brooks.
My Kind of Town, Chicago Is
Posted by on 10.2.09 @ 12:32PM
My sources are telling me that Obama road-tested all the arguments he is going to use with Iran in his meeting with the IOC.
A Shame About Chicago
Posted by on 10.2.09 @ 12:05PM
So, Chicago was dropped IN THE FIRST ROUND (!!!) of the Olympic
balloting. Amazing. This, after the Obamas had taken precious
time to go lobby for Chicago to be the host. What a slap in the
face to the Obamas. But before chortling about
lamenting the serious denigration of the esteem of the presidency
engendered by the Obamas' foolish lobbying trip, let me say this:
Conservatives should not celebrate Chicago's loss. Chicago is a
hugely important American city. And Olympics are always good for
the host country. They let us show our best face to the world.
They introduce others to America and our wonders: Our freedom,
our generosity, our friendliness. We should be sad that Chicago
didn't win. Yes, as the Drudge headline said about Obama, "The
Ego Has Landed," and the Ego was indeed due a major comeuppance.
This president's self-regard is so massive as to be dangerous,
and he needed/continues to need humbling. But we should not be
glad that one of the means of humbling him is that a major
American city lost a bid for which many of its good citizens
spent four years preparing. I tip my hat to Chicago for its
effort, even as I sort of enjoy the egg on Obama's face -- except
that, even there, I should not enjoy it, because it is not just
egg on Obama's face, but on that of the institution of the
presidency as well, and that is not a thing to celebrate.
Chicago Loses Olympic Bid
Posted by on 10.2.09 @ 11:57AM
Chicago's bid for the 2016 Olympics was voted out of contention in the early rounds of voting by the International Olympic Committee.
Re: Just What the GOP Needs
Posted by on 10.2.09 @ 11:54AM
Jim, the campaign manager of last year's loser has weighed in with his infinite wisdom and immaculate forecasting about a potential 2012 Sarah Palin candidacy. His prediction: a "catastrophic election result" for the GOP.
Re: Communism Above King's
Posted by on 10.2.09 @ 11:46AM
Shawn, considering that the numbers of Christians (exact counts not known, of course) in China have grown exponentially -- regardless of who you ask -- I would suspect our friends at King's might be praising the Lord about His work there despite the conditions, rather than focusing on the government there. God has a way of confounding human wisdom, as persecution and trials often go hand-in-hand with growth in Christianity.
Just What the GOP Needs
Posted by on 10.2.09 @ 11:35AM
To be remade in the image of John McCain. That's how Republicans defeated Barack Obama in 2008, wasn't it? I'm also not sure that payback for endorsers is the best way to identify the next generation of Republican leadership.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 10.2.09 @ 10:33AM
- Euro zone unemployment is at 9.6%, a 10-year worst. That sounds bad, except that it's 9.8% in America (Reuters)
- European "President" Tony Blair awaits the approval of the Irish (TimesOnline)
- Senator Kerry blocks Senator DeMint from traveling to Honduras (Hill)
- Truckin' the pork: $615,000 federal grant for a Grateful Dead archive (Santa Cruz Sentinel)
Sept. Job Losses Worse Than Expected; Unemployment 9.8%
Posted by on 10.2.09 @ 9:13AM
One thing that the Obama administration seemed to have going for it was the ability to claim that even though the economy was still shedding jobs, it was doing so at a slower pace. They can't make that claim today.
The Labor Department reported this morning that the economy lost 263,000 jobs in September, up from a revised 201,000 in August. Economists were expecting the September number to be around 175,000, according to a Bloomberg survey.The unemployment rate now stands at 9.8 percent.
Some other numbers worth noting:
--The economy has now lost 2.7 million jobs since the economic stimulus bill was signed.
-- There were 706,000 discouraged workers in September, who are not looking for work because they think no jobs are available, and thus are not included in the unemployment rate.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Whoopi, Winger, and Woody
Posted by on 10.1.09 @ 6:21PM
"No wonder Middle America hates them." So writes Katha Pollitt at The Nation. She's talking about those morally monstrous celebs who have run to defend Roman Polanski. The Pollitt column is great -- thoughtful, fact-filled, well crafted. The mind boggles that ANYbody can defend Polanski. These people are as far removed from decency as Michael Vick was at odds with PETA's principles. They should be shunned from all polite society and shunned from all studio work as well. Not that they would even be aware of the former, mind you, which is of course utterly alien to them. Foul, fetid Hollywood shows its ugly face again.....
Communism Above King's (For A Few Days, At Least)
Posted by on 10.1.09 @ 5:32PM
I wonder what the Christian renegades of The King's College in the Empire State Building make of the lights above their heads celebrating the birth of Communist China.
At least there is some bipartisan outrage accompanying the sorry spectacle.
Harry Reid's Latest Challenger
Posted by on 10.1.09 @ 3:30PM
Former Nevada state Republican Party Chairwoman Sue Lowden has announced that she will run for the GOP nomination to take on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) next year. She is now arguably the biggest name in a race that also includes state Sen. Mark Amodei and businessman Danny Tarkania. Polling has consistently showed Reid vulnerable, but Rep. Dean Heller and former Rep. John Porter both took a pass on the race.
Lowden's only prior electoral experience was holding a state senate seat -- in a swing district -- for four years. She was defeated for re-election in 1996. But she has a professional campaign team and her entry into the race makes it more likely that Reid will face a serious challenger next fall.
A Tale from The New Economy
Posted by on 10.1.09 @ 3:28PM
My father has worked continuously as an engineer since the 1960's, first as a chemical engineer with the Monsanto corporation and more recently as part of the missile defense effort.
After the White House began paring back missile defense in earnest, despite all signs that such a defense is probably exactly what we need, he (like a gigantic chunk of the technical workforce in north Alabama) lost his job.
He got a call back from his employer today for a part time gig that could go full time. But not for missile defense. This time it's environmental duty.
The new green economy comes roaring in.
Sen. Baucus's Death Panel?
Posted by on 10.1.09 @ 1:59PM
While the various health care "reform" proposals do not literally contain a "death panel" to consign patients to the grave, any system of political rationing will trade off treatment with expense. And no one interested in his or her own medical care--or that of loved ones--really wants such decisions to be made by politicians and bureaucrats. Just look at nationalized systems for the result.
