- 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 31, 2009
The "Stimulus" Bill Created Lots of Jobs: Not!
Posted by on 10.31.09 @ 9:11PM
The Obama administration can't even get the number of jobs related to its pork barrel spending measure right. Reports the Associated Press:
An early progress report on President Barack Obama's economic recovery plan overstates by thousands the number of jobs created or saved through the stimulus program, a mistake that White House officials promise will be corrected in future reports.
The government's first accounting of jobs tied to the $787 billion stimulus program claimed more than 30,000 positions paid for with recovery money. But that figure is overstated by least 5,000 jobs, according to an Associated Press review of a sample of stimulus contracts.
The AP review found some counts were more than 10 times as high as the actual number of jobs; some jobs credited to the stimulus program were counted two and sometimes more than four times; and other jobs were credited to stimulus spending when none was produced.
For example:
_ A company working with the Federal Communications Commission reported that stimulus money paid for 4,231 jobs, when about 1,000 were produced.
_ A Georgia community college reported creating 280 jobs with recovery money, but none was created from stimulus spending.
_ A Florida child care center said its stimulus money saved 129 jobs but used the money on raises for existing employees.
Of course, even the correct numbers reflect jobs shifted rather than created, since the government took productive resources and wasted them on political projects. The private sector job loss will continue in the future, as we have to pay off the massive debts accumulated over the last year.
NY23: Media Cover Hoffman; Eye of the Storm in Upstate
Posted by on 10.31.09 @ 6:52PM
Covering the Doug Hoffman congressional campaign on a day when the big news is that Republican nominee Dede Scozzafava quit. Former New York Gov. George Pataki appeared today with Hoffman at VFW Post 125 in Plattsburgh, where they were greeted by about 150 supporters and a huge media contingent:
Pataki and Hoffman meet the press after their speeches.
Plattsburgh Mayor Donald Kasprzak is interviewed by Suzanne Moore of the New York Times.
Meanwhile, I met with a volunteer at the Plattsburgh office and did a video interview with a Hoffman campaign worker. Trust me when I say that trying to cover this campaign on the scene is like reporting a hurricane from the eye of the storm.
Friday, October 30, 2009
The Administration, the Flu, and Health Care Reform
Posted by on 10.30.09 @ 5:55PM
The administration can't get flu vaccines out to people. But these folks want the government to run the entire health care system.
The moment a novel strain of swine flu emerged in Mexico last spring, President Obama instructed his top advisers that his administration would not be caught flat-footed in the event of a deadly pandemic. Now, despite months of planning and preparation, a vaccine shortage is threatening to undermine public confidence in government, creating a very public test of Mr. Obama's competence.
Don't worry. Next time they will do better! We should trust them with the health care for nearly 308 million Americans.
Former Acting Director of CBO Says House Health Care Bill Costs Near $1.3 Trillion
Posted by on 10.30.09 @ 5:32PM
Donald Marron, visiting professor at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute and former acting director of the Congressional Budget Office, pegs the actual cost of the House Democrats' health care plan at nearly $1.3 trillion.
The $1.055 trillion number that I've been reporting represents the gross cost of the coverage provisions alone, which account for a bulk of the proposed spending. But there are all sorts of other costs associated with the bill, even though they're balanced by various tax increases or proposed spending cuts elsewhere. When Marron added up all of the other spending of the bill, he came up with $1.273 trillion.
You can read his explanation, and check out his math, here.
Canadian Waiting Lists Are Down!
Posted by on 10.30.09 @ 4:32PM
Now you only wait four months on average to see a doctor! That's a week better than last year! Reports the Fraser Institute:
The Fraser Institute's nineteenth annual waiting list survey found that Canada-wide waiting times for surgical and other therapeutic treatments decreased in 2009. Total waiting time between referral from a general practitioner and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, fell from 17.3 weeks in 2008 to 16.1 weeks in 2009. This nation wide improvement in access reflects waiting-time decreases in 5 provinces, while concealing increases in waiting times in Alberta, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland & Labrador. The total waiting time in British Columbia was unchanged.
Among the provinces, Ontario achieved the shortest total wait in 2009, 12.5 weeks, with Manitoba (14.3 weeks), and Quebec (16.6 weeks), next shortest. Newfoundland & Labrador exhibited the longest total wait at 27.3 weeks; the next longest waits were found in Prince Edward Island (26.7 weeks) and New Brunswick (25.8 weeks).
The fall in waiting time between 2008 and 2009 results from a decrease both in the first wait-the wait between visiting a general practitioner and attending a consultation with a specialist-and in the second wait-from the time that a specialist decides that treatment is required to treatment.
What's four months among friends? (More than six months in Newfoundland, but who's counting?!) I am looking forward to Nancy Pelosi delivering my health care!
NY23: Dems Bringing in Big Money Against Hoffman
Posted by on 10.30.09 @ 4:02PM
PLATTSBURGH, N.Y.
With polls clearly showing liberal Republican candidate
Dede Scozzafava in meltdown mode, the Democratic Party is
now focusing its campaign efforts directly at Conservative
Party candidate Doug Hoffman in the crucial upstate New York
special election.
Democrats have reportedly bought $1 million in TV ads attacking Hoffman and supporting Democratic candidate Bill Owens. Hoffman campaign sources expect Owens to bring in hundreds of professional party operatives and labor-union campaigners to work in the 23rd District this weekend and continuing through Election Day, now just four days away.
The offices of the Clinton County Democratic Party here in Plattsburgh -- Owens' hometown -- were busy this afternoon, as young Democratic staffers were ready to begin a weekend of door-to-door canvassing operations. Staffers were preparing to distribute stacks of door-hanger GOTV cards that tout President Obama's endorsement of Owens, telling voters: "Those standing in the way of Change want you to say home on Tuesday -- don't let them win."
Meanwhile, a crew of reporters showed up at Duke's Diner on Tom Miller Road here in Plattsburgh where Hoffman had lunch with the city's Republican mayor, Don Kasprzak, who endorsed the Conservative Party candidate yesterday -- as did former New York Gov. George Pataki.
Asked about evidence of his campaign's gathering momentum, Hoffman replied with a smile: "We're ignoring that. We're still running like the underdog."
One indicator of how the 23rd District contest is increasingly viewed as a make-or-break referendum on the Obama administration's agenda is that Hoffman's lunch today at Duke's Diner was covered by two television crews and a correspondent for the London Times.
UPDATE: Photo of the Democratic "Change" door-hanger for Owens at my personal blog.
More on Why the Actual Cost of House Health Care Bill Tops $1 Trillion
Posted by on 10.30.09 @ 2:30PM
As I previously noted, the Congressional Budget Office actually said the House health care bill would cost $1.055 trillion from 2010 to 2019, even though most news accounts focused on the $894 billion figure. The difference is that the lower figure includes the offsetting taxes collected from individuals who do not purchase insurance and on businesses that do not provide insurance.
The most basic test of media fairness is that they should at least use comparable numbers when reporting the costs of various bills. Unfortunately, the media mostly failed on this account.
Remember how when the CBO score of the Senate Finance Committee bill came out it was widely reported to cost $829 billion? Well here's where that number came from, quoting from the CBO: "the "net cost itself reflects a gross total of $829 billion in credits and subsidies provided through the exchanges, increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers..."
Well here's what yesterday's CBO estimate of the House bill had to say: the "net cost itself reflects a gross total of $1,055 billion in subsidies provided through the exchanges (and related spending), increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers..."
So clearly, the correct number to report regarding the House bill was the $1.055 trillion figure. The New York Times's Prescriptions blog, to its credit, concluded that: "a closer look at the budget office report suggests that the number everyone should have reported was $1.055 trillion, which is the gross cost of the insurance coverage provisions in the bill before taking account of certain new revenues, including penalties by individuals and employers who fail to meet new insurance requirements in the bill."
But instead, most of the media assisted Democrats by reporting the lower figure, which helps them claim that they met President Obama's pledge that the overall cost of health care legislation would be less than $900 billion.
The Dobbs Shooting: UCC Apology Needed?
Posted by on 10.30.09 @ 12:53PM
Here's an interesting turn of events.
We have been reporting here and here about the role of the United Church of Christ in a group called So We Might See.
The group is trying to say that "hate speech" -- and they name in this connection Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and Lou Dobbs -- has been and can be the cause of violence against illegal immigrants.
In other words, as they claim, "hate speech ...incites violence."
Hate speech, according to So We Might See and the sponsoring United Church of Christ, "creates and/or encourages an 'us vs. them' mentality" and "blam[es] 'others' as the source of trouble."
Well, OK. Let's take these folks at their word.
So We Might See has specifically targeted CNN's Lou Dobbs. It accuses him of hate speech ("blaming others") and is linking to a site that wants to force Mr. Dobbs off the air, creating a decided "us vs. them" atmosphere (or perhaps we should say and "us vs. him" atmosphere). The group also says in a petition to the FCC that because of words spoken by Rush Limbaugh on the air in March of 2006 two Mexican men were beaten and robbed months later. (No proof provided, but hey.)
Now, let's just play along here for a moment.
As this news account from MSNBC reports, a shot was fired at Mr. Dobbs' home while his wife and another person were standing outside. This has been verified by the New Jersey State Police. Here's the link.
If what So We Might See is claiming is true, then the notion they are spreading -- that Mr. Dobbs is a purveyor of hate speech and therefore responsible for acts of violence against illegal immigrants -- makes the United Church of Christ, So We Might See, and its "key personnel" the Reverend J. Bennett Guess responsible for the person who shot at Mr. Dobbs' home. Right?
So now we have a shot that could have easily wounded if not done worse to Mrs. Dobbs and a second person at the Dobbs home. Then according to So We Might See, there must be a connection between the hateful things being said by the So We Might See campaign about Mr. Dobbs and the image painted of him by the UCC campaign. What other conclusion can we reach, using this logic? Their logic.
Thus, the question directly to the Reverend Guess.
Will you be halting this campaign of "hate speech" against Lou Dobbs and everyone else listed on your site -- Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly etc. etc. -- because you now realize that the UCC Office of Communications is responsible for this act of violence against the Dobbs family?
Is an apology to Mr. Dobbs forthcoming?
The clock is running. How long will it take to remove the names of radio and TV stars on your site so that you don't incite anyone else to violence against them?
How long will it take to withdraw Rush Limbaugh's name from your petition?
MSNBC reported. You decide.
More of this story next week, including a response to the good Reverend Guess.
How Democrats' Health Care Bill Will Punish Businesses, Trigger Unemployment
Posted by on 10.30.09 @ 10:55AM
One of the most onerous aspects of the House Democrats' health care legislation is the employer mandate, which would tax employers who do not offer health insurance to their workers. Not only does the proposal impose new costs on employers, but a whole new layer of red tape, both of which would undoubtedly lead to job losses and lower wages. But I thought it would be worth taking the time to walk everybody through just how onerous the requirements are in this particular provision, which starts being described on page 268 of the 1,990 page bill, under the heading: "Subtitle B -- Employer Responsibility."
Under the provision, employers would have to offer every employee "qualified" health insurance coverage. The type of insurance that is considered "qualified" will be determined by the Health Choices Commissioner, a new post that will be filled by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Health Choice Commissioner, given many responsibilities throughout the legislation, would head up the newly-created Health Choices Administration. If a worker declines coverage but otherwise obtains insurance through the government-run insurance exchange, the employer will owe money to the government.
In order to prove that they're complying with the new mandate, employers must submit whatever information that the Health Choices Commissioner requests, and the information must also be provided to the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
For full-time workers, business will have to contribute at least 72.5 percent toward individual health insurance policies, and 65 percent for family policies. For part-time workers, the required percentage would be based on a proportion of how many hours they worked relative to the hours worked by a full-time employee. The exact proportion would be determined, once again, by the Health Choices Commissioner, in conjunction with the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Any employer with a total annual payroll of over $500,000 that does not meet these requirements will be subject to a new tax, which reaches as high as 8 percent once payroll reaches over $750,000.
