- Jan 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Feb 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28
- Mar 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–31
- Apr 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–30
- May 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30 31
- Jun 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–30
- Jul 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
- Aug 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
- Sep 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–30
- Oct 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Nov 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–30
- Dec 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Coming Soon: Individual Carbon Credits?
Posted by on 11.14.09 @ 2:38PM
You'd better not have a big carbon print in Great Britain. If some of the enviros get their way, you will have to pay more every time you exceed your government carbon allotment.
Lord Smith of Finsbury believes that implementing individual carbon allowances for every person will be the most effective way of meeting the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
It would involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets and electricity.
Like with a bank account, a statement would be sent out each month to help people keep track of what they are using.
If their "carbon account" hits zero, they would have to pay to get more credits.
Those who are frugal with their carbon usage will be able to sell their unused credits and make a profit.
Lord Smith will call for the scheme to be part of a "Green New Deal" to be introduced within 20 years when he addresses the agency's annual conference on Monday.
An Environment Agency spokesman said only those with "extravagant lifestyles" would be affected by the carbon allowances.
He said: "A lot of people who cycle will get money back. It will probably only be bankers and those with extravagant lifestyles who would lose out."
Right. Only bankers and the rich will be affected. And the check is in the mail.
Maybe this will be the Obama administration's next big idea. If Washington can force you to buy government-approved insurance, then why not force you to conform your life to government-provided carbon allowances? And after cap & trade for business can cap & trade for individuals be long in coming?
People 1, Global Warming Alarmists 0
Posted by on 11.14.09 @ 11:25AM
According to Rasmussen Reports:
Nearly half the nation's voters still believe that global warming is caused primarily by long term planetary trends, not human activity.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 47% of voters blame global warming on planetary trends, while 37% of voters take the opposite view and blame human activity. Just 5% point to some other reason.
Tea Party Nation? Great Minds, Etc.
Posted by on 11.14.09 @ 9:28AM
When I titled Friday's article "Tea Party Nation," I thought I was being cleverly creative. It turns out, however, that this very phrase has already been appropriated for the first-ever national Tea Party convention, Feb. 4-6 in Nashville.
Brooks Again
Posted by on 11.14.09 @ 8:36AM
David Brooks had a thoughtful profile on South Dakota Senator John Thune in Friday's New York Times. It is a useful introduction to a man who we will likely be hearing more about and from as the clock slowly ticks away towards 2012.
But that said, as is the routine with everything Brooks' pen produces these days, an otherwise coherent piece is disrupted by the author's gratuitous displays of affection towards President Barack Obama.
After ticking off all of the qualities that might make Thune presidential material and the issues that may lead the country towards a GOP revival (balanced budgets, job creation, small business growth, the perception of the president as too liberal) Brooks (perhaps fearing the White House might construe this as some sort of criticism) quickly reminds readers that Obama is "the most talented political figure of the age." Really? After a year in the Oval Office, what tangible evidence is there to support this theory? Cash for Clunkers?
Oh, and again, lest a profile of a potential Obama foe raise eyebrows amongst Brooks friends in the administration, he also predicts that after "health care passes" Obama will "pivot and pick some fights with his own party over spending" and win back wayward independents. Interesting logic. After ramming through an unfunded and largely unwanted trillion dollar entitlement, the president (a moderate at heart as Brooks keeps reminding us) will reclaim the fiscal high ground by picking a few (surely to be superficial) fights with those irresponsible liberals in Congress and cruise to victory in 2012.
Bizarre...but typical. It has been said in this space many times before, but it is worth repeating yet again: Brooks's man crush on Obama has rendered his utterances on this subject incoherent and, frankly, embarrassing.
Acorn: Once on the Federal Dole, Always on the Federal Dole
Posted by on 11.14.09 @ 5:11AM
You've got to say one thing about Acorn: it has chutzpah. After all, these are the folks who once sued to avoid paying the minimum wage to their own workers. These are the people who turned the Community Reinvestment Act into a classic shakedown operation, scoring numerous corporate pay-offs in order to lift Acorn's objections to bank mergers. And, of course, these are the activists who freely dispensed advice on how to run brothels with underage, illegal immigrants while concealing the proceeds.