One of the most worrisome measures to emerge from the Baucus bill is the proposal to reduce reimbursements for doctors who prescribe the most expensive Medicare treatments. According to the National Right to Life Committee:
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus's "Mark," released September 16 is currently being considered in committee. The bill contains a provision penalizing doctors based on how much medical treatment they direct for senior citizens on Medicare. It establishes that for at least five years (2015-2020), Medicare physicians who authorize treatments for their patients that wind up in the top 10% of per capita cost for a year will lose 5% of their total Medicare reimbursements for that year.
How to deal with exploding Medicare costs and the dilemma of "end-of-life" treatment are among the most vexing issues facing us. But this provision risks creating a direct incentive to arbitrarily reduce Medicare treatment for the sole purpose to avoid being penalized by Washington. The goal should be to eliminate unnecessary treatment and reduce the cost of unnecessarily expensive treatment. It should not be to reduce any and all treatment, come what may.
Even some supporters of the measure apparently recognize the dangers. Reports the National Right to Life Committee:
Although Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) voted against the Kyl Amendment because he disagreed with its budget offsets (required under the committee's rules), he earlier said, "As I try to put my feet in the shoes of a doctor, I don't know how you separate out overutilization that is really overutilization. There is no way of knowing when you go through the year, what you are going to do at the end of the year." He warned that the provision could come back to "haunt us" in a few years.
Sen. Conrad is right. He should reconsider his vote. In not too many years he or a family member might be the retiree being treated by a doctor worried about being penalized for authorizing too much and too much expensive treatment. This might not be a death panel per se. But the result, especially if the policy becomes permanent, could be the same--unnecessary and early death for people forced to rely on the government for medical care.
Now Yalie Muslims Start Crying Over Cartoons
Posted by on 10.1.09 @ 1:09PM
The bellyaching over the Danish cartoons spreads faster than swine flu, I swear. One of the Muhammad caricaturists, Kurt Westergaard, is speaking today at the Clintons' alma mater and the Yale Muslim Students Association is already passing around the tissues.
The Yale Muslim Students Association said in a statement that its members are “deeply hurt and offended” by the decision to invite Westergaard to speak, but the group will not protest at the event. MSA president Tariq Mahmoud ’11 said the group plans on attending the event and asking “critical and probing questions” during the question and answer session after the talk.
“As an institution purportedly committed to making our campus an educational environment where all students feel equally comfortable, we feel that by hosting Kurt Westergaard Yale is undermining its commitment to creating a nurturing learning environment by failing to recognize the religious and racial sensitivity of the issue,” the group said. “Certainly, it would be unlikely for a white supremacist or a holocaust denier to be a distinguished guest speaker at Yale; hosting individuals who propagate hate is not only a disservice to the minorities that hate is directed towards but to the campus community as a whole.”
Lord, I'd prefer they burn a couple buildings down, hang a few effigies, sew a flag upside down on the seat of their pants...anything, really, but issue pathetic press releases over how hurt their feelings are. Please. Where is the self-respect? Are these students, already ensconced in the ivy tower cocoon, really so weak they can only spar reluctantly with a cartoonist after trying to get him shut up completely?
I wrote about the Danish cartoons back in 'ought five.
Can Obama Afford to Win on Health Care?
Posted by on 10.1.09 @ 12:25PM
The common assumption is that it would be devastating for President Barack Obama and the Democrats if they don't pass something on health care. But what if they win and pass something that is deeply unpopular?
As Don Lambro points out in the Washington Times, the president is losing the popularity game:
The White House remains in deep denial about the growing unpopularity of President Obama's government health care plan.
Recent polls not only show that a clear majority of voters disapprove of his government-run entitlement plan; they also show that key groups who make up that majority - seniors and independents - are now moving away from the Democrats and toward Republicans in the 2010 election cycle.
Yet there was White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Monday telling reporters "the president believes health care is in better shape ... we think health care is in a better place."
But the highly regarded Rasmussen poll reported earlier Monday that "just 41 percent of voters nationwide now favor the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That's down two points from a week ago and the lowest level of support yet measured."
The Rasmussen poll shows that a 56 percent majority of Americans now oppose the plan, and a slight 47 percent to 46 percent plurality say that its passage is unlikely.
Perhaps most telling of all, senior citizens are strongly opposed to the $1 trillion plan - with a muscular 59 percent of them opposed and just 33 percent in favor. Significantly, only 16 percent of Americans over 65 years of age "strongly favor" the Democratic bills, while 46 percent are "strongly opposed."
Maybe these numbers would turn around in the aftermath of passage of some compromise measure. But maybe not. Democratic congressional candidates might find it rough going if the administration is touting as its biggest success a policy opposed by the majority of Americans.
Democrats Kill Amendment to Exempt Middle-Class Families from Mandate Tax
Posted by on 10.1.09 @ 11:55AM
Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee on Thursday killed an amendment proposed by Sen. John Ensign that would have exempted middle-class families from paying a tax for failing to obtain health insurance. The amendment was shot down 12-11, with Sen. Blanche Lincoln the lone Democrat voting in favor.
Committee Chairman Max Baucus argued that adopting the amendment would effectively mean that people earning under $200,000 would not have to purchase health coverage, thus undermining a key provision of his health care proposal.
Under the current Baucus proposal, individuals would face a tax of at least $750 if they do not purchase health coverage. And while the proposal would provide subsidies to lower-income Americans, those subsidies would stop at 300 percent of the federal poverty level. What that means is that a family of four with a household income above $66,150 would face a tax of $1,900 if it does not obtain health insurance, while an individual with income above $32,490 would face a tax of $950.
Tim Pawlenty Launches Political Action Committee
Posted by on 10.1.09 @ 11:44AM
Today, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty filed papers with the Federal Election Commission to launch a new PAC called Freedom First. Its objective, according to a statement, is to "help elect conservatives in 2009 and 2010." But given reports that he is starting to put together a presidential campaign team, Pawlenty faced questions in a new media conference call this morning -- the very first question, I believe, from Politics Daily's Matt Lewis -- about whether this was really about 2012.
Pawlenty maintained that he has not decided whether he is going to seek the Republican presidential nomination, that his PAC legally and structurally is not about his own political ambitions, and that this will soon become clear when people see the results of its work on behalf of conservative candidates throughout the country over the next election cycle.
In his introductory remarks, Pawlenty spent a lot of time explaining why he picked "Freedom First" as the name of his PAC. He emphasized the importance of freedom and liberty as foundational principles for the country and party, talked about his record controlling spending in a liberal state, and pointed out that he accomplished the first cuts in real terms over a two-year budget cycle. Pawlenty noted the rhetorical disadvantage conservatives are at competing against candidates who promise to give out "free stuff." Pawlenty said that people in distress are likely to grab at the first floating object they find to keep their heads above water. It's up to conservatives to explain that the free stuff doesn't really come free.