The National Federation of Independent Business has estimated that an employer mandate would cost 1.6 million jobs over the first five years, and cut GDP by $200 billion. Whether or not you choose to believe that estimate, it's clear that taken together, the provision would make it far more costly for businesses to hire new workers and maintain current staffing levels, by raising the price of labor as well as the regulatory burden. Basic economics tells us that if you raise the price of a good or service, then people will purchase less of it. In this case, rising prices for labor will mean lost jobs and lower wages. While the bill itself specifies that businesses cannot cut wages to comply with the mandate, this doesn't take into account that businesses could simply offer lower raises to their workers over time. The legislation will particularly hit businesses hard that are highly dependent on part-time or seasonal workers. All I know is that if this bill passes, I'd hate to be the owner of a restaurant business.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 10.30.09 @ 10:15AM
- After environmental groups lobby, Congress grants $1.9 million to study bat illness (New Jersey Real Time News)
- $1.6 million in stimulus money being used to search for fossils in Argentina (Media Newswire)
- Interim Honduran President allows the Congress to have final say in whether Zelaya can return (Bloomberg)
- Having gone his entire presidency without visiting the war zone, Obama should go to Afghanistan and make his own assessment (New York Post)
The Audacity To Be Audacious
Posted by on 10.30.09 @ 10:05AM
Aside from almost every bit of dialogue being injected with a stilted prescience you just know didn't exist at the time, my two favorite parts of this excerpt from David Plouffe's The Audacity to Win both deal with the VP selection:
Later that night, we held a conference call with Obama to brief him on our day. "Well, it sounds like you both are for Biden, but barely," he said. "I really haven't settled this yet in my own mind. It's a coin toss now between Bayh and Biden, but Kaine is still a distinct possibility. I know the experience attack people will make if we pick him. But if that really concerned me, I wouldn't have run in the first place. My sense is — and you tell me if the research backs this up — that Barack Hussein Obama is change enough for people.
For Biden--Barely sounds like a good slogan for Biden's 2016 run. Not as wordy as If Experience Concerned Me I Wouldn't Have Run in the First Place, not as overcooked as Yes We Can. Also, I don't know about Plouffe's pre-election research, but my personal post-election research, for what's its worth, says, 'Yessir, plenty change enough, thank yew verry much."
...and then there's this:
The [first] meeting started with Biden launching into a nearly 20-minute monologue that ranged from the strength of our campaign in Iowa ("I literally wouldn't have run if I knew the steamroller you guys would put together"); to his evolving views of Obama ("I wasn't sure about him in the beginning of the campaign, but I am now") [I bet!-ed]; why he didn't want to be VP ("The last thing I should do is VP; after 36 years of being the top dog, it will be hard to be No. 2"); why he was a good choice ("But I would be a good soldier and could provide real value, domestically and internationally"); and everything else under the sun. Ax and I couldn't get a word in edgewise. It confirmed what we suspected: this dog could not be taught new tricks.
Ha! Nice writing! You can almost feel Plouffe gasping for air as the oxygen is sucked out of the room. Amway lost the best regional manager it never had and we gained a vice president. Good deal? Yet still these envoys of the future president dared not deny the Fifth Nag of the Apocalypse.
Nobody messes with Joe because no one can get him to shut up.
Michael Vick for the EPA?
Posted by on 10.30.09 @ 9:42AM
According to Robert and Brenda Vale, the environmentalist authors of Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living, feeding and caring for your pet pooch does as much harm to the planet as owning and operating an SUV. Growing the food necessary to feed a medium-sized dog creates roughly the same carbon footprint as driving a Toyota Land Cruiser 12,000 miles per year.
Which means if you've got two best friends waiting to lick your face you when you come home from the office -- you know, so that they can keep each other company while you're gone -- you might as well put up a sign on your front lawn that says: "Earth Killer."
This news is sure to sow dissension in the ranks of self-righteous greenies… many of whom cease lecturing the rest of us on the evils of our modern conveniences only long enough to snuggle up with Rover and Mr. Whiskers. (Cats have slightly less eco-impact than dogs… roughly equivalent to a Volkswagen Golf.) That is all to the good.
But the larger point made by the authors, architects who specialize in sustainable design, is more serious than their headline-grabbing title -- namely, a genuine commitment to sustainability requires more than just singling out the usual bogeymen of the green movement. It requires hard sacrifice.
But are we prepared to trade in our cuddly pets for livestock animals whose meat we can harvest after they expire? For that matter, are we prepared for a world in which governments dictate to their citizens how many children they can have? Oh, and are we prepared to tell a billion Chinese and a billion Indians, anxious to escape the grinding poverty of their lives, that it's better for Gaia if they forsake the creature comforts of the 21st century?
Just some thoughts to chew on… until Spot is done on both sides.
The Day Ahead: October 30
Posted by on 10.30.09 @ 6:19AM
Today on the main site:
- The Precedented Peace Prize, by J. Christian Adams
- Patriotic Gore, by Andrew Cline
- Elections Have Consequences, by Robert P. Kirchhoefer
What to watch for:
Thursday's best:
Europe to choose their First President:
Thursday, October 29, 2009
ACORN's Campaign to DeFox America
Posted by on 10.29.09 @ 7:33PM
Unwilling to admit it's an ongoing criminal conspiracy to defraud the people of the United States of America, ACORN has retained Bolshevik Brave New Films to do some of its dirty work for it.
The leftist propaganda factory headquartered in Culver City, Calif., has launched a new website, DeFOXamerica.com, which is an effort to shoot the messenger. Fox is the only television network that has taken much of an interest in covering the ACORN scandal which some commentators say is bigger than Watergate. Needless to say the network has pissed off the far left mightily, especially George Soros's minions at Media Matters for America. (CNN has done a little bit on ACORN, but not much.)
ACORN crime family boss Bertha Lewis is trying to make a buck off the effort. She sent out a fundraising email accusing Fox of being "extremists."
That's pretty rich even for a leftist thug and serial liar.
It's not known how much ACORN had to pay Brave New Films, a 501(c)(4) advocacy nonprofit, to shill for it.
We may never know. ACORN will find a way not to report the related expenditures on its tax returns. Fraud is ACORN's business.
Meanwhile, the congressional ban on federal funding of ACORN expires on the weekend.
CBO: House Bill Costs $1.055 Trillion
Posted by on 10.29.09 @ 5:30PM
The Congressional Budget Office is out with its analysis of the House Democrats' health care bill. The headline number -- likely to be widely cited in media accounts -- is that the bill costs $894 billion over 10 years. But in reality, the CBO says that the gross cost of the bill will be $1.055 trillion. The $894 billion number reflects the taxes being paid by individuals who don't have insurance and employers who don't provide insurance.
In addition, the bill relies on some of the same budgetary gimmicks as the Senate Finance Committee's bill. Once again, we see that the Democrats backload the spending provisions into the final six years of the CBO's 10 year budget window to make it appear cheaper. Specifically, the CBO says the bill's gross spending will be $60 billion in the first four years, and $995 billion in the next six years (or 94 percent of the total).
Also, while the CBO says that the bill will reduce deficits by $104 billion over 10 years and keep reducing the deficit (albiet slightly) beyond that, it cautions that these estimates assume that proposed budget cuts will actually get enacted by future members of Congress. "These longer-term projections assume that the provisions of H.R. 3962 are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades, which is often not the case for major legislation," the CBO director Douglas Elmendorf wrote. "The long-term budgetary impact of H.R. 3962 could be quite different if those provisions generating savings were ultimately changed or not fully implemented."
The CBO estimate doesn't include the more than $200 billion it will cost to prevent scheduled cuts to doctors' payments under Medicare, which Democrats intend to pass through separate legislation.
The bill would also add 15 million people to the Medicaid rolls, costing states an additional $34 billion over 10 years.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the CBO report doesn't say anything about whether the bill actually bends the health care cost curve. To be clear, while it estimates -- with caveats -- that the bill will reduce deficits, that isn't the same thing as reducing national health care expenditures, which is how people derive all those statistics about how high of a percentage of GDP we spend on health care compared with other countries. If you hike taxes high enough, you can get the CBO to say it reduces deficits on paper, but that's a lot different from bringing down the actual costs of health care to our nation.
Vince Young and the Restless
Posted by on 10.29.09 @ 3:20PM
It sounds like the Tennessee Titans' record has finally gotten so bad as to make Vince Young look good.
Health Care Bill Forces Insurers To Justify Rate Increases to Government
Posted by on 10.29.09 @ 2:46PM
I've been reading through the 1,990 page health care bill, and thought I'd pass along this part, which jumped out at me:
The Secretary of Health and Human Services, in conjunction with States, shall establish a process for the annual review of increases in premiums for health insurance coverage. Such process shall require health insurance issuers to submit a justification for any premium increases prior to implementation of the increase.
Dude! 'Harold and Kumar' Actor Part of NEA Obama Propaganda Art Conspiracy
Posted by on 10.29.09 @ 1:55PM
Actor Kal Penn (whose real name is Kalpen S. Modi), who now works in the Obama White House outreach office, participated in the conspiracy aimed at encouraging artists to produce art to serve as pro-Obama propaganda.
So suggest documents obtained by Judicial Watch as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request.
Penn portrayed 'Kumar,' a pot-obsessed would-be medical student, in Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle and a sequel.
The plot to use government funds to generate art promoting the Obama administration's agenda was revealed in a teleconference call run by the White House and the National Endowment for the Arts.
Flashbacks
Posted by on 10.29.09 @ 1:44PM
I was reminded that I have written a number of blog posts in the past about conservative pioneer Dave Treen, who died today. These are three I wrote last year:
Here.
Here.
Again, RIP.
Pelosi's 6 Million?
Posted by on 10.29.09 @ 1:41PM
When he addressed the Joint Session of Congress in September, President Obama lowered the number of uninsured to 30 million to support his argument that illegals wouldn't be covered. Today, Speaker Pelosi announced that her bill will cover 36 million uninsured.
Pelosi's 6 Million?
By Asher Embry
There're 30 million uninsured, according to our
Prez.
Her new bill covers 36, that's what Pelosi says.
We've come to know dear Nancy -- expect all kinds of
tricks.
Our question’s really simple: Who are these other
6?
(You can read more of Asher Embry's Political Verse at www.politicalverse.com.)
One Last (for now) on Dave Treen
Posted by on 10.29.09 @ 12:42PM
The Wikipedia entry on the late Dave Treen is pretty accurate. It doesn't include mention of his tax cuts, or of his other good-government reforms, and it of course doesn't get much into his congressional service, which was decidedly conservative, where he was a big ally of Jack Kemp and mentor of Bob Livingston.....
Treen Video
Posted by on 10.29.09 @ 11:42AM
Here's a video that tells Dave Treen's story. I don't know why it is cut off at the end. Here's the important thing for conservatives to remember: Building what we have now was NOT easy. We too often forget the struggles we endured, and therefore don't learn the lessons from them. Dave Treen ran and lost. He ran and lost again. He ran and lost again. He ran and lost AGAIN. All that, before he ever won his first race. This persistence is what it took to build a party and a movement. Our commitment should be no less.
Pelosi Drops 1,990 Page Health Care Bill
Posted by on 10.29.09 @ 11:16AM
Speaker Nancy Pelosi just unveiled the House Democrats' health care bill, which is 1,990 pages (PDF here). You'll forgive me if I haven't yet read all of it, but the clear takeaway is that as expected, the bill is to the left of the Senate version. It includes a mandate that forces individuals to purchase insurance or pay a tax, as well as a requirement that employers provide insurance or pay a tax. It also creates government-run insurance exchanges on which a government-run plan would be offered alongside privately-administered plans that would be subject to heavier government regulation.
Pelosi said that the bill would cost less than $900 billion over 10 years, wouldn't add to the deficit, and would expand coverage to 36 million who do not have health insurance. The problem with the $900 billion estimate is that it doesn't include over $200 billion in costs for a so called "doc fix" which was included in the initial bill that was priced at over $1 trillion. Instead, as the Senate tried to do, the House will move separate legislation to prevent scheduled cuts to doctors' payments under Medicare.
Scanning through the bill, I noticed that the bill would add a new section to the federal tax code: "PART VIII:HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES." Among the new taxes are penalties for individuals who don't purchase insurance and employers who don't provide insurance, income tax surcharges of up to 5.6% to those earning more than $1 million, and a 2.5% excise tax on medical devices.
Will provide updates as I read through the bill.
In Honor of Dave Treen
Posted by on 10.29.09 @ 11:10AM
I am in mourning. My very first political hero died this morning. Former Louisiana Gov. Dave Treen died at age 81 of a lung ailment. I was in touch just two days ago and they had no idea it was a lung thing; they thought he had just wrenched his back.
My mom pushed me around in a baby carriage while campaigning for Treen in 1964. My father helped strategize for his first campaign in 1962. My Treen stories are boundless. I will write more, much more, on him later.
For short notice on this blog post, though, let this be noted: When Dave Treen first started running for office in Louisiana as a Republican, there were only around 10,000 registered Republicans IN THE WHOLE STATE. He became the first Repub to win a congressional seat there since Reconstruction, and then the first GOP governor since Reconstruction. His election to governor in 1979 was a key forerunner of the Reagan Revolution. Once he was elected, GOP registration in LA tripled within about 18 months.
His governorship was high-minded but not very politically successful, at least not in the short term. But he did plant the seeds of reform. And he remained a HUGE player on the political scene. And healso played an incredibly important, and brave, role in blocking the ascendancy of neo-Nazi David Duke.