Still, they are upset that Congress cut off their money. I mean, who doesn't get a government check these days!? How insulting!
Not only is it insulting, it's unconstitutional!!
Reports the New York Times:
The antipoverty group Acorn filed a lawsuit against the federal government on Thursday, saying that the House violated the Constitution by passing a resolution barring the group from receiving federal aid.
In the lawsuit, filed in United States District Court in Brooklyn, Acorn asks that its federal financing be restored.
The suit says that the House resolution constitutes a "bill of attainder," or a legislative determination of guilt without a trial. Acorn, which came under fire after a series of embarrassing scandals, says it was penalized by Congress "without an investigation" and has been forced to cut programs that counsel struggling homeowners and to lay off workers.
For example, it said, because of budget cutbacks, a class for first-time homebuyers in New York that enrolled 100 people in September enrolled only 7 in October, after the Congressional action.
"It's a classic trial by the legislature," said Jules Lobel, a lawyer with the Center for Constitutional Rights, which brought the suit. "They have essentially determined the guilt of the organization and any organization affiliated or allied with it."
The argument really is too silly to refute. Once it votes money, Congress isn't allowed to defund any organization in the future until, what, a full-scale trial? Or does that principle apply only if the organization has misused the cash? In contrast, the Red Cross could be defunded tomorrow because it hasn't gone around advising would-be pimps and prostitutes? Or does this rule apply only to left-wing groups whose misdeeds were caught on tape?
Although the lawsuit shouldn't be taken seriously, today the Constitution only has the vaguest relevance to the operation of the U.S. government. So who knows how a judge will rule. And if it goes up to the Supreme Court and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the result might depend upon with whom she empathizes on a particular day.
Criminals Deserve Privacy Too
Posted by on 11.14.09 @ 4:49AM
Europe is different.
How else to report the story of Wolfgang Werle and Manfred Lauber, who murdered an actor in 1990. They served their time--they were sentenced to life but recently released on parole--and now want to remove all reports of their crime. You see, they are being "resocialized" and shouldn't be "stigmatized" for killing someone. Think of the "emotional suffering" that they incur when someone reads about their crime. Really! Poor Walter Sedlmayr was found mutilated in his bedroom, but no one seems concerned about his emotional and physical suffering.
Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber became infamous for killing a German actor in 1990. Now they are suing to force Wikipedia to forget them.
The legal fight pits German privacy law against the American First Amendment. German courts allow the suppression of a criminal's name in news accounts once he has paid his debt to society, noted Alexander H. Stopp, the lawyer for the two men, who are now out of prison.
"They should be able to go on and be resocialized, and lead a life without being publicly stigmatized" for their crime, Mr. Stopp said. "A criminal has a right to privacy, too, and a right to be left alone."
Mr. Stopp has already successfully pressured German publications to remove the killers' names from their online coverage. German editors of Wikipedia have scrubbed the names from the German-language version of the article about the victim, Walter Sedlmayr.
Now Mr. Stopp, in suits in German courts, is demanding that the Wikimedia Foundation, the American organization that runs Wikipedia, do the same with the English-language version of the article. That has free-speech advocates quoting George Orwell.
What makes this case so alarming is that the killers, Messrs. Werle and Lauber, want to do more than prevent future mentions, They want to expunge the past, a la 1984. And if their case succeeds in Germany, it could affect Americans' access to information in this and future cases.
Pfizer Abandons Stolen Property in Kelo Case
Posted by on 11.14.09 @ 4:40AM
After relying on government to seize property for its use, leading to the Supreme Court battle in Kelo, Pfizer intends to abandon the town of New London. Reports the New York Times:
From the edge of the Thames River in New London, Conn., Michael Cristofaro surveyed the empty acres where his parents' neighborhood had stood, before it became the crux of an epic battle over eminent domain.
"Look what they did," Mr. Cristofaro said on Thursday. "They stole our home for economic development. It was all for Pfizer, and now they get up and walk away."