This is noteworthy because Pawlenty -- coiner of the term "party of Sam's Club" -- has been a candidate some big-government conservatives hoped would run on their vision. But Pawlenty's strong emphasis on fiscal conservatism and issues like school choice seems to run counter to that. In fact, he talked enough about liberty, freedom, and the Founders that at times he almost sounded like Ron Paul-enty.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 10.1.09 @ 10:38AM
- "Capitalism did nothing for me," says millionaire director Michael Moore (CNS)
- Unemployment rates rose in every city in August, but maybe Chicago will get a few jobs after tomorrow's Olympics announcement (Reuters)
- UK doctors allow suicidal woman to die because she wrote a note asking that she not be saved (Telegraph)
- A nation of peasants and Robin Hoods? Nearly half the country, 47% is paying zero federal income tax (CNN Money)
We Are All Georgian (Aggressors) Now
Posted by on 10.1.09 @ 10:02AM
Last year the impulsive authoritarian Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili presented the meme that his was a heroic government victimized by the evil Russians. American politicians like Sen. John McCain rushed to the Georgian standard, declaring that "We're all Georgians now."
Make that "We're all Georgian (aggressors) now."
Yesterday the European Union provided additional evidence that Georgia actually started the war. Reports the BBC:
As a European Union report into last year's conflict between Georgia and Russia puts a large part of the blame on Georgia, the BBC's Tom Esslemont in Tbilisi asks where this leaves the small Caucasian nation.
Even before the EU-sponsored report was published, Georgia was pushing the line that it does not matter who fired the first shot. The main issue, it said, is Russia's ongoing "occupation" of its sovereign territory and years of stoking tensions between Georgia and its rebel regions.
Now the independent inquiry into the conflict has concluded. But it is not entirely the conclusion Georgia wanted to hear.
It said Georgia's use of force on the night of 7 August 2008 was not justifiable in the context of international law.
It also said that it could not substantiate "Georgian claims of a large-scale presence of Russian armed forces in South Ossetia prior to the Georgian offensive on 7/8 August".
The Georgian government's response - as expected - has been to dismiss those comments.
There's much to blame on Russia, particularly its brutal, disproportionate response to Georgia's attack. But for the West, which attacked Serbia in 1989 in order to detach Kosovo from Belgrade's control, to complain about Moscow's support for South Ossetian and Abkhazian independence is rather rich in hypocrisy. Washington cares about the territorial integrity of nations only when it's convenient. The U.S. can hardly complain about Russia not behaving in a more principled fashion.
But the most important lesson of the Russia-Georgia war is how foolish it would be to extend NATO membership to a country which is not only irrelevant to American security but prone to start wars with nuclear-armed powers. It was one thing for America to risk all to protect Europe from the Evil Empire. But to contemplate a nuclear confrontation on behalf of a country prepared to foolishly initiate hostilities against Moscow? Such a step would make America less, not more, secure.
Mitt Romney's Health Care Disaster: What Not to Do
Posted by on 10.1.09 @ 9:48AM
Mitt Romney's health care debacle in Massachusetts lives on--unfortunately. Observes Paul Hsieh in the Christian Science Monitor:
The Massachusetts plan thus violates the individual's right to spend his own money according to his best judgment for his own benefit. Instead, individuals are forced to choose from a limited set of insurance plans on terms set by lobbyists and bureaucrats, rather than those based on a rational assessment of individual needs.
Because the state-mandated health insurance is so expensive, the government must also subsidize the costs for lower-income residents. In response, the state government has cut payments to doctors and hospitals. With such poor reimbursements, physicians are increasingly reluctant to take on new patients.
Some patients in western Massachusetts must wait more than a year for a routine physical exam. Waiting times for specialists in Boston are longer than in comparable cities in other states and have gotten worse. Some desperate patients have even resorted to "group appointments" where the doctor sees several patients at once (without the privacy necessary to allow the physician to remove the patient's clothing and perform a proper physical exam). These patients all have "coverage," but that's not the same as actual medical care.
The Massachusetts plan is also breaking the state budget. Since 2006, health insurance costs in Massachusetts have risen nearly twice as fast as the national average. The state expects to spend $595 million more in 2009 on its health insurance program than it did in 2006, a 42 percent increase. Those higher health costs help explain why the state faced a $5 billion budget gap this summer. To help close it, lawmakers raised taxes sharply.
The failure of the Romney plan most obviously demonstrates what Congress should not do. Alas, Sen. Max Baucus's so-called centrist alternative would end up almost as ruinous as a more formal government take-over of health care.
But the mess left by the former governor, and his continuing defense of his handiwork, also raises questions about Romney's presumed presidential bid in 2012. If this is his vision of success, just what would President Mitt Romney do once the votes were counted and he was in office?
John Kerry's Political Instincts on Cap and Trade
Posted by on 10.1.09 @ 9:36AM
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) told MSNBC that he is "convinced" the Senate cap-and-trade bill he introduced with Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) yesterday has a chance to pass. According to the Hill, Kerry said, ""I'm convinced it has a shot." Kerry-Boxer is even more stringent in some respects than Waxman-Markey, calling for a 20 percent reduction in carbon emissions compared to the 17 percent required by the bill that narrowly passed the House.
Well, if there is a "shot," someone forgot to tell key moderate Democrats. Roll Call reported that Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) said, "I am not committed to [carbon] cap-and-trade under any circumstance." Ditto Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), who just said, "It's a difficult issue." Someone also forgot to ask Sen. John McCain, a Republican supporter of cap-and-trade, if he'd back the bill. Fortunately, Reuters didn't: "Of course not. Never, never, never." McCain is steamed about the "lip service" paid to nuclear energy in the Democratic bill.
If moderate Democrats, Rust Belt Democrats, and moderate Republicans aren't on board, cap-and-trade will be harder to pass than health care. Some shot.
UPDATE: Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W. Va.), protecting the interests of his state's coal industry, has also come out against the Kerry-Boxer bill: "The climate legislation proposed today by Senators Boxer and Kerry is a disappointing step in the wrong direction and I am against it."