A good man has died today. May the Lord bless him for eternity, and may the Lord comfort his family and friends. David Conner Treen, RIP. A very well-earned peace, at that.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 10.29.09 @ 10:50AM
- Iranian Supreme Leader declares that it is a crime to question the integrity of the disputed elections (Associated Press)
- Obama signs defense spending bill that includes hate crimes legislation (Fox News)
- Not worried about rationing? The shortage of swine flu vaccines has left questions about the national government's ability to provide health care (New York Times)
- A clear-cut example of why more troops appear to be needed: the Taliban takes over Nuristan Province after our strained troops leave (Asia Times Online)
NY23: MoveOn.org Slams Hoffman As 'Sarah Palin Wing' of GOP
Posted by on 10.29.09 @ 10:05AM
When the Soros-backed online group MoveOn.org wants to strike contribution-inducing fear in the hearts of its liberal e-mail list, they know whose name to use:
Warning: A bizarre House race in upstate New York could end up giving a big national boost to Sarah Palin and the far right, and endangering health care reform in the House.
Here's how: In a three-way race, Doug Hoffman, a right-wing third party candidate, has gotten Sarah Palin's endorsement and become a cause célèbre for the far-right fringe. . . .
The right-wing teabagger activists who spent the summer disrupting town halls are showering Hoffman with donations and volunteers. And, unfortunately, it's working. . . .
If Hoffman wins, teabaggers and hate groups will have their own representative in Congress. The far right will be emboldened. And a victory for an anti-reform teabagger just before the big health care votes will send exactly the wrong message to Democrats who are nervous about their own re-election. . . .
It would dramatically strengthen the Sarah Palin wing of the Republican party. . . .
Et cetera, et cetera, and the e-mail directs recipients to this donations page. Former Clinton aide Paul Begala has also sent out a fundraising e-mail for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, warning about the "tea party crowd," invoking Palin's name, and depicting the Hoffman campaign as evidence that the "inmates have taken over the asylum."
Panicky liberals -- the kind of free publicity money can't buy! Of course, the Hoffman candidacy has also stirred fear in the hearts of some Republican worry-warts, but that's to be expected. The hand-wringers always have to have something to wring their hands about.
Tomato, To-mah-to, AstroTurfing, Community Organizing...
Posted by on 10.29.09 @ 9:55AM
Let's call the whole thing off. Or, at least, my part.
The Democratic majority objected to my appearing at a House hearing on Thursday morning addressing AstroTurfing in the global warming advocacy industry. The majority were not amused by the prospect of a discordant note being struck. As such, the Republicans will have no witnesses. They have agreed to this after being challenged. In Washington, times such as these are called "weekdays".
The hearing actually has devolved into something of an effort to rehabilitate certain Members who are now imperiled by their vote for the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, particularly Tom Periello of Central Virginia (my Congressman, who has been hoodwinked by someone into stating, in defense of his vote, that the reason we are losing jobs to India and China is because they've already passed Waxman-Markey-type laws. Really. I agree we need to find out who is spreading such scurrilous tales to our lawmakers).
So, Rep. Periello will open the proceedings with a statement. The hearing was already delayed once because he refused to let anyone see what he was going to say in advance. They might ask questions. I don't think that's much of a threat.
Anyhow, it seems that pointing out how, where and by whom this practice of AstroTurfing and otherwise of deceitful industry lobbying in the "global warming" context was invented, how it's been engaged, and employing (with substantiation) inconvenient words like "Axelrod" and "Enron" was deemed non-germane. It addressed AstroTurfing by companies and people pushing this agenda, as opposed to by those opposing it. That's just not relevant. Anyone can see.
In the face of this objection, on Wednesday evening the principals met. In very brief, the minority has agreed to agree to the majority's wishes. The hearing will go on with no need to sully things by allowing you to hear the following. I believe that the Republicans will seek to introduce my written statement into the record. But of course, they also... well, never mind.
In the event that lightning strikes twice and the grave offense of introducing contrary thought in the form of my written, substantiated testimony is also objected to by the majority, here's my slightly shorter oral testimony that would have been delivered. Apparently there's something very, very dangerous about it. I cannot figure out what that might be given the umbrage being taken at AstroTurfing and the solemn vows to expose the wantonness, so I leave it to you.
Please forgive typos along the lines of "thank you for allowing me to testify" and the like, as they are in the original:
DELIVERED TESTIMONY OF CHRISTOPHER C. HORNER
SENIOR FELLOW, COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND GLOBAL WARMING, HEARING ON "ASTROTURFNG"
October 29, 2009
Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to testify today, and I would like to thank the Members of this Committee for allowing me to address the long-overdue issue of deceptive practices, specifically "Astroturfing," in the "global warming" policy arena.
Such practices have existed for years throughout environmental policy, both from inside and coordinated with government, environmental pressure groups and industry.
Examples abound of "Astroturfing" and other deceptive practices to push the global warming agenda. Recently, the Environmental Defense Action Fund used Craigslist to recruit paid "activists" to rally support for cap-and-trade in the guise of a grassroots movement.
We all witnessed last week's dishonest advocacy effort by the activist group "Yes Men". About this, Daniel Henninger wrote in the Wall Street Journal:[1]
"...the cable news stations, wire services and Web sites reported that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had recanted its opposition to climate-change legislation. It was a hoax. Incredibly (well maybe not so incredibly), the hoax was perpetrated by an activist group in a room at the National Press Club in Washington in front of reporters who've risen to the top of their industry. The hoaxers had created a fake Web site and faked a Chamber press release. The made-up press conference ran about 20 minutes until someone from the real Chamber of Commerce showed up yelling, ‘This is a fraud!' Too late. Credulous TV and wire reporters had sent the Chamber's climate flip-flop into an already confused world."
The merits of these practices of course do not hinge on whether they agree with one's position. As AEI's Ken Green was quoted as saying, however, "When someone else does it, it's astroturfing; when you do it, it's community organizing."[2]
Astroturfing is no stranger to the energy industry, purportedly perfected by Chicago-based utility Exelon, which hired David Axelrod's public affairs firm to create a front group to achieve the same end as sought by cap-and-trade, which is a rate increase.
As Newsweek wrote, when an Exelon arm "wanted state lawmakers to back a hefty rate hike":
"it took a creative lobbying approach, concocting a new outfit that seemed devoted to the public interest: Consumers Organized for Reliable Electricity, or CORE. CORE ran TV ads warning of a ‘California-style energy crisis' if the rate increase wasn't approved-but without disclosing the commercials were funded by Commonwealth Edison. The ad campaign provoked a brief uproar when its ties to the utility, which is owned by Exelon Corp., became known. ‘It's corporate money trying to hoodwink the public,' the state's Democratic Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn said."[3]
Last year Business Week wrote about this component of Exelon's $15 million effort to convince ratepayers to agree to pay more for energy, calling the campaign the "gold standard in Astroturf organizing".
Exelon is of course again in the news of late for leading a campaign, sold by public affairs professionals as an exodus from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce based upon environmental principle but which, upon scrutiny, is a collection of largely "rent-seeking" companies standing to make as much as one billion dollars per year on the backs of ratepayers from cap-and-trade according to media reports.
Most will also recall when gas interest Chesapeake Energy emerged, in the words of a Houston Chronicle writer, as "one of the only companies that has fessed up to funding a recent advertising campaign against Dallas-based TXU's plans to build up to 11 new coal-fired power plants... with no clear notice of who was behind it. Chesapeake admitted to funding the campaign, at least in part, after reporters did some digging."[4]
Several internal memoranda have surfaced about Enron's pioneering effort in the late 1990s, to leverage green pressure groups to advocate for its new creation called carbon cap-and-trade. One memo in particular stated how:
"Enron now has excellent credentials with many ‘green' interests including Greenpeace, WWF, NRDC, German Watch, the U.S. Climate Action Network, the European Climate Action Network, Ozone Action, WRI, and Worldwatch."
"This position should be increasingly cultivated and capitalized on (monitized)."
The misspelling in the parenthetical is in the original but I believe the point is clear. This list is by no means exhaustive, as I note in detail in my written testimony.
As the Journal's Henninger also wrote, "With fakery everywhere-some of it amusing, some of it not funny-people's ability to know where things fall on the spectrum between fact and falsity becomes so compromised that they retreat into a shell of cynicism about everything."
Hopefully today's effort, allowing an airing however brief of the tactics used to promote the "global warming" agenda, will also assist this ongoing education campaign.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these remarks today.
The Day Ahead: October 29
Posted by on 10.29.09 @ 6:30AM
Today on the main site:
- In Defense of Principled Moderates, by Quin Hillyer
- Thin Reids, by George Neumayr
- Where the Girls Are, by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
- Not-So-Gentle-Ben, by Stephen Moore
Comment of the day:
Reader Mary Louise on Brandon Crocker's Lessons of the Fall:
Adams said that our own revolution was really an evolution, in that the final decisions leading to war had a history that was definable, digested and well-ordered.
I'm on the second volume of Gibbon's Decline and Fall, and I appreciate his talent so much. It's a joy to learn how to use language from him. And thank you for this review.
I do think a Nation grows weary. I'm not sure if we're tired or not, but I suspect we are.
I read a piece recently that called for a complete reordering; a hard and fast break back to a stark and undeniable federalism. And though I'm sure the writer didn't intend it, his piece read like an assault against civilization as it exists today, in the concrete. He wrote that, no doubt, there would be pain, but what can that mean for us as a Nation comprised of so many millions of souls? What will that mean concretely?
A Union fought the Cold War, not 50 disparate States, each of its own accord, deciding that the Evil Empire had to fall. For better or worse, we're a Union now in body and soul. Was it Chesterton who said we were a Nation with a soul?
I think our biggest strength, as long as it holds, is that we're an idea. We're also not Manicheans. Voegelin found refuge here. Popper found hope in America when he'd despaired of it elsewhere. These men were not only influential, they were at odds.
The Puritans are thought to have been Manichean, but I'm not so sure. In one of his books, C. S. Lewis noted that a correct view of the Puritans would have to be one that was opposite of the one we presently hold of those who currently bear that name.
NYS is a very underrated State in terms of its beauty and variety. Letchworth State Park and some of the surrounding hamlets let you easily peek back into history. Homes, a few as old as 150 years, meticulously built and maintained. Minor details that transform merchant class homes and even some agrarian homes into veritable works of art. Precision and beauty without bombast; I’m intensely attracted to that.
My dad is a stone-cutter and his handiwork dots the small town that I grew up in. It will remain long after he’s gone. We always had a pile of burgundy sandstone and a pile of sand in a small area in our back yard. And there my dad would be with his chisel, and there I would be sitting on one of the stones, and being with my dad. I love the heft and cool feeling of stone. Yet when I travel to Italy I make it a point to visit a small church in a town called Pescocostanzo. For whatever reason this town avoided the Allied bombings. The Altar, the pulpit, are all wood. Beautifully worked wood. Warm and lively wood. It was as beautiful as St. Peter's to me. Maybe more so.
What to watch for:
- Assistant Minister of Finance Zoran Cirovic of Serbia is Moscow-bound to discuss Russia-Serbia economic cooperation. Russia and Serbia now have more in common than their shared opinion on Kosovo. With Russia's loan of 1 billion USD, Serbia will improve its infrastructure and cover its budget deficit.
Game of the day:
Wednesday's best:
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
And Julius Caesar Was A Tyrant, Mr. Landesman
Posted by on 10.28.09 @ 8:21PM
Here's yet another reason why government should not be involved in funding the arts.
According to Rocco Landesman, chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, President Obama is "the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar."
Is Caesar the best example Landesman could come up with?
Caesar, as students of history know, was a tyrant who brought radical change to Rome, converting it from a republic to a dictatorship.
NRO also takes Landesman to task for his ahistoric observation.
Could ACORN Provide Systemic Risk Oversight?
Posted by on 10.28.09 @ 7:25PM
At the Investor's Business Daily blog American Spectator alumnus Dr. David Hogberg reflects on whether the proposed "Financial Stability Improvement Act" would give ACORN an opportunity to advise the Financial Services Oversight Committee that the legislation would create.
The new entity would monitor the financial services market for systemic risks and identify companies that could pose such risks.
The legislation seems so vaguely worded that it does seem possible that ACORN could provide feedback on big corporations. Those corporations, as it turns out, are often targets in ACORN's ongoing shakedown racket.
Zingales on Pro-Market Populism
Posted by on 10.28.09 @ 4:55PM
The Chicago economist Luigi Zingales has written an article on pro-market populism that is timely in light of yesterday's announcement regarding the administration's plans for re-regulation. It's well-worth reading. He talks about the difference between being pro-business and pro-market, and explains why the GOP should be the latter but that unfortunately it's been the former recently. One key line:
A pro-market party will fight tirelessly against letting firms become so big that they cannot be allowed to fail, since such firms may take risks that ordinary companies would never dream of.