That sentiment has been echoing around New London since Monday, when Pfizer, the giant drug company, announced it would leave the city just eight years after its arrival led to a debate about urban redevelopment that rumbled through the United States Supreme Court, and reset the boundaries for governments to seize private land for commercial use.
Pfizer said it would pull 1,400 jobs out of New London within two years and move most of them a few miles away to a campus it owns in Groton, Conn., as a cost-cutting measure. It would leave behind the city's biggest office complex and an adjacent swath of barren land that was cleared of dozens of homes to make room for a hotel, stores and condominiums that were never built.
Well, easy come, easy go when it comes to politicians grabbing people's property and money. The good news is that many states changed their laws after Kelo to make it harder for government to steal land for private profit. In that sense Susette Kelo believes that she didn't lose her home entirely in vain. Reported the Time: "In all honesty, I'm not happy about what happened to me," Ms. Kelo said. But, she added, "With 43 states changing their laws, in that sense I feel we did some good for people across the country."
Friday, November 13, 2009
Some Muslims Love America
Posted by on 11.13.09 @ 4:55PM
We all are familiar with Islamic groups (prominent ones of which shall remain nameless) that only pretend to be dedicated to constructive action in these United states, and of course it is no mere coincidence that the terms "jihadist" and "terrorist" are virtually synonymous, with millions of Muslims worldwide in the thrall of virulently and often violently anti-Western, anti-Christian, doctrines that actually celebrate the wanton murder of those they see as infidels. We all know that the existence of that strain of Islam is an incontrovertible fact. Meanwhile, as an avid supporter of the state of Israel, I myself am not in the least bit sympathetic to those peoples, mostly Islamic, who refuse to accept Israel's right to exist and who rain rockets and terror onto Israeli lands and people.
For the second time in the past month, though, I am moved to remind people that not all Muslims feel and act this way. Some, like Salam al-Maryati of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, who was one of about nine people on a visit to Guantanamo that I made in 2007, are patriotic Americans. Salam had an excellent essay the other day at the Huffington Post. I don't agree with every word or every sentiment, certainly, but the overall tone is admirable, obviously heartfelt, and constructive. Do read it. Here's an excerpt:
"America is our home, and it is our country to defend. It is in our hands to define who we are....Unless we clearly define who we are to the rest of America, the pre-existing vacuum will be filled with the only image available to the public: a Muslim American member of the U.S. military gunning down other soldiers on American soil...The loss was our loss. Those Americans who were killed at Fort Hood dedicated their lives to defend our democracy." And this: "We have only one option available to deal with ideologically motivated violence: the Islamic theology of life must overcome the cult of death."
Voices like Salam's need to be heard more loudly and more regularly. They are welcomed, and should be made to feel welcome. And they surely are far more numerous than we ordinarily may recognize. Whatever political differences we may (or may not) have with Salam, we should tip our hat to him for such an essay. May peace be with us all.
Mukasey Blasts Pre-9/11 Mentality in KSM Decision
Posted by on 11.13.09 @ 4:45PM
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who as a judge presided over a trial stemming from the first attack on the World Trade Center, on Friday warned that the Obama administration's decision to bring Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York, along with three other terrorist detainees, to stand trial in a civilian court, reflected a pre-9/11 mindset that viewed terrorism as a simple criminal matter.
Speaking at the Federalist Society's National Lawyers Convention, Mukasey described the move, as “a decision I consider not only unwise, but based on a refusal to face the fact that what we are involved with here is a war with people who follow a religiously-based ideology that calls on them to kill us, and to return instead to the mindset that prevailed before Sept. 11 that acts like the first World Trade Center bombing, the attacks on our embassies in Africa and other such acts can and should be treated as conventional crimes and tried in conventional courts.”
Describing a pattern of decisions made since the the Obama administration pledged in January to close Guantanamo Bay prison within a year, Mukasey said that, "What’s followed has seemed in many instances to be a system in which policy is fashioned to fit and proceed rhetoric rather than being thought out in advance with arguments then formulated in support of it.”