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 9.30.09 @ 3:13PM
- A mean nanny state, Michigan tells moms they cannot babysit neighborhood kids without licenses (Associated Press)
- On facebook, it's not ok to want to kill President Obama, but apparently wanting Bush dead is fine (Washington Examiner)
- After reading this interview of Roman Polanski, one wonders how he hasn't been in jail these past thirty years (Telegraph)
- Ex-Honduran President Zelaya may be wearing out his welcome at the Brazilian embassy (Xinhua)
The President's Inner Little "R" Republican Remains AWOL
Posted by on 9.30.09 @ 2:14PM
Jay Cost has an important piece on the challenges of Obama's Year Zero delusions.
No, Seriously, What?
Posted by on 9.30.09 @ 2:04PM
Mark Hemingway gets ACORN's slippery founder on the record about various scandals in a perfect example of dogged reporting.
Rhode Island Read
Posted by on 9.30.09 @ 1:23PM
David Scharfenberg of the Providence Phoenix takes issue with my analysis of the Rhode Island governor's race: "Sure, Republicans have held the governor's chair of late. But no one gives the lone Republican in the race, State Rep. Joseph Trillo, much of a chance to win in 2010. If Chafee wins, it is the Democrats who will suffer."
Fair enough. My only point was that given Rhode Island's recent electoral history, it is not outlandish to imagine that Lincoln Chafee could have won as a liberal Republican rather than an independent. Chafee lost in 2006 largely as a way to deny Republicans voting on national issues control of the Senate. But Rhode Islanders re-elected the more conservative Donald Carcieri as governor the same year, showing an openness to letting strong Republican candidates handle state issues. But it is nevertheless true that a strong showing by Chafee could imperil a Democratic pickup opportunity in Rhode Island.
Hollywood and Vile
Posted by on 9.30.09 @ 11:00AM
Reading this remarkably sane column in the L.A. Times, two thoughts struck me:
First, given what we know about Roman Polanski's abhorrent and deviant behavior, how is it the Obama Administration couldn't find a role for him in their child safety program? He appears to be remarkably qualified and no doubt would pass the White House vetting process.
Second, Hollywood's defense of Polanski -- and let's be honest, this isn't just a couple of washed up made-for-TV-movie actresses doing the defending -- is one more piece of compelling evidence of just how out of touch the "artistic" community is with the rest of America. These people see no moral disgrace or criminal behavior in Polanski's physical and mental abuse of a child, yet lecture us on the morality of "universal health care"? I don't think so.
Then I remember all those videos online with kids singing those "Dear Leader" songs about Barack Obama, and the gleeful smiles of the Hollywood parents as they watched their kids being indoctrinated, and it all makes sense.
When you live in a community that is so willing to exploit just about anything in life, how can you possibly relate to a world where such exploitation -- particularly the violation of a child -- is almost universally reviled?
Video: Media Bias in Kentucky Census Worker Killing
Posted by on 9.30.09 @ 10:46AM
MANCHESTER, Ky. -- Political prejudice against Republicans isn't the only bias that undermines the mainstream media's credibility. Even Democrats can be vicitimized by media malpractice. While in Clay County to cover the investigation of Census worker Bill Sparkman's mysterious death, I happened to meet a young lady who says she was misquoted by a reporter in a Sept. 24 article that made headlines nationwide:
Read more about 19-year-old Obama supporter Kelsee Brown.
PREVIOUSLY: Murder and Motives in Clay County.
The Day Ahead: Wednesday, September 30
Posted by on 9.30.09 @ 6:30AM
Today on Spectator.org:
- GOP Soul Check, by Larry Thornberry.
- A Clear and Present Danger, by Peter Ferrara.
- Does the Left Have a Sense of Decency? by Steve McCann.
- Copenhagen or Bust, by Peter Hannaford.
- Bomberphobia, by Lisa Fabrizio.
Comment of the Day: Tuesday
Reader Josa Young on James Bowman's Rotten Apples:
Dear James Bowman. Please do read One Apple Tasted, and you may find it surprising. The heroine remains a virgin until her wedding night. Sex is not a simple act of coition, it is an expression of all kinds of feelings, including love, lust and hatred, and it frequently results in the creation of another human being. It is important and vital - and I seek to express that. In the UK there is strong political pressure for it to be seen as something akin to a game of tennis in intensity. Please do read my article again so that you can see what I am saying instead of assuming the worst. Thanks.
Game of the Day:
Minnesota Twins vs. Detroit Tigers. 7:05 PM at Comerica
Park, Pavano vs. Bonine.
Tuesday's Best:
Youtube: Daniel Hannan -- A little Eu humour.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
House Progressive Caucus Co-Chair Says Bill "Unacceptable" Without Government Plan
Posted by on 9.29.09 @ 7:49PM
Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, co-chairman of the House Progessive Caucus, reiterated through a representative Tuesday evening that any health care bill that does not include a government plan will be "unacceptable."
I emailed the congressman's office earlier to get a reaction to news that the Senate Finance Committee rejected two proposals for a "public option."
"The Congressman feels that any legislation without a
public option is unacceptable and he will not support such a
plan," spokeswoman Natalie Luna Rose wrote in an
email.
Baucus: Health Care Bill Can Grow Over Time, Just Like Social Security
Posted by on 9.29.09 @ 6:31PM
Earlier today, I noted that Sen. Max Baucus inadvertently confirmed an argument that conservatives have been trying to make throughout this health care debate -- that it's important to pay attention not just to what is written in the legislation, but the infastructure it puts in place. As I've written from the beginning of this debate, none of the major Democratic proposals would represent a government takeover of health care immediately, but all of them would help make that happen over time, assuming action by future lawmakers. This has been the case with every government program.
I now have Baucus's exact remarks, with video. The context is, he's trying to get liberals to understand why he opposes a "public option" and believes that they should accept the best deal that they can get:
"It's also important to remind ourselves that Rome wasn't built in a day. And only few major pieces of legislation were totally complete upon enactment. For example, in 1935 this is what President Roosevelt said about Social Security. He said, and I quote, "This law too represents a cornerstone in the structure which is being built but is by no means complete." That's what he said. And we could also say that about this bill. We hope that it will be the cornerstone of meaningful reform. I think that it will be. But it is by no means a complete rewriting of the American health care system. We very much hope and expect this bill will work but if there are things that do not work about it we will revisit it. We will amend it just as we did with Social Security. The point is that today this year we need to start to lay that foundation and I fear that if this provision is in this bill as it comes out of this committee, it will jeopardize meaningful real health care reform. It will jeopardize laying that cornerstone this year."