Notice that this line is an explicitly anti-big business line. Zingales is suggesting the kind of reform that is necessary to prevent highly connected firms from ripping of the taxpayers. It's a reform that Republicans would need some convincing to appreciate, but one that liberals and Democrats should be naturally inclined to like. Unfortunately, it doesn't at all resemble the reforms that Obama and Barney Frank want.
Crist Caught in Act
Posted by on 10.28.09 @ 4:54PM
Red State's Erick Erickson caught the Crist folks in the act of an anonymous sneak attack against Marco Rubio. This comes within a week of Erick tracing some ethically dubious financial dealings of DeDe Scozafava. Gee, if Erick can do all that from Macon, GA while also serving as a city councilman there, why the hell can't outfits like the New York Times and CBS, with hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of reporters, ever break stories like these? Anyway, hats off to Erick. And shame on Crist (and Scozzafava). What IS it with RINOs facing unexpected challenges from the right?
The "Public Option" Trap
Posted by on 10.28.09 @ 3:33PM
Yesterday, I wrote that if Sen. Harry Reid proceeds to the floor with a health care bill that includes a government plan, he risks derailing the whole health care effort. And I thought that was worth fleshing out a bit more.
The key thing to keep in mind about yesterday's Joe Lieberman news is that there are actually several filibuster threats that Reid will have to overcome. The first major one will be on whether he can bring the health care bill to the floor for debate, and the last major hurdle will be on whether he can cut off debate and bring a final bill to a vote. Lieberman has said that he's inclined to vote with Reid on the first one, and thus allow the bill to be debated and amended, but that at the end of the process, if the bill still includes a government plan, he would join with Republicans to block a vote.
The reason why this is so tricky for Reid is that once a bill gets to the floor, it's very difficult to change it. For instance, if the bill includes a government plan, it would require 60 votes to strip that measure from the bill. So if Lieberman is serious about his threat to filibuster a government-run plan, what that means is there's a risk a bill could get trapped on the Senate floor. In other words, liberals won't provide Reid with the 60 votes needed to ditch the government plan, but if the government plan isn't ditched, Reid won't have the votes to cut off debate and proceed to a simple majority vote on the final bill.
With that said, a Senate GOP source cautions that once Reid gets the bill to the floor, he has the ability to spread around all sorts of goodies to bribe reluctant moderate Democrats into at least supporting the vote to cut off debate and proceed with a vote, even if they ultimately vote against the final bill. That's why Republicans argue that it's important to make sure that the bill doesn't even get to the floor in the first place. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has emphasized that moderate Democrats shouldn't be allowed to get away with drawing a distinction between a vote to consider the bill and a final vote on the bill itself.
On that point, McConnell seems to have agreement from Indiana Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh. As Politico reported:
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.): Democratic leaders should be able to tell where Bayh is headed based on his vote on whether to move to a debate. The Indiana Democrat said Tuesday that he doesn’t see “much difference between process and policy at this particular juncture,” and that he’ll be “looking at those two things as one and the same.”
The bottom line, says the Senate GOP source, is: "If people oppose the bill, they have to let Democrats know they consider that first cloture vote as the vote on the bill."
Babbling Burris
Posted by on 10.28.09 @ 2:12PM
Via Liz Mair, I see this video of Sen. Roland Burris making absolutely no sense at a Senate hearing. A flavor:
So, Mr. President, I really don’t have many questions, I just — I got more questions than I have answers, Mr. Chairman, in reference to this, because I — I just sit here and listen to the experts talk, and every time there was a statement made, there’s a — there’s a new question come to my mind, well, what about this? What ifs — What if? What if? And — and so, I find this so fascinating...
Watch the fascinating video:
Scary Stuff Coming
Posted by on 10.28.09 @ 1:53PM
At Shaving Leviathan, my friend Jeff Perren gives us a taste of what is in store for us AFTER we finish fighting against Obamacare. Hint: It ain't pretty. Jeff provides ample warning.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 10.28.09 @ 1:40PM
- Max Boot: Obama's Afghanistan prescription will lead to disaster.
- Plurality of Americans now support a troop increase in Afghan War (NBC)
- Reported strategy would not be a full-scale attack on the Taliban (New York Times)
- $678K of federal money being spent to study the happiness of people's Tweets (Vermont Cynic)
Alan Grayson and the Lobbyist of Babylon
Posted by on 10.28.09 @ 1:15PM
Congressman Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), that charming fellow of "die quickly" fame for whom sorry seems to be the hardest word, has apologized for calling a female lobbyist a "K Street whore."
Obama WH Gives Perks to Big Donors
Posted by on 10.28.09 @ 1:08PM
Being a major Obama donor has its benefits, the Washington Times reports:
During his first nine months in office, President Obama has quietly rewarded scores of top Democratic donors with VIP access to the White House, private briefings with administration advisers and invitations to important speeches and town-hall meetings.
High-dollar fundraisers have been promised access to senior White House officials in exchange for pledges to donate $30,400 personally or to bundle $300,000 in contributions ahead of the 2010 midterm elections, according to internal Democratic National Committee documents obtained by The Washington Times.
One top donor described in an interview with The Times being given a birthday visit to the Oval Office. Another was allowed use of a White House-complex bowling alley for his family. Bundlers closest to the president were invited to watch a movie in the red-walled theater in the basement of the presidential mansion.
The whole thing is worth a read. These are the stories, that once they accumulate, really hurt a president because they are objectionable in completely non-ideological way. In Obama's case they have special significance, because one of the major themes of his campaign was that he was going to do away with the relationship between politics and big money, specifically how money is traded for access. The more of these stories Americans read, the more it will reinforce the idea that Obama is just like any other politician, just "more of the same," as opposed to something different.
NY23: What Was Really Behind the Scozzafava Pick?
Posted by on 10.28.09 @ 12:19PM
Conservative blogger Dan Riehl has a report on the process that led to the choice of liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava as the GOP candidate in the crucial congressional election in upstate New York's 23rd District. Supporters of Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman have expressed mystification of how Scozzafava was chosen, and there is widespread outrage among conservatives about the NRCC's attacks on Hoffman and reported deployment of NRCC staff to NY23.
Dan links both an Oct. 8 Prowler item about NRCC Chairman Rep. Pete Sessions and Michael Patrick Leahey's three-page TCOT report about the New York GOP machinations in the nomination process. Dan's account pushes the story further, however, with his sources discussing the alleged role of former NRCC Chairman Tom Reynolds and NRCC Executive Director Guy Harrison in the choice of Scozzafava.
NRCC staff are said to be very angry about Riehl's report, so by all means, read the whole thing.
UPDATE 12:40 p.m. ET: Dan Riehl has received an official denial from the NRCC. Michael Patrick Leahey has more at TCOT.
Baucus Has "Serious Reservations" About Climate Bill
Posted by on 10.28.09 @ 11:59AM
The New York Times reported yesterday that Senate Finance Committe Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) has "serious reservations" about the Kerry-Boxer cap-and-trade bill. Baucus wants to to lower the bill's 2020 target for greenhouse gas emissions and has also wants to attach pre-emption language to the bill that prevents the EPA from implementing the Supreme Court's 2007 decision opening the door to new greenhouse gas emission standards.
"We cannot avoid a first step that takes us further away from an achievable consensus from common-sense climate change legislation," the NYT quotes Baucus as saying. "We could build that consensus here in this committee. If we don't, we risk wasting another month, another year, another Congress, without taking a step forward to our future."
Billionaire Capitalist Gives Millions to Fight Capitalism
Posted by on 10.28.09 @ 11:54AM
Billionaire financier George Soros is giving $50 million to found an anti-free market think tank. The think tank, to be called "The Institute for New Economic Thinking," would help "take back the economics profession from the champions of free-market zealotry who have dominated it for decades, and to correct the failures of decades of market deregulation," according to the unbiased news publication Newsweek. Soros reportedly already has left-wing economists like Joseph Stiglitz and Jeffrey Sachs on board for the project.
It would add to a number of American think tanks and media outlets in Soros's employ.
Too Big for Frank
Posted by on 10.28.09 @ 11:37AM
Last night the Treasury and Barney Frank, head of the House Financial Services Committee, unveiled a draft of legislation intended to address the regulation of "too big to fail" banks and financial institutions.
The main provision of the jointly-written legislation would be to impose the costs of bailouts of a systemically-important firms on other big firms. Regulators would assess companies with more than $10 billion in assets with fees to go into a pool to finance bailouts of other "too big to fail" banks.
The idea is that any firms large enough to warrant an implicit bailout should bear the costs of any similar bank that is bailed out because regulators consider it too big to fail, thereby sparing taxpayers the bill for rescuing companies that took on too much risk because they knew the feds had their back.
The New York Times is reporting that the assessments for the bailout fund would only be levied after the collapse of a systemically important firm.
Initial thoughts:
1. This plan would give big banks incentives very similar to those that Fannie and Freddie faced. Once firms reach the arbitrary $10 billion cutoff, they know that they have socialized risks. Bank managers will not care if those risks are shared with other large financial institutions or the general public. In other words, the regulators will create an identifiable group of firms that are designated to receive bailouts in case of a collapse.
2. The provision that the assessments for the bailout fund will only be made after a firm collapses seems like a large drawback. Consider that the recent collapses happened because the industry as a whole was on the verge of a collapse. If this measure had been in place when Bear Stearns was going under, would regulators really have considered going to other banks and asking them to draw on their own weak balance sheets to fund the bailout? Wouldn't it be more likely that banks would get them to suspend or postpone the assessments?
3. The overall solution is much more palatable for the financial industry than a Glass-Steagall II or firm size-restriction measure would be.
More on this topic soon.
Is the Fix in for the Air Tanker?
Posted by on 10.28.09 @ 10:41AM
I have been writing for well over a year that the "fix" appears to be in, to give the crucial air tanker contract to an inferior Boeing product. Well, now the entire Alabama delegation to Congress seems to agree. Calling many aspects of the new Pentagon Request for PRoposal "unconscionable," the senators and Reps say that it does not put the needs ofour airmen first. A particularly sharp line: "This approach makes a mockery of the capability that our warfighters truly value where, for example, water flow in the toilet has [effectively but terribly unwisely been given by the Pentagon] equal importance to fuel flow in the refueling boom."
The Alabama delegation is right. I think Secretary Gates and company are guilty of some sort of malfeasance -- not necessarily anything illegal, but morally, ethically, operationally, and logically. They seem more worried about sucking up to Boeing's political might than they do about best serving the airmen whose lives will be on the line.
For shame.
Transparent as a stone wall
Posted by on 10.28.09 @ 10:34AM
My latest at the Washington Times, about Obama breaking his pledge to run a "transparent" administration. It's actually a pretty scary trend, what the administration is doing to stonewall legitimate inquiries.
Mitt Moves Goal Posts on RomneyCare
Posted by on 10.28.09 @ 10:31AM
Appearing on CNN last night, Mitt Romney conceded that the Massachusetts health care plan he signed into law did nothing to control costs. But, he now says, it was never intended to.
"We were unable to deal with -- and didn't have any pretense we would somehow be able to change -- health care costs in Massachusetts," Romney said. "That's a whole different topic, which is how do we get the cost of health care down in America."
The problem with Romney's account is that at the time he signed the bill, he was saying it would bring down health care costs. Specifically, in a triumphant April 2006 Wall Street Journal op-ed titled "Health Care for Everyone? We Found a Way," Romney boasted: "Every uninsured citizen in Massachusetts will soon have affordable health insurance and the costs of health care will be reduced." (Emphasis mine.)
Romney, for the most part, was able to avoid criticism for his Massachusetts health care plan in the 2008 Republican primaries. At the time, it was still too soon to evaluate the program with hard data and Republican primary voters weren't really paying attention to the issue of health care. But now both things have changed -- the legislation has proved disastrous for state finances, the cost of premiums, and doctors' wait times. In addition, Republican voters have become more aware of health care policy issues. And Romney's plan is basically the Baucus bill at the state level: a government mandate forcing individuals to purchase health insurance or pay a tax, and government subsidies to help individuals purchase government-designed insurance policies on a government-run exchange.
It's not surprising to see that as he lays the groundwork for a likely presidential run, Tim Pawlenty has made health care a major focus. One of the biggest obstacles Pawlenty will face in seeking the Republican nomination is the sense that he's a big government "Sam's Club" Republican. Clearly, he sees health care as one issue on which he can credibly position himself to the right of Romney.
Those Scrappy White House Underdogs
Posted by on 10.28.09 @ 9:57AM
You can't really blame Valerie Jarrett for backpedaling to avoid having to call the loyal Obama disciples over at MSNBC biased in this interview with Campbell Brown, but it's fairly gobstopping to hear her blithely insist, "What the administration is saying is we're going to speak truth to power." Crikey! These people can't get out of the ivy league bull session mentality--or is it Bill Ayers' living room. Whatevs.