He noted that Congress already authorized the trial of detainees through military commissions, and that those trials would have already been underway.
“Now, that procedure is to be short-circuited -- actually, long-circuited would be more accurate -- so that they could be brought to this country and tried in a civilian court," he said. "We should all be aware that those cases which were scheduled to have already begun now have to start from scratch.”
The difficulty of trying terror suspects through civilian courts, he said, is that the discovery process, the public presentation of evidence, and other elements of a trial "could turn a criminal proceeding into a cornucopia of information for those still at large and a circus for those in custody.”
He pointed out that when capturing the enemy combatants, pieces of information “were not gathered, nor was evidence gathered, on the assumption that they would be presented in a federal court.”
There would also be tremendous security issues involved with making sure that courthouses, jails, the judge and jury, were all safe.
“It would take a whole lot more credulousness than I have available to be optimistic about the outcome of this latest experiment,” Mukasey said at the conclusion of his formal remarks.
During a question and answer session that followed, Mukasey was asked if he felt the jails in New York were secure enough to make sure terrorists would not escape, but he said that wasn't really the issue.
"If you ask the wrong question, you’re sure to get the wrong answer," Mukasey responded. "Of course it’s secure. They’re not going to escape. The question is not whether they’re going to escape, the question is whether not only that facility, but the city at large will then become the focus for mischief in the form of murder by adherents of KSM, whether this raises the odds that it will. And I would suggest to you that it raises them very high. It is also whether the proceeding, even assuming that it goes forward within the lifetime of anybody in this room, is one where confidential information is able to be kept confidential, and a trial is able to proceed in an orderly way.”
He later added that, "to the extent that they are within prisons, they are a threat there as well. Any of these people would be a virtually totemic figure in a prison.” He argued that "shoe bomber" Richard Reid's success in challenging his solitary confinement shows that there's no guaruntee that convicted terrorists would stay isolated from the rest of the prison population.
Asked about Attorney General Eric Holder's statement that he was confident that the defendents wouldn't be able to get off on a legal technicality, Mukasey replied that while he doesn't have access to the same information as Holder, "Betting the farm on the outcome of that process always involves risk.”
While he was adamantly opposed to today's decision, Mukasey said that if Mohammed and other members of Al Qaeda had to be tried in civilian courts, no venue is better equipped to handle it than the Southern District of New York, where he served as a judge. He also said he was confident in the jury selection process.
“They don’t have to have been comatose over the past 10 years to serve on a jury," he explained. "What they have to be able to do is to promise that they will decide the case based only on the evidence presented in the courtroom and not what they hear outside, and there has to be good reason to believe that they could fulfill that promise. And jurors like that can be found. That part of the process I have great faith in. It’s the rest of it that worries me."
More Americans Now Say Health Care is Not Gov't Responsibility
Posted by on 11.13.09 @ 1:46PM
In a watershed moment in health care polling, Gallup has found that by a narrow 50 percent to 47 percent margin, more Americans now think that providing health care coverage should not be a responsibility of the federal government. The pollster notes that, "This is a first since Gallup began tracking this question, and a significant shift from as recently as three years ago, when two-thirds said ensuring healthcare coverage was the government's responsibility."
Check out the full trend since Gallup began asking the question in 2001.
Dems' Xmas Health Care Deadline Hits Snag
Posted by on 11.13.09 @ 1:42PM
Democrats were hoping that the Congressional Budget Office would release its analysis of the merged Senate health care bill by the end of this week, allowing Harry Reid to bring the bill to the floor as early as next Monday. But now it looks like the CBO report won't be completed until early next week, making it harder for Reid to introduce the bill before Thanksgiving-week recess, which starts Monday Nov. 23. Unlike in the House, the minority party in the Senate has many more ways to delay legislation. And Reid will need to get 60 votes in order to proceed to a debate on the bill, which then will trigger an arduous amendment process, after which Reid would need to meet another 60 votes to cut off debate and vote on a revised bill. The health care debate is expected to take several weeks at a minimum. Just to put things in context, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell noted on Fox this week:
To give you a timetable in the Senate, we spent four weeks last Congress on a farm bill. Within the last 10 years, we've spent eight weeks on an energy bill. This will be a multi-week, many-amendment process in the United States Senate on a bill of this magnitude, which seeks to reorganize one sixth of our economy.