Now, if I were trying to make the argument that Baucus's health care bill will lead to far more government intrusion than he is currently letting on, I don't think I could come up with a better example than Social Security. When originally created, Social Security was supposed to be a modest safety net, it was supposed to have a trust fund that kept the program solvent, and the payroll tax was just 1 percent each on employees and employers, or 2 percent total. But it evolved into key source of income for seniors whose life expectancy has swelled by 15 years since legislation was enacted, the illusionary trust fund has been raided to finance other government programs, and the payroll tax has been raised 20 times, bringing it to 6.2 percent each for employee and employer, or 12.4 percent total. The program is now insolvent, and along with those other government behomeoths that grew beyond their original intentions -- Medicare and Medicaid -- Social Security is bankrupting our country. Yet it remains politically untouchable.
So, keep this in mind when you hear all of Baucus's arguments and reassurances as to why his plan isn't a government takeover of health care. As it stands, the bill forces individuals to purchase insurance or pay a tax; it drastically expands Medicaid; it provides subsidies to individuals to purchase insurance; it creates government-run exchanges on which people would purchase government-designed insurance plans; it taxes medical device makers, clinical laboratories, and pharmaceutical companies; and it creates a new tax-exempt status for non-profit health care plans that would have access to federal dollars to fund start up costs. But as Baucus himself says, this is merely a "cornerstone." Over time, there's no reason why lawmakers couldn't add a mandate forcing employers to provide coverage or pay a tax; raise the penalties for not owning insurance; increase the subsidies to purchase insurance; add more regulations on top of the myriad of regulations already included in the bill; force more people to get their insurance through the government-run exchanges; and yes, even add a government-run plan to the exchanges. And don't forget, the Baucus plan is financed primarily through "savings" generated by cutting Medicare -- but future lawmakers may simply decide not to make those cuts, thus creating massive new deficits on top of our already perilous mountain of debt.
Conservatives understand that even without a government plan, Democrats can move the ball well down the field and toward the goal of government-run health care. Baucus has now acknowledged it. It's time to make sure the rest of the country realizes what's at stake.
The Politico Gets Played By ACORN
Posted by on 9.29.09 @ 5:59PM
One thing that journalists don't seem to get about ACORN is that it is a strange, complex creature with tentacles that reach into the highest levels of the United States government, the Democratic Party, corporate America, the labor movement, the nonprofit world, the media, foreign governments, and academia.
ACORN has a confusing structure and its network of who-knows-how-many taxpayer-funded tax-exempt nonprofit affiliates. As I've written ad nauseam, this is deliberate.
Understandably, given the complexity of the ACORN network, it is a constant struggle to educate my fellow journalists about ACORN.
The Politico's Ben Smith is a living case study showing what happens when sincere, well-meaning journalists write about something they do not understand.
ACORN, quite predictably, claims Patrick Gaspard who is now an extremely close advisor to President Obama, didn't work for it.
Smith just got played by ACORN -- big time.
I didn't publish all the evidence I have of Gaspard's ties to ACORN.
Here's a question for skeptics like Smith: If Gaspard isn't part of ACORN, why did he sign a letter to the editor of the Nation magazine (dated July 2, 2001) on behalf of ACORN affiliate the Working Families Party of New York? (In case you don't believe the party is part of ACORN read ACORN's website which states that in 1998, "ACORN members spearhead[ed] formation of the Working Families Party, the first community-labor party with official ballot status in New York state in more than 50 years.")
Lest someone accuse me of journalistic malfeasance, I produce the entire text of Lewis and Gaspard's letter to the Nation here:
New York City
■ Doug Ireland's offhand comments about the Working Families Party's role in the upcoming municipal elections in New York City were inaccurate and hurtful ["Those Big Town Blues," June 4]. He wrote that the WFP "could have played a role in recruiting Council candidates" but did not because the progressive unions took no initiatives and ACORN was distracted by its fight against the Edison Corporation.
Speaking for two affiliates of the WFP-ACORN and SEIU/1199-I say that this is dead wrong. We have been involved in a marvelous WFP-initiated process that has included scores of neighborhood and borough meetings, a remarkable series of interviews with more than 100 potential candidates, worksite presentations on the issues by WFP workplace captains, the ongoing recruitment of neighborhood captains and much more. We had more than 1,000 people at a WFP mayoral forum and have won concrete commitments on our living-wage bill from candidates across the city. Until the WFP, there was no group trying to pull together a community-labor-religious coalition to move ideas, people, money and energy in contests from Nassau County to Niagara Falls.
The WFP slate for this year's city elections will have more union members, community activists and progressives than any slate in memory. We hope Nation readers will vote for, work for and send money to all the WFP endorsed WFP endorsed candidates for primaries and the general election.
BERTHA LEWIS, ACORN, WFP
PATRICK GASPARD, SEIU STATE COUNCIL, WFP
[emphasis added]
Understanding ACORN's family tree takes time and a great deal of perseverance but after studying ACORN intensively for more than a year, I think I have a handle on how it works.
The part relevant to our story here today goes like this:
*The Working Families Party of New York is an affiliate of both ACORN and SEIU Local 1199, according to current ACORN chief organizer Bertha Lewis and her protégé Patrick Gaspard.
In other words, the Working Families Party is ACORN. There may be fine legal distinctions, they may file disclosure documents with different government agencies, but they are one and the same. I've been saying this for the past year and it's gratifying that people are finally listening.
Incidentally, the letter to the editor also reveals that SEIU Local 1199, which no one denies Gaspard used to work for, is also apparently an ACORN affiliate. At least that's what the wording used by Lewis and Gaspard suggests.
The oneness of the Working Families Party and ACORN was put on display last fall for all of America to see when WFP co-founder and current ACORN chief organizer Bertha Lewis appeared in a video endorsing Barack Obama for president of the United States.
Here's the video:
[Sorry, but I am having trouble embedding the video. Here is a link to it. -MV]
I wrote about this Obama endorsement from Bertha Lewis, the Working Families Party, and ACORN at NewsBusters.
ACORN identifies its affiliates as ACORN affiliates when it is convenient and claims the same entities are not ACORN affiliates when it is not. This game of nonprofit musical chairs is standard operating procedure at ACORN whenever things get hot. ACORN's friends at the Huffington Post and Media Matters for America have done the same thing with Project Vote, which Obama worked for. They say Project Vote may be an ACORN affiliate now but it wasn't way back when President Obama worked for it.
This is what ACORN does. It's good at it. Whenever ACORN gets in trouble it cries "racism" and "voter suppression" and its critics run away with their tails between their legs. This sort of subterfuge isn't working anymore now that the American public saw how ACORN really operates in the undercover illegal alien sex slave sting operation videos so brilliantly conceived and executed by James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles.