Valerie, hate to break it you, but you are the Power that Be, or, as Rocco "Barack Obama is the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar" Landesman, head of the National Endowment for the Arts--who Jarrett interviewed for the position, incidentally--would perhaps rather put it, the Romans.
Nevertheless, seeing as I hate to invalidate someone's feelings, I've just now put my fist in air and am declaring my solidarity with you and all the other poor, downtrodden, oppressed revolutionaries in the West Wing. You shall overcome, I just know it!
The End of Big Government Conservatism
Posted by on 10.28.09 @ 9:29AM
An older essay in which I make that case that big government conservatism is futile is now online.
Comeback Corzine?
Posted by on 10.28.09 @ 9:01AM
Democratic New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine jumps to a 5-point lead in the latest Quinnipiac poll with a week to go until the election. He has trailed Republican challenger Chris Christie all year, but has spent liberally and also been aided by the independent candidacy of Steve Daggett. Even this poll shows the race to be fluid, because 38 percent of Daggett backers may change their minds before election day and their second choice is predominantly Christie. Rasmussen still has Christie up by three.
The Day Ahead: October 28th
Posted by on 10.28.09 @ 6:30AM
Today on the main site:
- Unscientific American, by William Tucker
- The Individual Mandate Slope, by Christopher Orlet
- Determined to Decline, by Peter Ferrara
- Lessons of the Fall, by Brandon Crocker
Comment of the day:
Reader Nick on Catholic Bishops 'Misrepresented' by Fox, Talk Radio Attackers:
I never heard of "So We Might See" until today, so I can't comment on the specifics or the goals of this loose confederation.
But for those who would use the membership of the USCCB as a cudgel to bash the Roman Catholic Church, let me "enlighten" you with some facts.
The USCCB is comprised of the bishops of the U.S. And like too many of the dioceses in the country, they let lay "Catholics" or nuns do the grunt work of their committees and departments. This is where the liberalism comes from. Most of these nuns and lay faithful are in fact activists trying to change the Church from within.
Archbishop Chaput is a faithful Catholic bishop who takes his office as teacher of the Faith and shepherd of his flock seriously. I trust what he says.
Also, the Catholic Church is not a political organization, despite what some might think. The bishops of the USCCB will not care if Soros is involved if they think "So We Might See" can do some good works, i.e. do the work of the Gospel.
The USCCB is always looking to "dialog", which gets it in trouble sometimes. Mostly, due to the lay activists, who sometimes leak subcommittee draft reports to the media, who "report" that it came from USCCB.
So to compare this situation to "supporting" PlannedParenthood but not the abortions they execute, isn't even apples and oranges. It is like comparing apples and ... well ... abortions.
What to watch for:
- Pres. Obama will sign a new Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which will protect specifically victims of hate crimes who were targeted for their sexual preference. He will make a speech about it afterwards at 4:45pm (ET).
Game of the day:
Tuesday's best:
The Church of Scientology has been convicted of fraud:
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Secretary Tim Geithner and Tax Fairness
Posted by on 10.27.09 @ 10:59PM
Apparently reformed tax evader, er, incompetent TurboTax user, Tim Geithner is concerned about catching tax cheats. In a statement released on (horrors!) off-shore tax evasion, he observed:
This legislation will reduce the amount of taxes lost through the illegal use of hidden accounts and is the next step in making sure that everyone pays their fair share.
Certainly we must make sure that everyone pays their fair share. Thank you Secretary Geithner.
ACORN Pleads Not Guilty in Nevada Election Conspiracy Case
Posted by on 10.27.09 @ 8:49PM
ACORN and former ACORN executive Amy Busefink pleaded not guilty today to illegally paying canvassers to register Nevada voters in the 2008 presidential campaign.
A trial has been set for April 19 of next year. The date may be changed as an attorney reported a scheduling conflict.
Lawyers for ACORN and Busefink say they plan to challenge the constitutionality of the Nevada state law.
The prosecution's star witness is expected to be former ACORN Las Vegas field director Christopher Edwards. Charged with election fraud by Nevada's Democratic attorney general, he cut a deal with prosecutors and has pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy to commit the crime of compensation for registration of voters.
Holder to Blacks: You're Too Stupid
Posted by on 10.27.09 @ 5:03PM
The news side of the Washington Times already did a great story on this, and folks like Hans von Spakovsky, Abigail Thernstrom and others have done good commentary on it as well (I'm too short of time to find and provide all the links, for which I apologize, but I'll try to come back later and edit them in), but today we at the Wash Times editorial page explain in no uncertain terms just how morally and legally bankrupt is the Justice Department's decision last month to block a small North Carolina town from holding nonpartisan local elections. The Justice Department itself doesn't use the words we use, of course, but the absolutely clear implication of their decision and arguments is that black voters can't be trusted to know their own minds. Among other things, we say, perhaps somewhat puckishly, that DoJ's attitude is "antebellum." Do click through to the link. DoJ's position is stunningly outrageous.
NY23 UPDATE: Scozzafava Campaign Using NRCC/RNC Staff
Posted by on 10.27.09 @ 4:43PM
A team of conservative bloggers with 73Wire.com arrived in upstate New York's 23rd District this morning and visited the headquarters of liberal Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava:
Not only is the NRCC pumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into the media campaign of Dede Scozzafava, they're also organizing and coordinating teams of GOTV volunteers in the district. And they're picking up the tab.
Our team just finished meeting with a NRCC volunteer named "James" who works out of the Watertown office for the Scozzafava campaign. James informed us that he was sent to Watertown, NY from Washington D.C. as a volunteer for the NRCC. We asked about expenses, and he said the NRCC was paying for everything.
We had a great chat with James and learned that a good portion of the Scozzafava campaign volunteers were indeed brought in from outside of the district. . . .
Read the whole thing. Meanwhile, the Hoffman campaign just confirmed that Doug Hoffman will not attend tonight's Conservative Party dinner with Mike Huckabee.
Misquoting Scalia
Posted by on 10.27.09 @ 4:42PM
Earlier, an Arizona newspaper, the East Valley Tribune, attributed remarks to Justice Scalia that were quite stunning:
Using his "originalist'' philosophy, Scalia said he likely would have dissented from the historic 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision that declared school segregation illegal and struck down the system of "separate but equal'' public schools. He said that decision, which overturned earlier precedent, was designed to provide an approach the majority liked better. "I will stipulate that it will,'' Scalia said. But he said that doesn't make it right. "Kings can do some stuff, some good stuff, that a democratic society could never do,'' he continued. "Hitler developed a wonderful automobile,'' Scalia said. "What does that prove?''
Scalia for racial segregation? Now that would be some bombshell! Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall initially seized on the remarks with a post headlined, "Telling Revelation."
But as Jack Balkin at Balkinization noted after viewing the video, Scalia actually said he would have dissented in Plessy v. Ferguson, you know, the case that imposed racial segregation.
Marshall, to his credit, updated his post, but the East Valley Tribune merely deleted the erroneous paragraph from its website, without offering an offical correction. Shame on them.
UPDATE: I thought my post was pretty clear, but evidently some commenters still concluded that Scalia said that he would have dissented in Brown. So let me just repeat it again as clearly as I can: Scalia didn't say that he would dissented in Brown. The newspaper account was wrong and the incorrect paragraph has been removed from the newspaper's website.
UPDATE II: The East Valley Tribune has added the following editor's note: This is an updated version of a story that was originally posted Oct. 26. It removes an incorrect reference to Brown v. Board of Education in the initial version.
House Dems Lack Votes For "Robust" Government Plan
Posted by on 10.27.09 @ 4:10PM
Greg Sargeant reports :
House Dem leadership has conducted its preliminary whip count and has tallied up less than 200 likely Yes votes in support of a health care reform bill with a robust public option, well short of the 218 needed for passage, according to an internal whip count document I've obtained....
The document shows that 47 House Dems are committed No votes, and eight are Leaning No, for a total of 56. That means of 256 House Dems, only 200 remain, and a dozen of those are listed as undecided. The bill needs 218 votes for passage.
To be clear, "robust public option" is a code word for a government-run plan that would reimburse doctors and hospitals at Medicare rates, plus five percent. So this whip count wouldn't necessarily apply to a weaker government plan in which rates would be negotiated. (Whether the government could fairly "negotiate" rates is another mattter). The problem is, moving to a weaker form of the government plan could win over some moderates, but also runs the risk of losing liberal members.
Snowe, Lincoln Push Back Against Gov't Plan
Posted by on 10.27.09 @ 3:05PM
Sen. Olympia Snowe has joined Joe Lieberman in vowing to support a filibuster to block a vote on a health care bill that included the government-run plan announced yesterday by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
This news alone would mean that Reid doesn't have the 60 votes he needs to proceed.
But in other news today, Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln reiterated that she does not think a government plan is the way to go.
While she didn't comment on whether or not she would go as far as to filibuster the bill, the Associated Press reports:
"Creating another government-funded option is not where we're going. We don't need to go there," Lincoln told members of the Arkansas Farm Bureau during a video conference. "A government-funded option is something that I think is not the way to go."
The problem Reid faces is that if he pulls back support for the government plan now, it will enrage liberals who will believe he's sold them out to win the support of a few moderates. But if he charges ahead with the government plan proposal, he risks derailing the entire health care effort.
No Accountability
Posted by on 10.27.09 @ 2:48PM
Radley Balko offers a truly disturbing look at how rarely bad prosecutors are punished or sidelined--even when they destroy innocent people's lives.
Momentum for Government Plan Stopped by Joe-Mentum
Posted by on 10.27.09 @ 2:13PM
Yesterday, I wrote that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was taking a huge gamble by presenting health care legislation that included a government plan. Today, his bill hit a major roadblock when Sen. Joe Lieberman declared that he would outright support a filibuster of the proposal.
"I've told Sen. Reid that if the bill stays as it is now I will vote against cloture," Lieberman said, according to the Politico.
Without Lieberman's support, Reid won't have the backing of 60 Senators he needs to bring legislation to the floor for a vote. In addition, Lieberman's stance will take the pressure off Democrats opposed to the government plan, but torn over whether to support their party's leadership or represent their constituents. Those Senators include Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. If the bill doesn't have the 60 votes anyway, why would these red state Senators support a bill and risk a major backlash at home?
Over the past week, the main health care story has been about the resurgence of the so-called "public option." But this news should take some air out of that particular balloon.
Either Reid knows something that we don't, or he just made another colossal blunder counting votes. Last week when he thought he could get 27 Republicans to support a $247 billion "doc fix" bill, but ended up losing 13 Democrats instead.
Methodists Rebuke Soros on Hate Speech Petition
Posted by on 10.27.09 @ 1:56PM
Well, now. First the Catholics, now the Methodists.
The United States Catholic Conference of Bishops has informed us, as reported nearby, that they did not agree to sign onto a petition to the FCC calling for a notice of inquiry into "hate speech" by talk radio host Rush Limbaugh and others on talk radio and Fox News. The petition was sent out by the left-wing So We Might See interfaith group, which claimed support in their media package from the USCCB, the United Methodists, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the Islamic Society of North American. And, of course, the United Church of Christ, my own denomination.
Now comes word that, as with the Catholic Bishops, the Methodists are saying they too never signed on to the FCC petition. Startlingly, the Methodists deny that they even signed up for the Coalition. Here's the exact quote from Mary Lynn Holly of the United Methodist Information Service. A hat tip to an alert reader, Gloria White. Say the Methodists in a clear contradiction of So We Might See:
"United Methodist Communications is not a sponsor of this coalition at this point. Our name was inadvertently added to the sponsorship list in error. It has now been removed."
This is exactly the opposite of what the So We Might See release on the petition says. Says the group: "The So We Might See Coalition is sending this letter to the Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Commerce..." The full letter can be seen here.
The problem here is stark. The United Church of Christ, using funds provided by George Soros and others, informed the world that they had assembled an interfaith religious coalition on hate speech that was taking their case to the FCC.
They listed seven coalition members who had signed onto this, specifically listing the entire So We Might See Coalition as the signers of the petition. Two of the seven faiths have now come forward to say flatly they did not agree to this. Remarkably, the Methodists are not only disowning the FCC petition -- they are even denying membership in the Coalition entirely!
At a minimum this is remarkable sloppiness. Or worse, it was the use of the names and reputations of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the United Methodists to give an impression that simply is in fact not true -- that the leaders of these two faiths are leading a legal assault on free speech as expressed by the people and institutions cited either in the petition itself -- Rush Limbaugh - or in the text and accompanying links of the So We Might See media package -- Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, and Fox News.
Either way an apology is owed to these two groups by Reverend J. Bennett Guess of the United Church of Christ Office of Communications, Inc. and -- hopefully - by the UCC's new president, the Reverend Geoffrey Black.