And given the public statements of Sens. Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson, as well as other moderate Democrats, there's still serious doubt about whether Reid will be able to meet the several 60-vote thresholds. Even if it somehow clears the Senate, the bill would still have to be reconciled with the House version in conference, and then pass both chambers again.
Earlier this week, the Hill reported that Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin, a supporter of the legislation, conceded that Christmas was an "ambitous" deadline, and that "virtually every variable in the complicated and protracted debate would have to fall the right way for the House and Senate to produce a final bill by year's end."
Well, with the CBO taking longer than the Democrats' hoped, it seems at least one variable has fallen the wrong way.
It Only Took 14 Years
Posted by on 11.13.09 @ 1:35PM
This morning's Washington Post reports:
Federal prosecutors on Thursday moved to seize several U.S. assets allegedly controlled by entities linked to the government of Iran, including a mosque and Islamic school in Potomac, land in Prince William County and a Manhattan skyscraper.
Prosecutors described an intricate web of ties allegedly connecting the properties to an Iranian bank that has been identified as a key financier of Tehran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs and possibly acts of terrorism. At the center of that web, they said, is a New-York based organization known as the Alavi Foundation, which U.S. authorities have for decades suspected of being a possible Iranian front.
Back in our December 1995 issue, we published Kenneth Timmerman's investigatory report on the Alavi Foundation and its fronting for the Mullah regime. "Islamic Iran's American Base," we called it. You can read the piece here.
The Individual Mandate
Posted by on 11.13.09 @ 1:28PM
There are two primary reasons that an individual mandate is supported in health reform, not just by Democrats, but by many Republicans as well. The first one is the notion that the only legitimate way to pay for a health care service is through insurance. And the other is that the uninsured are a bunch of “free riders” who sponge off the rest of us by consuming but not paying for health care services. So our premiums go up in the form of a “hidden tax.”
These arguments sound compelling – until you dig a bit deeper.
Insurance is the best, in fact, the
only way to pay.
Insurance generally has been used as financial protection against unexpected and rare occurrences. It is typically a two-party contract that pays a benefit when a loss occurs. This is true for auto, homeowners, life, and virtually any other kind of insurance you can think of.
But health insurance has become something entirely different, thanks to my former employers at Blue Cross. In fact Blue Cross insisted for many years that it was NOT “insurance” but “prepaid health care.” Because of Blue Cross market domination in the 1930s and 1940s commercial carriers ended up replicating the Blue Cross model.
Today, all health insurance is a combination of “insurance” for adverse events and “prepaid health care” for services that are low cost and predictable.
The object of this coverage is to pay for health care services. There is nothing wonderful or magical about having a health insurance policy in itself. The reason to have it is to pay for the services you consume and the bills you incur.
But there are many ways to pay for those services. If I need a service that costs $2,000 I can slap down my insurance card on the counter and the insurance company will pay the bill. But I could also slap down my credit card and my bank will pay the bill.
The only difference is how the insurance company or the bank gets the money to pay the $2,000. In the case of the insurance company, it can pay the $2,000 because I (or my employer) have been giving it $100 a month for the previous 20 months. If the bank pays the bill, I (or my employer) will pay off the debt by sending the bank $100/month for the next 20 months. The only difference is pre-payment versus post-payment.
So the question becomes which is the more efficient way to finance the $2,000? The bank will charge me interest (possibly 8%). But the insurance company also has a charge in the form of a loss ratio (also in the time value of the money it has been holding.) So, how does the insurance company load compare to the interest rate the bank charges? If the loss ratio is 93%, (7% load) it is probably a good deal, but if it is 80% (20% load), it is not such a good deal.