ACORN has been engaged in a campaign of deception about its SEIU affiliates, Local 100 headed by ACORN founder Wade Rathke and Local 880 headed by ACORN bigwig Keith Kelleher who happens to the husband of Madeline Talbott. Talbott, you may recall, is a radical agitator whose close personal ties to President Obama are extensively documented. Here's just one tidbit from National Review Online.
ACORN scrubbed its website of references to SEIU 100 and 880 earlier this year. Why would ACORN do that?
As for Wade Rathke, he is a brilliant man. Those who know him say his intellect rivals that of Thomas Jefferson, or so they've told me.
Rathke isn't known for making errors of fact. Errors of judgment, sure, as in the case where he covered up his brother's $948,000 embezzlement from ACORN for eight years, but not facts.
Pretending to be a senile old man, the ACORN founder just issued a "correction" of an old blog post that raises more questions than it answers. After all the trouble he caused for the ACORN network, it was the least he could for the network that still employs his wife, Beth Butler, and reportedly his two children.
Ya gotta help your friends -- and your family.
It's Official: Finance Committee Bill Will Not Include "Public Option"
Posted by on 9.29.09 @ 4:21PM
The Senate Finance Committee just killed an amendment proposed by Sen. Chuck Schumer to create a new government-run health insurance plan by a vote of 13 to 10. Coupled with the failure of another version of the so-called "public option" introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller earlier in the day, this officially means that the Finance Committee's health care bill will not include a government-run plan favored by liberals.
The defeat of the government plan in the Finance Committee sets the stage for a brawl among Democrats that will help determine whether or not they're able to pass health care legislation. Other Democratic health care bills, including the ones from three House committees as well as the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee all include a government plan. Eventually, Democrats will have to find a way to merge all the bills together, which won't be an easy task.
On the House side, liberal members have insisted that they would not support a bill that did not include what they consider to be a "strong" government plan, meaning tying reimbursement rates to Medicare.
The problem is that when Rockefeller proposed something similar today in committee, five Democratic Senators voted against it. Even when Schumer removed the tie to Medicare rates, three Democrats voted against it: Sens. Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, and Blanche Lincoln. And that's just the Finance Committee. Other Senate Democrats including Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, and Joe Lieberman have publicly opposed a government plan. Taken together, that means at least 8 Democratic Senators oppose what liberals would consider a "strong" government plan, and at least 6 would oppose even a milder version. Schumer himself admitted today that they did not currently have 60 votes to pass the government plan in the Senate.
Thus, the whole health care fight may hinge on whether the White House will be able to get liberal lawmakers to drop their demands for a government plan. This is problematic. The reason is that one of the most obvious ways to win over liberals would be to increase the level of subsidies to individuals seeking to purchase health insurance, yet doing so would substantially drive up the cost of legislation. President Obama has boxed himself into a corner on that front by declaring that his plan would cost $900 billion, and by vowing to veto any bill that adds to the deficit.
Baucus's Cornerstone
Posted by on 9.29.09 @ 3:40PM
"Rome wasn't built in a day," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus said Tuesday afternoon. He made the statement over the course of arguing that he could not support the creation of a government-run plan, because it could not get 60 votes in the Senate.
"My top priority is getting this across the finish line," Baucus said.
He encouraged liberals to recognize that the important thing was to get something passed now, to lay a "cornerstone" that could be built on. As a historical example, he noted that when Social Security was first passed Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1935 he argued that the legislation was just a start.
Now, if liberals refuse to back any proposal that does not include a government plan, Baucus said, they would fail to lay a cornerstone.
Thus Baucus unintentionally made the argument that conservatives have been trying to make repeatedly -- that is, what we have to consider is not only what is in legislation as it is currently written, but also the infastructure that it would put in place, allowing future lawmakers to expand the role of government further.
Even with the so-called "moderate" proposal of Sen. Baucus, we'll end up with a bill that significantly expands Medicaid, forces individuals to purchase insurance or pay a tax, makes people purchase government-designed insurance policies on a government-run exchange, and creates a new tax-exempt class of insurers that would have access to government money to finance start up costs. That's quite a cornerstone to build on.
Rockefeller: "The Public Option is On the March"
Posted by on 9.29.09 @ 3:05PM
Sen. Jay Rockefeller declared Tuesday afternoon that, "the public option is on the march." Moments later, the Senate Finance Committee defeated his proposal for a government-run plan by a 15-8 vote, with five Democrats joining all 10 Republicans on the committee in voting against it.
The five Democrats voting "no" were: Sens. Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, Blanche Lincoln, Bill Nelson, and Thomas Carper.
The committee is now considering a different version of a government plan introduced by Sen. Chuck Schumer, which would not have the government directly set reimbursement rates at Medicare levels.
Based on statements to date, this amendment is likely to be defeated also, but by a narrower margin than Rockefeller's.
The Avril Lavigne Corollary
Posted by on 9.29.09 @ 2:52PM
Today's New York Times cover story on funding for abortion in health care reform has the marvellously fence-sitting headline "Abortion Fight Complicates Debate on Health Care."
Ignore the fact that there is no debate whatsoever on/over (the NYT itself cannot seem to choose between the two prepositions, using "the debate over health care" in the sentence that immediate follows the headline) health care. Meaning, nobody is, or even plausibly can be said to be, in a debate and against health care. Nobody is opposed to health care reform. People do debate the Democrats' horrible ideas about health care reform.
Instead, focus on the author's (David D. Kirkpatrick) tone. He is not reporting that the reform plans would lead to taxpayers funding abortion, which is the source of controversy in the debate he's referring to. He is not writing about whether pro-lifers will thwart the aims of the "reproductive health" crowd backing the reform plans. Instead, he writes about it from the perspective that the relevant question is not whether abortions will be publicly funded, but whether or not the possibility that they might be is "complicating the debate."
In commemoration of this reportorial approach, I would like to add the "Avril Lavigne" corollary to "opinions of the shape of the earth differ" journalism.
"Opinions of the shape of the earth differ" journalism was given its name by Paul Krugman in a 2000 op-ed about George W. Bush's alleged campaign trail falsehoods. "If a presidential candidate were to declare that the earth is flat, you would be sure to see a news analysis under the headline ''Shape of the Planet: Both Sides Have a Point.'' After all, the earth isn't perfectly spherical," Krugman wrote.
Today's NYT article falls neatly into that category. Kirkpatrick bends over backward to make sure that both sides of the debate are allowed to present their wildly divergent depictions of reality as factual.