This is embarrassingly shameful. And the left-wing outside money that is trying to run the UCC bureaucratic agenda should be returned, with the entire project shuttered.
What a mess.
What's At Stake?
Posted by on 10.27.09 @ 1:28PM
To add to what Phil wrote below, I think there's a very simple question to ask when evaluating whether to support a flawed candidate: What's at stake in the election? That should be followed by a second, more complicated question: What is the likeliest outcome of a particular candidate's election?
In Massachusetts, I reluctantly voted for Bill Weld, Paul Cellucci, and the pre-conservative Mitt Romney because I agreed with them on the issues that were actually in play during the election, thought they would have little impact on the issues where I disagreed with them, and found the viable alternative worse. I would have voted for Rudy Giuliani in the New York mayoral races of 1989, 1993, and 1997. But I voted against Weld when he ran for Senate, voted against Romney in the Republican presidential primary, and could not have pulled the lever for Giuliani even in the general election.
Why? For me, the stakes changed. New York City was going to remain pro-choice whether Giuliani lost or won. But it didn't necessarily have to remain mired in high rates of crime, taxes, and welfare dependency. Yet Giuliani as the GOP presidential nominee might have had an impact on whether the Republicans remained a pro-life party. (I wasn't wild about his foreign policy either, but that's another argument for another day.)
What impact will electing Dede Scozzafava have? Best case scenario, not much: she'll be another minority vote for John Boenher for speaker (for now, anyway) in a chamber where the minority seldom has much influence. Worst case scenario, she will create confusion about the Republican brand, frequently vote with the Democrats anyway, and help move the GOP to the left. In a district where there is a better alternative with some realistic chance of success, then party disloyalty seems like a no-brainer.
Newt Blasts Conservatives' "Purge" Mentality
Posted by on 10.27.09 @ 12:19PM
Asked about his support for liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava in the New York-23 special election, Newt Gingrich said on Fox last night:
GINGRICH: Well, there's no question, on social policy, she's a liberal Republican.
VAN SUSTEREN: On such as abortion?
GINGRICH: On such as abortion, gay marriage, which means that she's about where Rudy Giuliani was when he became mayor. And yet Rudy Giuliani was a great mayor. And so this idea that we're suddenly going to establish litmus tests, and all across the country, we're going to purge the party of anybody who doesn't agree with us 100 percent -- that guarantees Obama's reelection. That guarantees Pelosi is Speaker for life. I mean, I think that is a very destructive model for the Republican Party.
The problem is that Gingrich is making a valid point in general, but one that doesn't apply in this specific instance. There's no doubt that if you want to build a majority, you have to be willing to accept less conservative candidates in certain regions where a conservative has no chance of winning. As many problems as I have with Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, I concede that it's unrealistic to believe that we could get a genuine conservative Senator elected in Maine, which Obama won by 17 points. In the case of Giuliani, you were dealing with a city that hadn't elected a Republican who remained a Republican in over 50 years. He was conservative on economic issues, and uniquely suited to deal with the most pressing problem facing the city -- rampant crime. The only option was to support him, or allow David Dinkins to have another disastrous term as mayor.
But the New York Congressional race is entirely different. Scozzafava isn't just a social liberal -- she's an economic liberal, too. She supports card check legislation that would allow labor unions to expand their ranks through intimidation. She called the cops on a conservative journalist who was asking her questions about her position on taxes. And there's actually a conservative in the race who has a realistic chance of winning.
Gingrich made a clear mistake here. Maybe he privately realizes it, maybe he doesn't. But his efforts to double down and explain his decision keep making him look sillier.
ABC Predicts Afghan Troop Announcement in Two Weeks
Posted by on 10.27.09 @ 11:59AM
ABC White House Correspondent Jake Tapper reported that President Obama is likely to announce an increase in troop levels between November 7th and November 11th, when he departs for Asia.
The apparent elephant in the room is that the announcement would be shortly after the November 3rd elections. According to Washington Post polls, the president has lost ten points in approval of how he is handling the Afghan War in the last month. Now, more Americans disapprove of his handling of the war than approve, at 47%-45%.
Another political issue concerns the levels of the troop increases. Tapper reports that the announcement is unlikely to be at the level of 40,000+ that General McChrystal is reported to have requested. Some liberal Democrats have favored only adding training advisers for the Afghan army, while Republicans have generally favored the 40,000+ troop increases. If there is some "middle ground" request by the president, it is unlikely to get doves or hawks excited going into the elections.
NY23: New Poll Shows Hoffman Leading, Scozzafava Melting Down
Posted by on 10.27.09 @ 11:29AM
Like yesterday's Club for Growth poll, this one is sponsored by a conservative organization, the Minuteman PAC, but even with that grain-of-salt factor, a trend is becoming apparent:
- Doug Hoffman (Conservative) 34%
- Bill Owens (Democrat) 29%
- Dede Scozzafava (GOP) 14%
The meltdown of the GOP Establishment's hand-picked candidate is the big story here.
Stimulus III Gains NYT Editorial Page
Posted by on 10.27.09 @ 11:23AM
Today the New York Times came out in favor of a third stimulus. It's unsettling to see such a bad idea gaining traction in the places that matter.
The rationale for another stimulus is that the jobs outlook is weakening even as GDP growth is recovering -- signalling that we may be in for another jobless recovery a la post-1991 or post-2001. 10 percent unemployment, which we are right up against, is much more painful than stagnant GDP growth, and so the government should take more action to encourage job creation.
There are a number of reasons, apart from the jobs outlook, that another round of deficit-finance stimulus would be a terrible idea: the debt constraints we're facing, the ineffectiveness of past stimulus measures, etc. But even the narrow claim that another stimulus would create temporary jobs as we weather the downturn fails on its own terms.
Right now the administration knows that it does not have the political capital for anymore large countercyclical spending measures. That is why they have tried to slip various other stimulus-like measures through under the radar, such as sending Social Security recipients an extra $250. But the support of the NYT editorial page is just the kind of thing that will embolden them.
Don't Cross Penn State
Posted by on 10.27.09 @ 11:22AM
OK. I admit it.
I didn't go to Penn State. If you live where I live this is like living in Boston and admitting you root for the Yankees. Penn State and its legendary "JoePa" (that would be longtime coach Joe Paterno) are almost a religion. Actually, strike the "almost."
Ahhh. Religion. And that's the problem to hit Penn State, where we are being reminded that the second word "State" is operative here.
It seems the latest Penn State t-shirt has a blue line running straight down the middle. The school colors are blue and white, and the idea, but of course, is for fans to wear them en masse at a football game or elsewhere to cause a Penn State "white out." About a quarter way across the top of the line are emblazoned, shockingly, the words: "Penn State White Out."
On the back? Cleverly, it says: "Don't be intimidated...it's just me and 110,000 of my friends."
The problem? If you click on the link you will find a story about this outrageous t-shirt. Why outrageous? Because…drum roll…the words "Penn State White Out," when written across the top of the blue line resembles…the Christian cross.
Really. We kid you not.
So controversy erupts, in spite of some 30,000 shirts sold. Sigh. Even I know the only God at Penn State is a short Italian guy who's 80 something and fancies sunglasses over thick lenses, the better to see who to scream at as he prowls the sidelines.
Fortunately we've solved the economic mess, Afghanistan and Iraq so we have time to focus on Penn State t-shirts.
George W. Bush, Motivational Speaker
Posted by on 10.27.09 @ 11:11AM
Former President Bush made his debut as a speaker at the "Get Motivated" conference in Texas. His speech focused on the importance of making decisions and the fleeting nature of popularity. Bush should know. His last act was to motivate the American people to elect a Democratic president and Congress.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 10.27.09 @ 10:51AM
- Honduran interim President Micheletti's nephew killed in suspected political attack (AFP)
- In San Francisco, it's ok to drive without a license, because it wouldn't be fair to the illegal immigrants (San Francisco Chronicle)
- U.S soldier goes to jail for killing a terrorist in Iraq (Canada Free Press)
- CNN last, even behind it's own Headline News Network in prime time cable news (New York Times)
Washington Post Draws Attention to How AARP Would Benefit from Obamacare
Posted by on 10.27.09 @ 9:58AM
Last month, I wrote about how AARP stood to benefit financially from health care legislation moving through Congress. While the group purports to represent the interests of seniors, it has given its full-throated support to Obamacare even though it would cut hundreds of billions from Medicare and older Americans remain more opposed to pending legislation than any other age group. Today, the Washington Post finally caught on, and took a closer look at the dual role the group plays as an lobbyist and an insurance company.
"We're a consumer advocacy organization; we're not an insurance firm," David Certner, the group's legislative director, told the Post.
But as the article notes, the numbers tell a different story:
AARP's ties to the insurance business date to its founding by former educator Ethel Percy Andrus, who started a group to help retired schoolteachers find health insurance in the years before Medicare; the effort led to the creation of AARP in 1958.
Now, the group relies more than ever on payments from auto, health and life insurers, according to financial statements. From 2007 to 2008, AARP royalties from insurance plans, credit cards and other branded products shot up 31 percent -- from less than $500 million to $652 million -- making such fees the primary source of revenue for the group last year, the records show. AARP's annual financial report shows that 63 percent of that, or about $400 million, came from the nation's largest health insurance carrier, UnitedHealth Group, which underwrites four major AARP Medigap policies. Other carriers with AARP-branded plans include Aetna Life Insurance, Genworth Life Insurance and Delta Dental.
AARP has every right to lobby for legislation that would be in its financial interest -- and that would be consistent with the liberal political leanings of its leadership -- but the group should at least be exposed for what it is so that we can stop pretending that they're actually representing older Americans.
Say This Much for the Redskins
Posted by on 10.27.09 @ 9:28AM
The change in offensive play-calling didn't make them any worse.
The Day Ahead: October 27th
Posted by on 10.27.09 @ 6:24AM
The Day Ahead:
- Obama's Jewish Lobby, by James Weinstein
- Potemkins in Pyongyang, by Mark Tooley
- Reich Stuff, by Ralph R. Reiland
Comment of the day:
Reader Jim Hlavac on Max Schulz's About Those Green Jobs...
The best green jobs would be to tear down the walls of Washington (all those fed-buildings) and rip up the concrete, and get rid of the hot air, and then sod it over with good American-grown sod. Also, plant a few thousand trees in one big memorial circle to the folly of government.
You know, one from every country and climate zone, to show how multi-horticultural we can be.
Stimulus?
"Give me twenty bucks," says Uncle Sam, to nephew citizen.
And the twenty is given for we trust our Uncle.
"Here's $17. There I've stimulated you. Oh, and here's how to spend it," says Sam.
"Hey, where's the other three?" says nephew citizen.
"That's to pay me to write the rules on how you should spend the $17 I gave you."
"But that's my $20 you took."
"What, you're anti-family? We're all in this together you know. So just be patriotic and give me your money so I can tell you how to spend it."
"Geez, what a bum."
"Now you're being seditious."
Yes, rip 'er down and plant it over.
What to watch for:
- Biljana Plavsic, former President of Republika Srpska, will be released from prison on premature release. She was found guilty in 2003 of war crimes against non-Serbs during the Balkan wars during the 1990's.
Weekend's Best:
Surviving a
terrorist attack helped Olga Protas appreciate life
more:
Monday, October 26, 2009
NY23: First Palin, Now Pawlenty -- Will Huckabee Endorse HoffmanNext?
Posted by on 10.26.09 @ 7:23PM
With the news today that Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has endorsed Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in the three-way congressional race in upstate New York's 23rd District, now the pressure is on former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee to follow suit.
"After reviewing the candidates' positions, I'm endorsing Doug Hoffman in New York's special election," Pawlenty said in a statement issued to the conservative blog Red State, which has strongly supported Hoffman.
"Doug understands the federal government needs to quit spending so much, will vote against tax increases, and protect key values like the right to vote in private in union elections," Pawlenty said.
Sarah Palin's endorsement last week may have prompted Pawlenty -- like Palin, a possible contender for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination -- to back Hoffman's challenge to the GOP establishment, which is supporting Dede Scozzafava, a liberal Republican state assemblywoman, in the Nov. 3 special election.
With both Pawlenty and Palin officially endorsing Hoffman, all eyes are focused on Huckabee. Now a popular Fox News personality, the folksy Huckabee last week praised Hoffman during an appearance on Neil Cavuto's show, but stopped short of an endorsement. Speaking of the pro-choice Scozzafava, however, Huckabee said he couldn't "support somebody who does not believe that every human life has value and meaning,"
Huckabee finds himself in an awkward position in the New York campaign to fill the House seat vacated by Republican Rep. John McHugh, appointed by President Obama to be Secretary of the Army. Huckabee is due to speak Tuesday night in Syracuse at a New York Conservative Party awards dinner but, as he told Cavuto, he won't be giving "an endorsement speech."