Free Riders
Let’s first remember “free riding” is at most a trivial problem, amounting to something like 2 percent of all health spending in the United States. But the “solutions” that have been proposed are massively intrusive on the lives and freedoms of 100% of Americans.
Consider —
n It is not the uninsured clogging hospital ERs, but the fully insured, especially those on Medicaid.
n There is indeed a “cost-shift” to the insured from uncompensated care, but it pales compared to the cost shift from underpayment by Medicare and Medicaid.
n The “cost-shift” would still have to be paid out in the form of subsidies in any event. Money is not saved.
n The uninsured do in fact pay for a large portion of their own consumption, and would pay an even larger share if they were charged at the PPO rate for services (or Medicare +25%).
Consider also --
n Getting rid of “free ridership” means massive policing of the insurance status of 100% of Americans — this means substantial administrative costs added to the system.
n It also involves massive subsidies, including to those who are not currently subsidized, and penalties for those who are not.
Consider finally --
n There is not yet a proposal that would end “free ridership.” All of the current proposals will continue a large number of people who are uninsured and getting free services, including illegal immigrants and people who simply don’t pay their bills. For all of the contortions and intrusions, the current proposals would at best reduce the problem, not solve it.
My conclusion — The issue of free ridership
is a lot of Sturm und Drang about very little. Our time would be
better spent on helping reduce the problem with a series of steps
to make coverage more attractive and more affordable and prices
more realistic for people who self-pay.
Policy makers operate on the assumption that
having insurance (pre-paid health care) is inherently a Good
Thing and superior to not having insurance and post-paying for
the exact same service. Why? If I can pay for the same services
at a lower cost, why is that a bad thing? If the goal is to pay
for health care services, we should be interested in finding the
most efficient way to get that done. In some cases it may be
through insurance coverage, but in other cases it may be through
bank financing. Neither is more virtuous than the other.
Now They Tell Us
Posted by on 11.13.09 @ 12:09PM
Barack Obama is suddenly very concerned about the deficit. And George W. Bush is warning against massive government interventions into the marketplace. Too bad they didn't have these feelings when they were running up huge deficits and concocting colossal bailouts.
Reconciliation Would Abort the Stupak Amendment
Posted by on 11.13.09 @ 11:23AM
The Politico is reporting that the rider prohibiting taxpayer funding of abortion would violate the Byrd Rule, making it a casualty of the reconciliation process in the event Democrats choose that route to pass a health care bill.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 11.13.09 @ 10:57AM
- Forbes names cocaine drug lord Joaquin Guzman's world's 41st most powerful person -- edging out the Presidents of Russia and France (TimesOnline)
- Juarez business leaders want peacekeepers in Juarez. The problem is that there doesn't seem to be much of a peace to keep (Associated Press)
- Hoffman considers running again in 2010 (Hill)
- $7.5 million of state and federal grants being used to fund high school sports hall of fame. With a list of inductees including LeBron James and Dwight Howard, the Hall of Fame can send a message to all youngsters that you don't need a college education to be successful as long as you're over 6'8'' and extremely athletic (Associated Press)
"Destroyed or Prevented": Responding to Menzie Chinn
Posted by on 11.13.09 @ 10:44AM
Menzie Chinn of Econbrowser took issue with an argument I made in Saturday's Politico, and his remarks were parroted by Brad Delong. I had written that the administration's claim that the incoming data shows that the stimulus is on track to "create or save" one million jobs by the year's end is meaningless. I noted that, using the administration's logic, one could just as easily assert that the stimulus has "destroyed or prevented" one million jobs.
Dr. Chinn starts out by ridiculing my article: "Be afraid. Be very afraid." He quotes me:
There's a problem, though: the "created or saved" numbers are meaningless. The administration purposefully devised the metric to be nebulous. Without a counterfactual, showing the trend of unemployment in the absence of the stimulus, it is impossible to know how many jobs the stimulus saved.