Regarding the current bill drafts, Kirkpatrick writes,
... [abortion] opponents say that is not good enough, because only a line on an insurers' accounting ledger would divide the federal money from the payments for abortions. The subsidies would still help people afford health coverage that included abortion.
On the other hand,
"The language of the compromise is very clear," said Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut, "it prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortions." (The bills would also mandate the availability in each state of at least one plan that covers abortion and at least one that does not.)
So on the one hand, it's merely an accounting trick to say abortion-inclusive plans aren't covered. On the other hand, it's "very clear" that taxpayers funding abortions is prohibited.
Kirkpatrick makes no attempt to reconcile or examine these mutually exclusive statements.
Instead, he, for the first time to my knowledge, invokes the "Avril Lavigne Corollary." It's not that one side is right and the other is wrong, or that one side is sincere and the other is lying. It's just that it's all so...complicated. It's as if Kirkpatrick is asking the pro-life crowd in the "debate on/over health care," "why'd you have to go and make it so complicated?"
What's In a Name?
Posted by on 9.29.09 @ 1:06PM
Several years ago, liberals made the decision to refer to a the idea of a government-run plan as a "public option," because "public" tests better with people than "government," and the term "option" emphasizes choice. Evidently, Sen. Jay Rockefeller doesn't think the term "public option" is very effective, either. Instead, he calls his version of the government plan a "consumer choice plan." But a government-run plan by any other name, would still be a health insurance plan run by the federal government and designed with the objective to drive private insurers out of business over time.
Conrad: Government Plan Would Bankrupt Hospitals
Posted by on 9.29.09 @ 1:01PM
The Finance Committee hearings are starting to display the Democrats' intra-party rift over the creation of a government-run plan.
Sen. Kent Conrad argued that an amendment proposed by Jay Rockefeller that would create a government-run plan that would set reimbursement rates at Medicare levels would bankrupt every hospital in his home state of North Dakota. Instead, Conrad favors creating tax exempt non-profit insurers, or co-ops.
Rockefeller called Conrad's claim about the threat to hospitals "nonsense."
The Rockefeller amendment would force any doctor who accepts Medicare to also accept the new government plan for the first two years, after which point the doctors and hospitals could opt out of the government plan, and the Department of Health and Human Services would negotiate rates with doctors and hospitals.
By making it optional after two years, Rockefeller tried to argue that it isn't coercive. And he also strained to make the argument that even though the plan would be administered by the federal government, that it wouldn't be government-run.
Judging by the debate so far, it seems that the Rockefeller amendment will be defeated easily. After that, the committee will consider an amendment by Sen. Chuck Schumer that would create a government plan that would not set payment levels at Medicare rates.
Rockefeller: Adam Smith Would Have Supported Government-Run Health Care
Posted by on 9.29.09 @ 11:09AM
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, arguing this morning in favor of amending the Senate Finance Committee bill to include a government-run health care plan, claimed that his approach would have been supported by the intellectual father of capitalism, Adam Smith.
Rockefeller blasted the current draft of the bill, authored by committee Chairman Max Baucus, for being a massive handout to insurers. Insurers would get a half a billion dollars in subsidies, he said, and though the bill imposes a raft of new regulations on the industry, they'd easily be able to get around them if there weren't a government-run plan to keep them in check.
While liberals have long appropriated free market terms such as "choice" and "competition" to promote the creation of a new government-run plan, Rockefeller went even further, explicitly claiming that it was a "free market" idea.
"I think Adam Smith would have cooked up this amendment," he added.
I wrote about how to get real competition in the health insurance market here.
Jim Nabors Will Be Next
Posted by on 9.29.09 @ 10:42AM
Pop singer Andy Williams, though a fan of the Kennedys, says Barack Obama is promoting "Marxist theory" and trying to turn the United States into a "socialist country." All to the tune of "Born Free" and maybe "Moon River."
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 9.29.09 @ 10:37AM
- Sarkozy not happy about Obama's talk of a nuclear weapons free world while North Korea and Iran are eager to break the rules. This latest French-American issue seems unlikely to result in the return of freedom fries (RealClearPolitics)
- Reports of taxpayer-funded pornography up 600% in the last year at National Science Foundation (Washington Times)
- State Department won't recognize Honduran elections in November (Bloomberg)
- Hard to believe, but AFP reports that the Empire State Building will light up red and yellow on Friday to honor the 60th anniversary of Communist China.
You'll Have to Pry My Icy Coca-Cola From My Cold Dead Hand
Posted by on 9.29.09 @ 10:28AM
The ever-brilliant Katherine Mangu-Ward fires a return volley in the War Against Soda.
The Day Ahead: Tuesday, September 29
Posted by on 9.29.09 @ 6:30AM
Today on Spectator.org:
- Rotten Apples, by James Bowman.
- The Splashdown of the American Presidency, by Richard P. Kirchhoefer.
- Obamacare's Shovel-ready Cure, by Ralph R. Reiland
Comment of the day: Monday
Reader Curtis on Jay D. Homnick's America Cops to the World:
What's real fun is the hypocrisy: President Clinton launching a cruise missile every ten minutes when he wasn't sending troops to Kosovo, JFK half-launching an invasion of Cuba, LBJ reading the body count tarot cards, and now Obama trying to figure out the best way to win in Afghanistan without killing anyone. An unending litany of poorly executed operations with restrictive ROEs, fuzzy feel good goals, and more lawfare then a full season of JAG. For people who don't want to be world police, they sure run a military like a police force. Well, more like the keystone kops.
Game of the Day:
Florida Marlins vs. Atlanta Braves, 7:10 p.m. Rick VandenHurk vs. Tim Hudson
Monday's Best:
YouTube: Bill Clinton: Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Now Targeting Obama.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Guzzling Fuel and Wasting Time
Posted by on 9.28.09 @ 6:30PM
The weight of the world rests on President Obama's shoulders -- and Oprah's and Michelle's: what can they do to make sure the 2016 Summer Olympics come to Chicago? Not to worry, all the lesser problems -- Iran's nuclear threat, the Afghanistan war, terrorism, the economy, health care "reform" -- will sort themselves out on their own.
Guzzling Fuel and Wasting Time
By Asher Embry
McCrystal from Afghanistan can't get him on the phone;
But O has time to spare for an Olympics bid to
hone.
It's not distracting; just a trip to Denmark for one day,
Then O goes back to Washington in time for golf on Sunday.
Don't worry as Iran progresses down its deadly course,
O's focused like a laser on the gymnasts' pommel
horse.