Huckabee's speech was scheduled before the NY23 election became the focus of a national political maelstrom. Most New York media expect Hoffman also to attend Tuesday's dinner, although the congressional candidate has not yet publicly announced whether he will attend.
Some Hoffman campaign officials are concerned that, if Hoffman shows up at the Syracuse dinner, it might be viewed as distracting from Huckabee's spotlight. Conservative Party officials don't want to put pressure on their Republican guest of honor. Huckabee won't endorse Scozzafava, and he certainly wouldn't support the little-known Democratic candidate Bill Owens. Therefore, Huckabee's status as a "friendly neutral" in the three-way election may be the best the Hoffman campaign can hope for.
However, Red State's Erick Erickson is laying down an ultimatum to any Republican who wants grassroots conservative support for a 2012 presidential bid:
At a time when the conservative brand is ascending and the Republican brand is still in the gutter, candidates like Romney and Huckabee have a chance to man up and stand with the base of the GOP -- a base that is tired of TARP, No Child Left Behind, indictments, and out of control spending.
Erickson says Romney and Huckabee have until noon Wednesday to endorse Hoffman or . . . well, or else. Guess that means Erickson has already scratched Newt Gingrich off his 2012 list.
Re: The Sound of Newt, Comments
Posted by on 10.26.09 @ 5:48PM
In light of some of the virulent personal attacks in the comments responding to my earlier post, let me make clear that my post was not meant as an assault on Gingrich in general, but of his particular decision here, with a little historical animadversion to explain that it is not unprecedented for Gingrich to lose his tactical sense in a bad way. I do not think Gingrich is irredeemably lost to conservatives; I think he is a great resource, a great conceptualizer, and somebody who has done far more good for the country than harm. I disagree with him in the strongest way possible on the Hoffman race, and, more to the point, as an observer I think he is really mis-interpreting the Zeitgeist. I do NOT think that means Gingrich is an enemy or adversary, but just profoundly wrong here, in a way that is likely to jump up and bite him. Newt Gingrich always should be a hero to conservatives; but even heroes have clay feet. His stance on the New York race is a big mistake for his own politics. It's enough to say that without blasting him to Kingdom Come in general.
Will an Opt-Out Approach Really Give States a Choice?
Posted by on 10.26.09 @ 4:49PM
While we don't yet know the details, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid unvieled a plan today to create a national government health care plan, but allow states to opt-out of it if they choose. While supporters of the measure have touted it as simply federalism, the reality is far different.
The problem is that even if legislation allows individual states to opt out of a government plan, any national plan will incur costs that would likely be borne by all taxpayers, regardless of whether or not their state carries the plan. For instance, any government plan would have to have initial start up costs -- in the House Democrats' bill these amount to $2 billion, which would be given to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. And if the government plan begins losing money and needs to be bailed out by the federal government, taxpayers in all states would bear the burden.
While the House bill includes a provision that would prevent a federal bailout, nobody seriously believes -- especially after the events of the past year -- that future lawmakers would allow a government plan with millions of beneficiaries to fail rather then pump federal money into it.
Former NC Governor Under Scrutiny
Posted by on 10.26.09 @ 4:34PM
Hoo-boy. Former North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley, who is the subject of a federal investigation because of unreported gifts he received such as airplane trips, free SUV usage, cut-rate coastal property and a high-paying job for his wife, is the subject of hearings this week in Raleigh before the State Board of Elections. David Bass, an AmSpec contributor and reporter for the John Locke Foundation's Carolina Journal, is live-blogging at the sessions.
It began this morning with a bang. Easley (former) crony McQueen Campbell, who was involved in nearly every aspect of the governor's shananigans, testified that Easley asked him to take care of repairs to his home and that the governor promised to pay him from campaign funds.
“I fully anticipated to get reimbursed for it," Campbell said. "When he asked me to help him, it was conveyed to me that I would be paid back.”
Campbell said that he called up Easley to talk with him about getting reimbursed for the repairs, and Easley indicated that it would be paid for by the campaign.
“So the Easley campaign and its contributors actually paid for the repairs to Gov. Easley’s home?” (SBOE Chairman Larry) Leake asked.
"That's correct," Campbell responded.
Campbell is clearly trying to avoid becoming a bus pancake. Looks like it will be an ugly week and it's hard to imagine the feds not coming up with something to charge him with.
Prisoner's Dilemma
Posted by on 10.26.09 @ 4:18PM
The economist Scott Sumner calls this scene from the British show Golden Balls "he best 3:53 clip in game show history":
Sumner got the link from the famed Stanford economist John Taylor (he of the "Taylor Rule"), and notes, "As Taylor says, this is a great example to use when teaching the Prisoner's Dilemma."
There's just one problem: this is not the Prisoner's Dilemma at all. Continue reading…
Reid Rolls the Dice
Posted by on 10.26.09 @ 4:02PM
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid just announced that the consolidated Senate health care bill would include a government plan that states would be able to opt out of by 2014.
During an afternoon news conference Reid acknowledged that inclusion of the government plan would likely mean the defection of the lone Republican who has supported this bill, Olympia Snowe. He said he was "disappointed" that the creation of a government plan "frightened" Snowe, but said he hoped she would eventually come back to supporting legislation.
By losing Snowe, Reid is taking a huge gamble that every Democrat in the chamber -- even the handful opposing a government plan -- will stand with him and provide the 60 votes needed to block a Republican filibuster, even if it means that some will ultimately vote against the actual bill.
Reid said he was sending the new proposals to the Congressional Budget Office for evaluation later today, but that he would not be asking them to evaluate a proposal to "trigger" a government plan if certain metrics weren't met, which is the favored approach of Snowe.
The consolidated bill would also allow for the creation of "co-ops," which were once viewed as a substitute for a government plan but would now be offered in addition. The "co-ops" would be non-profit insurers who would enjoy tax exempt status.
Right now, the most likely Democrats to oppose the government plan would be Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, with independent Joe Lieberman being another wildcard. While Sens. Kent Conrad and Max Baucus had also opposed a form of the government plan, they would likely go along with the current bill. Baucus's main objection to a government plan was that it wouldn't get enough votes, but he was in the negotiations with Reid for the past several weeks, so presumably he signed off on the new proposal. And Conrad's main objection was to a government plan based on Medicare rates, which he said would bankrupt hospitals in his state of North Dakota. Presumably, he'd be able to get behind a bill that didn't tie payment rates to Medicare and that would allow North Dakota to opt out.
The big question is whether conservative voters in red states can put enough pressure on the remaining Democratic Senators to make them more afraid of defying their constituents than they are of defying Reid. For an idea of how much pressure red state Democrats are under over this vote, check out this article on Landrieu from the local Shreveport Times.
Reid to Announce Health Care Bill at 3:15 Press Conference
Posted by on 10.26.09 @ 1:43PM
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has scheduled a 3:15 press conference to announce details of the consolidated Democratic health care bill he has been negotiating behind closed doors, which according to several press accounts will include a national government-plan that individual states could opt out of. The Politico reports that Reid has 56 or 57 votes for such a plan. If this fails, Reid could support a "trigger" that would create a government plan if certain targets aren't met, which is something Sen. Olympia Snowe supports and could get 59 votes, but is less popular among liberals. The big question is whether the handful of Democrats who oppose the government plan in some form would support a Republican filibuster, or provide the 60 votes Reid needs to bring a vote to the floor, and then vote against the final bill, which would then only need a simple majority to pass.
The Democrats' Cap and Traitors, Cont'd
Posted by on 10.26.09 @ 1:04PM
Via Politico, I see that the Alliance for Jobs and Energy -- a group that opposes cap and trade -- has put together a video collage of Senate Democrats dissenting from the party line on the controversial energy tax at the heart of the Kerry-Boxer bill. It highlights both the regional and ideological divide among Democrats, as well as the concerns about American jobs being shipped to China and India. The stars include Jim Webb, Evan Bayh, Mark Warner, and Claire McCaskill.
The Sound of Newt Choking and Spluttering
Posted by on 10.26.09 @ 12:35PM
Not choking in a life-threatening way of course.
IF this latest poll is accurate, showing Hoffman now leading the three-way race in New York's special congresional election, then Newt Gingrich, Pete Sessions, John Boehner, and all the party hacks, including the NRCC staff who reportedly helped talk the local New Yorkers into endorsing Dede Scozzafava, will be eating so much rancid crow that they are bound to cough and choke and splutter. And they will deserve every bit of it. And this is before news of Scozzafava's latest ethical questions had any real chance to permeate the consciousness of voters. Frankly, Newt Gingrich should be ashamed. He has been Beltwayed.
I say this with mixed feelings. Gingrich always has been a great "big picture" guy, but despite all of his outsider rhetoric, he has a tendency to be overly taken with the personal concerns of the congressional GOP and with tactical considerations that put him at odds with the broad centre-right that he claims as his main audience. He did it back in 1998 when he pushed rules for impeachment proceedings that were way too stringent, without necessity. Of about 12 procedural items put forth in Dick Gephardt's proposal that Gingrich rejected out of hand, about 10 of them were utterly fair and ENDED UP BEING USED ANYWAY after the GOP lost ground in the fall elections. The main thing to which Gingrich objected was a deadline for deciding on impeachment -- and then, lo and behold, having rejected Gephardt's deadline as part of the rules, they rushed to beat the deadline de facto anyway. What happened was that in order to hold the moderates in line on the punitive impeachment rules (when less punitive rules still would have done the job), Gingrich agreed to cave on the spending fight with Clinton and give the moderates all their pork. Result: Disgusted Perot voters were doubly angry: First, because they were turned off by the maniacal impeachment focus (yes, Clinton should have been impeached, but it should not have been made to look like a personal vendetta, which is how Gingrich let it come across); and second, far worse, because they resented the capitulation on spending. Meanwhile, demoralized conservatives stayed home, and the GOP lost seats.
Why is all this relevant now? Because once again Gingrich has lost touch with the concerns of the people he should be listening to. Right now the broader public, not just hardline conservatives, are in an anti-establishment mood. Yet Gingrich has sided with the establishment, and with a professional politician, against a self-made outside businessman getting into politics due to principle. The public is more pro-life now than it has been in decades of polling, yet Gingrich is with the winner of the Margaret Sanger award. The public is overwhelmingly against eliminating the secret ballot for union elections, yet Gingrich is with the ally of the union bosses. The public -- not just right-wingers -- are furious about bigger and bigger government, and opposed the stimulus package, but Gingrich is with the support of the stimulus. Plus, Gingrich is with the candidate dogged with ethics questions and with siccing the police on a reporter. And so on.
It is appropos that Doug Hoffman was comptroller for the 1980 Lake Placid Olympics. Speaking purely as an observer, not an advocate, one does not have to strain to make the analogy that posits Hoffman as the U.S. hockey team, while Gingrich sticks with the Soviets.
Medicare Official Blames Rampant Fraud on Low Admin Spending
Posted by on 10.26.09 @ 12:07PM
Last Friday, I wrote an article on the main site exploring the issue of rampant Medicare fraud, noting that the problem undermines liberals' arguments that we need a new government-run plan to bring more efficiency to the system. Last night, "60 Minutes" took up the issue, and if you haven't seen the stunning report, I urge you to watch the video below and pass it along to all of your friends. After investigating the matter, even CBS acknowledged that it raised "troubling questions about our government's ability to manage a medical bureaucracy."
For the story, Steve Kroft traveled down to South Florida, where the Medicare fraud industry has become bigger than the drug trade, and visited a number of so-called clinics that billed millions of dollars to Medicare but were actually empty store fronts. He interviewed a Medicare cheat who stole $20 million from the government before getting caught, who described it as being so easy to steal that it was like "taking candy from a baby." And the show also visited with an elderly woman who in 2003 discovered phony health care charges being paid out in her name by the federal government. Even though she has been reporting these recurring charges to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for the past 6 years, no action has been taken by the government to stop the fraudulent payments.
The most relevant moment to our current health care debate came when Kroft asked Kim Brandt, Medicare's director of program integrity, to explain why the government couldn't do anything to prevent the widespread fraud.
"Well, it really does come down to the size and scope of the Medicare program, and the resources that are dedicated to oversight and anti fraud work," Brandt said. "One of our biggest challenges has been that we have a program that pays out over a billion claims a year, over $430 billion, and our oversight budget has been extremely limited."
Liberals keep touting Medicare's low administrative costs relative to the private sector. To start with, those estimates exclude a number of costs that show up elsewhere in the federal budget (office rent, staff salaries, the cost of raising capital through tax collection). But to the extent that the program does have lower administrative costs, the result is far more fraud than exists in the private sector, which is more aggressive about policing claims. Estimates of the amount stolen from the government each year vary from about $60 billion to several hundred billion if you include Medicaid.
Congressman Doug Hoffman?
Posted by on 10.26.09 @ 12:00PM
A new poll released by the Club for Growth shows Doug Hoffman leading in NY-23, with Dede Scozzafava in third place:
A poll released today by the Club for Growth shows Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman surging into the lead in the special election in New York's 23rd congressional district to replace John McHugh, the former congressman who recently became Secretary of the Army.The poll of 300 likely voters, conducted October 24-25, 2009, shows Conservative Doug Hoffman at 31.3%, Democrat Bill Owens at 27.0%, Republican Dede Scozzafava at 19.7%, and 22% undecided. The poll's margin of error is +/- 5.66%. No information was provided about any of the candidates prior to the ballot question.
Important caveats: The sample size is small, the undecided vote is large, Hoffman's lead is well within the nearly 6 percent margin of error, and the Club for Growth has endorsed Hoffman. But Hoffman is clearly a lot further along than it once seemed likely. Robert Stacy McCain reports on the main site today.
How Dem Health Care Bill Could Quadruple the Payroll Tax
Posted by on 10.26.09 @ 10:50AM
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is expected to emerge early this week with a composite version of a health care bill that increases penalties on employers and includes a government plan, the Wall Street Journal reports.
Unlike the other Democratic bills, the Senate Finance Committee bill did not include a strict mandate requiring that all employers provide health insurance, but it did include a provision that would fine employers who did not offer insurance to workers who ended up purchasing insurance using a government subsidy. This is sometimes referred to as the "free rider" provision. The Finance Committee bill devised a complicated mechanism in which businesses with more than 50 employees have a choice to pay the lesser of the following: the cost of any subsidies paid by the government to any employees, as determined each year by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or a dollar fine on every employee at the firm, regardless of how many of those employees qualify for subsidies.
If you're confused, the draft of the bill described it pretty clearly. While the basic structure would remain inact in the new negotiated version if reports are correct, the fine per employee would rise to $750 from $400:
"For example, Employer A, who does not offer health coverage, has 100 employees, 30 of whom receive a tax credit for enrolling in a state exchange offered plan. If the flat dollar amount set by the Secretary of HHS for that year is $3,000, Employer A should owe $90,000. Since the maximum amount an employer must pay per year is limited to $400 multiplied by the total number of employees (for Employer A, 100), however, Employer A must pay only $40,000 (the lesser of the $40,000 maximum and the $90,000 calculated fee)."
The fines would in effect represent a substantial increase in the payroll tax, the magnitude of which would be determined by the mix of low-income workers at a given business. But let's just use an example of a worker earning between 150% and 200% of the federal poverty level, or an income of about $20,600. That person could qualify for government subsidies of up to $4,400, according to analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. If the employer were forced to reimburse the government for those costs, it would raise the price tag of employing that worker by 21 percent. Given that businesses currently pay a 6.2 percent payroll tax on every worker, the new fines could bring the effective employer share of the payroll tax to about 27 percent for low-income workers, or more than quadruple what it is today.
The major problem wiith this disastrous proposal should be obvious to anybody with an inkling of understanding of economics. If you make it more costly for businesses to higher lower-income workers, they won't hire as many. Simply put, if the federal government set out to create a program designed to increase the unemployment rate among the working poor, it would be hard to come up with anything better than this.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 10.26.09 @ 10:41AM
- The language to nowhere: $3.7 million of Department of Education money being spent to promote an Alaskan language that is spoken by less than 200 people (Anchorage Daily News)
- Business Insider: case against Galleon insider trading is a waste of government time.
- Climate change poll backfires at a British Museum (Telegraph)
- Even the Chavistas are getting tired of Michael Moore (New York Times)
A Conservative Plurality
Posted by on 10.26.09 @ 9:48AM
The latest Gallup poll shows more Americans identify as "conservative" (40 percent) rather than "moderate" (36 percent) or "liberal." While these self-descriptions shouldn't be conflated with support for the Republican Party -- there are plenty of self-described conservatives in the Democratic Party, for instance -- the Obama administration may be forcing a modest rightward trend.
Gallup notes that between 2005 and 2008, moderates and conservatives were tied as the "most prevalent group" ideologically. That coincides with the time period when George W. Bush's popularity went into the basement and stayed there for the rest of his presidency. During this period, some people who might have previously embraced the conservative label. Since June 2009, conservatives have narrowly outnumbered moderates again and the latest poll shows a 6-point increase in the number of independents describing themselves as conservatives.
That's A Mighty Big "If," Partner
Posted by on 10.26.09 @ 8:20AM
This piece in the New York Daily News seems a lot less relevant today than when it was published Friday.
Conservative Leaders Oppose Obama's "Management By Malaise"
10.26.09 @ 8:01AM
MEMO FOR THE MOVEMENT
Conservative Leaders call on President Obama to end "Management by Malaise" approach to economy and urge Congress to swap excessive spending for a growth agenda
The Day Ahead: October 26
Posted by on 10.26.09 @ 6:20AM
Today on the main site:
- Obama's Real Enemies List, by Mark Hyman
- About Those Green Jobs...by Max Schulz
- Marco Gets It, by Larry Thornberry
Comment of the day:
Reader Mary Louise on Quin Hillyer's "Yes, 'The One' should fail.'"
WM reminded me of the time I went hunting pheasant with my boyfriend. I have no idea why he wanted me to tag along. He just said, "Punk, you're coming with me tomorrow." And he taught me how to clean a gullet. I still have those beautiful feathers, somewhere.
At 17 he took apart and rebuilt the engine of a '63 Sunbeam Alpine. He was a math head, in the top 10 of a class of 150, overall. He was a great second baseman. He tricked me into answering a question on Return of the Native incorrectly. I'd confessed to him that I hadn't read the chapters assigned: Hi! H're you? As Rush would say.
A few days later there he was sitting cross-legged (Native American and Irish, what a deadly combination!) on the little flat roof just outside my bedroom window. Getting there was such an act of athletic prowess that even my father, who uncovered the plot, had to comment on it before telling him to scram so he could have a little talk with his vagabonda innamorata . It's not like it is in the movies. Your father blames you for everything. He knows, and more importantly, he knows that you know.
I've been sitting on the Hoffman/Scozzafava fence. And I'm not even sure why. But I'm going to send him some money anyway because you need energetic conservatives inside.
Newt's support for Scozzafava doesn't surprise me. But Thaddeus McCotter's support for her does. His brief statement doesn't reveal a whole lot, just that speaking as a "51% republican we need to take this seat as republicans." He's a serious thinker and a sober man. I wish he would elaborate.
McCotter's not some great modernist hankering to synthesize heresies. In his interview with Peter Robinson (Uncommon Knowledge), he says that politics is the art of the possible. And I think he's right. Yet, IIRC, he voted against the first TARP and subsequent bailouts because he really did see that Bush and Obama were both sticking it to the little guy on behalf of the big guy, supposedly so well-educated yet still needing the collective power of the little guy to prevent him from being part of the bread line.
What to watch for:
Friday's Best:
UN Nuclear Inspectors tour once secret nuclear site in Iran:
Madoff Associate Picower Dies
Posted by on 10.26.09 @ 12:21AM
Jeffry Picower, 67, an associate of embezzler Bernard Madoff, was found dead in his swimming pool.
Picower is alleged to have profited handsomely from Madoff's record-breaking pyramid scheme but that same fraud put Picower's charity, the Picower Foundation, out of business.
The left-leaning Picower Foundation gave away almost $213 million since 1999, according to a philanthropy database.
The giant foundation had the misfortune to choose Madoff to manage its more than $1 billion in assets.
A sizeable chunk of its funding has gone to abortion groups, including NARAL ($3.2 million), Center for Reproductive Rights ($2.5 million), Planned Parenthood ($2.4 million), and Center for Reproductive Law and Policy ($625,000).
Picower Foundation gave $2.9 million to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a public interest law firm that uses politically skewed definitions of racism to indoctrinate children while smearing conservatives who question racial preference programs. The foundation also gave $200,000 to Project Vote (a.k.a. Voting for America), an affiliate of the radical Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Another Judicial Radical
Posted by on 10.25.09 @ 9:05PM
Today at the Washington Times we highlight yet another horribly radical lefty that Obama is trying to foist on us. Judicial nominee Ed Chen thinks America is almost irredeemably racist, plus he is a big backer of the "empathy standard" that even Sonia Sotomayor was forced to abandon. Meanwhile, a hat tip to our friendly bloggers at Red County, who were onto Chen before the Times was. Most of what we said at the Times (about 85% of it) came from stuff Red County already noted. Also, a hat tip to Red County's Chip Hanlon, whose brilliant idea it was last week to have a whole host of bloggers call for liberal Dede Scozzafava to withdraw from the congressional race in New York, which I noted in this space on Thursday. Agree or disagree with the effort, the effective viral networking that Chip catalyzed is a good development in the righty blogosphere.
An American "One-Child" Policy?
Posted by on 10.25.09 @ 4:44PM
Should the U.S. join China with a one-child policy? Maybe not through forced abortion, but how about with carbon credits? That's the, um, "interesting" idea from New York Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin.
Reports Cybercast News Service:
At the event, Revkin said: "Well, some of the people have recently proposed: Well, should there be carbon credits for a family planning program in Africa let's say? Should that be monetized as a part of something that, you know, if you, if you can measurably somehow divert fertility rate, say toward an accelerating decline in a place with a high fertility rate, shouldn't there be a carbon value to that?
"And I have even proposed recently, I can't remember if it's in the blog, but just think about this: Should--probably the single-most concrete and substantive thing an American, young American, could do to lower our carbon footprint is not turning off the lights or driving a Prius, it's having fewer kids, having fewer children," said Revkin.
"So should there be, eventually you get, should you get credit--If we're going to become carbon-centric--for having a one-child family when you could have had two or three," said Revkin. "And obviously it's just a thought experiment, but it raises some interesting questions about all this."
When CNSNews.com later followed up with questions about his comments, Revkin responded in an e-mail.
"I wasn't endorsing any of this, simply laying out the math and noting the reality that if one were serious about the population-climate intersection, it'd be hard to avoid asking hard questions about USA population growth," wrote Revkin.
Heck, if Congress votes to wreck the economy with cap and trade, and nationalize the health care system, who is going to want to have kids? Maybe that's the Obama administration's secret plan. Make us so miserable that population growth will drop to zero!
NY23 EXCLUSIVE: Hoffman Campaign Seeks 'Boots On the Ground' vs. ACORN
Posted by on 10.25.09 @ 4:01PM
The crucial Nov. 3 special election in upstate New York features two candidaties -- liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava and Democrat Bill Owens -- connected to the Working Families Party (WFP) which is the New York political arm of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).
On New York's multi-party ballot, Scozzafava previously ran in New York on the WFP line (a distinction she shared with Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004 and with Barack Obama in 2008). In this three-way congressional election, however, the WFP is going with Democrat Bill Owens.
That makes Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman the only one seeking the 23rd District seat who isn't connected to ACORN. Hoffman is also the only candidate in the race who doesn't have Big Labor connections. While most unions are backing the Democrat, Scozzafava enjoys support from many local unions because her husband, Ron McDougall, is president of the area's organized labor council. (McDougall has also contributed to WFP.)
The unions "don't want Doug Hoffman in there because he's against card check," a Hoffman campaign source said, referring to the Conservative candidate's opposition to the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, which would deprive workers of the secret ballot in union organizing votes.
With both Big Labor and ACORN working to defeat the Conservative -- who is also being attacked by the national GOP Establishment -- Hoffman's campaign is sending out a nationwide call for volunteers to help match the "community organizers" being brought into the 23rd District by his major-party opponents.
"We need boots on the ground," said the Hoffman campaign source. "We need to push back."
Hoffman penned an op-ed column in today's New York Post identifying himself with Americans who "have had enough," describing his campaign as "a battle that has been joined by current and former elected Republican officials, conservative activists and members of the ever-growing Tea Party and 9/12 movements."
When I visited the Plattsburgh, N.Y., office of the Hoffman campaign Friday, about 70 volunteers had turned out for an organizational meeting. Among those were two local volunteers, Jeremy Kain and Tony Maglione, who talked about the campaign and the need for more volunteers to help in the final push to Nov. 3:
Obama the Ignorant
Posted by on 10.25.09 @ 3:03PM
It would be nice if our president weren't so bleeping condescending and so quick to insult those who disagree with him. It also would be nice if he had a friggin clue what he is talking about. He insulted those who don't buy into what he calls "the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change." No, Mr. Outsized Ego, there is definitely no consensus on climate change. As the old saying goes, the problem with The One isn't what he doesn't know, it's what he thinks he knows but that isn't actually true. Meanwhile, if his ego were deflated to about a quarter of its current size, it would still be four times larger than the average ego -- and he would still be putting out enough hot air to be a worse threat to global warming than the average Al Gore charter plane.