Forget about his health care threats, or soaring
unemployment;
Instead, he'll use his influence for hometown fan's enjoyment.
No vote before the deadline for next year's appropriations;
Yet O devotes attention to '16's Parade of Nations.
He hasn't figured Gitmo out; al Qaeda's still a threat;
He's wondering where -- in seven years -- to place the Ping Pong
net.
Barack's approach, as always: indecision and delay.
He thinks if he ignores a problem it'll go away.
Dithering and dawdling are O's favored paradigm;
Jetting off to Denmark, guzzling fuel and wasting time.
It must be fun for O to play with world celebrities;
Perhaps its time to reevaluate priorities.
(You can read more of Asher Embry's Political Verse at www.politicalverse.com.)
Democratic Underground Posts Racist Comments on GOP Candidate
Posted by on 9.28.09 @ 6:02PM
There they go again. Isaac Hayes (no, not that one, who, alas, has left us) is running for Congress in Chicago. Mr. Hayes is actually the Rev. Isaac Hayes, and you can learn more about him from his website.
So a man runs for Congress, what's the big deal? The big deal is the reaction to Rev. Hayes' announcement from Democrats. Rev. Hayes, you see, is not just a Republican. No, no. Bad as that may be, Rev. Hayes is…gasp!…a black man! Yes! A black man, a Republican who is black! On top of which he has the audacity to challenge Illinois Congressman Jesse Jackson.
So what's the big deal? Well, in the ongoing discussion of how Democrats race pimp on a perpetual basis, you have but to check in over with the Democratic Underground. Invoking our rule that every progressive man, woman or group who insists on judging people by the color of their skin will likewise be represented, here's the link to the White Democratic Underground, the web klavern where progressives go to don the hoods of their long heritage.
Take especial note of the comments about Rev. Hayes here. Is Hayes being taken to task here on issues like, say health care? Afghanistan strategy? Naaaaaaah. What are, you crazy? The White Democratic Underground (or White DU) has focused on -- what do you think? Race, but of course. Rev. Hayes is mocked as an "Oreo," a "black guy," "Chocolate Salty Balls," while another White DU'er is relieved they live in "the Southern part of the state" -- apparently so he or she doesn't have to face a choice between Jackson and Hayes, African-Americans both.
Post-racial society? Not where the hoods are hung on the website of the Klavern that is the White Democratic Underground.
Declaration of Independents
Posted by on 9.28.09 @ 1:39PM
The Politico has a story on a number of independents running for governor in 2009-10. The list includes Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, Minnesota, and New Jersey. But it's not clear that this is necessarily "a development that threatens Democratic fortunes in some of the bluest and most progressive-minded states in the nation."
Consider that Tim Cahill, as I've previously reported, is running as a fiscal conservative and gunning directly for the voters a Republican candidate would need to win the Massachusetts governorship. The polls bear this out: Against Democratic incumbent Deval Patrick, the Republican candidates are tied or narrowly ahead. Throw Cahill into the mix and they fall to the 20s, with Cahill and Patrick in the 30s -- giving Patrick a much better chance of winning re-election if those numbers hold.
The trend is similar in New Jersey, where Chris Christie's lead has slipped in the polls that show independent ex-Republican Chris Daggett in the double digits. Stuck at 45 percent or below, Jon Corzine seems to be following a strategy of driving up Christie's negatives in the hopes that voters will declare a pox on both major parties' houses. If so, Dagget could get enough of the vote for Corzine to potentially squeak through with a plurality in the mid-to-low-40s.
Lincoln Chafee might be able to get elected governor of Rhode Island as an independent. But the fact is, the last two governors of this very blue and progressive-minded state have been Republicans. And reasonably conservative ones, by Rhode Island standards, at that.
You Sort of Wish Dave Barry WAS Making This Up
Posted by on 9.28.09 @ 12:22PM
The Pulitzer Prize winner takes on campus speech codes in this great FIRE interview.
Prelude to a "Devastating Assault on Critics of Copernicus"?
Posted by on 9.28.09 @ 12:02PM
Michael Moore's latest fails to impress Daniel Kalder.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 9.28.09 @ 10:56AM
- Max Boot: "Downsizing" in Afghanistan won't work (Los Angeles Times)
- Kentucky cabinet creates an $80,000 management position for wife of U.S. Rep. Ben Chandler despite budget cuts and declining revenues (Lexington Herald)
- GOP using Obama indoctrination songs in fundraising campaigns (CBS News)
- Iran test-fires long range missiles (Associated Press)
The Day Ahead: Monday, September 28
Posted by on 9.28.09 @ 6:30AM
Today on the main site:
- The Next OPEC, by William Tucker.
- Running from Reform, by Rishawn Biddle.
- And from the October issue of The American Spectator, America's Second-Best Idea, by Bill Croke.
Comment of the Day -- Friday, September 25th:
Reader rrpjr on W. James Antle, III's Dukakis the Great:
Dukakis taught at my college. He was indeed a decent guy, a good egghead. But he had nothing to do with the "Massachusetts Miracle," which was the result of Reagan's infusion of defense industry money along the 128 beltway and Mayor Kevin White's brilliant if ruthless redevelopment schemes in Boston. Dukakis was the clueless beneficiary. That he conned the Democratic Party into thinking otherwise, or that they allowed themselves to be conned, is just another example of liberal unfitness for power.
What to Watch For:
- Rev. Al Sharpton to host WWE's "Monday Night Raw."
- Congress closed for Yom Kippur.
Game of the Day:
Monday Night Football: Carolina at Dallas, 8:30 PM, Cowboys Stadium, Arlington TX, ESPN.
Friday's Best:
Reason.tv on the drug wars:
When the Pig Roast Gets Weird, the Weird Get Pig Roasted
Posted by on 9.28.09 @ 4:55AM
Bob Tyrrell, shown here with New York conservative activist Nina Rosen Wald, said they sent me an invitation to the annual American Spectator Pig Roast but, for some strange reason, I never got it. People who claim to have seen me at the event are mistaken, although I'm told that the event was reported by the departed spirit of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
William Safire, RIP
Posted by on 9.27.09 @ 8:55PM
The political and language columnist has died of cancer at age 79.
Washington Bailouts Spread to NFL
Posted by on 9.27.09 @ 5:53PM
Washington Redskins lose to the hapless Detroit Lions, thus ending the Lions' 19 game losing streak. Redskins owner Daniel Snyder to receive TARP funds.
- Advent Is Coming
- Barney and Friends
- The Right of Conscience in the Age of Obama