Chinn responds with an argument from authority:
But this is completely counter to what I learned in economics, and how, for instance, the CBO conducts analysis. I assume Mr. Lawler doesn't dispute the impartiality of the CBO (but who knows?). Here's the way real macroeconomists conduct analysis:
And Chinn continues on to quote from an analyis by Harvard professor Greg Mankiw from when he was a policy adviser to George W. Bush, in which he claims that "[s]imulations of a conventional macroeconomic model show that, without the [2003] tax cuts, the level of real GDP would have been about 2 percent lower in the middle of 2003. About 1.5 million fewer people would have jobs today [2007]."
If Chinn wants to use Greg Mankiw as an example of a "real macroeconomist," he should be aware that Mankiw recently made the same argument that I did regarding jobs "created or saved":
But it is absurd to suggest that you can say,
B: "We have measured how many jobs the stimulus has saved or created, and the number is X."
Economists are capable of making statements such as A, but it is beyond our ken to make statements such as B. Statement B is, of course, much stronger than statement A, as it purports to be based on data rather than on models.
So a real macroeconomist thinks that the administration's claim is "absurd."
Chinn then explains the model that the CBO used to estimate the baseline scenario and the effects of the stimulus in February.
Continue reading…The Iran Lobby?
Posted by on 11.13.09 @ 10:38AM
The National Iranian American Council (NIAC), a group run by Trita Parsi that has argued for more engagement with Iran and against sanctions, has gained increasing influence during the Obama administration. But a groundbreaking report in the Washington Times by Eli Lake based on internal documents, has provided evidence that NIAC may be violating the law by working as a lobbying organization for a foreign government without registering as such.
Another interesting disclosure in the story:
The organization has between 2,500 and 3,000 members, according to Mr. Parsi, but had fewer than 500 responses to a membership survey conducted last summer, internal documents show. Yet NIAC asserts that it is the largest such group and represents the majority of the nearly 1 million Iranian Americans.
During the elections and the turmoil that followed, Parsi was a leading proponent of the idea that if President Obama were to make a statement in solidarity with the protesters, that it would enable the regime to brand them as tools of America and thus undermine the cause of freedom. And the media, which were inclined to support Obama's approach, frequently trotted out Parsi as a spokesman for Iranian Americans.
Back in June, I profiled Amir Fakhravar, an Iranian dissident exiled to the U.S., who disagreed strongly with the Parsi view, and thought that Obama should be clearly articulating support for the protesters. Yet voices like Fakhravar's were drowned out by the mainstream media.
The Day Ahead: November 13
Posted by on 11.13.09 @ 7:22AM
Today on the main site:
- Pants On Fire, by Larry Thornberry
- Blue Dog Backfire, by David N. Bass
- Fantasy Football, by Daniel J. Flynn
- What Reggie Littlejohn will learn, by Ken Blackwell
- European Union wants a President, by George H. Wittman
What to watch for:
Thursday's best:
Thursday, November 12, 2009
WH Touts New Report That Calls Gov't Plan "Ill-Advised"
Posted by on 11.12.09 @ 4:42PM
Council of Economic Advisers Chair Christina Romer on Thursday touted the findings of a new report about reforms that could reduce health care costs - even though the same study warned lawmakers to avoid "ill-advised proposals such as the public option" and suggested market-based reforms such as encouraging health savings accounts.
In addition, the report by the Business Roundtable that Romer described as "important" and "powerful," argued that market-based approaches such as health savings accounts would lower costs, while the tax on high-priced health care plans supported by the White House could mean higher costs.
In a conference call organized by the White House to highlight the report, Romer boasted that current health legislation adopts many of the changes recommended in the report, such as Medicare payment reforms.
"Those kind of reforms that are on the agenda are things that they think are going to show up for people that aren't in Medicare, and aren't in the government-provided plan," Romer said.
Romer called the study an "important report" that came at an "important time." She added, "The reason the report is so powerful is it does help to emphasize just where we are and how far we've come."
But while it is true that the report is supportive of some of payment and insurance market proposals in current legislation, it also warns of several risks posed by pending legislation, including the possibility that creating a new government-run plan could lead to cost shifting that would raise the price on those who have private insurance.
"In light of the significant risks to private health insurance coverage associated with a public plan and the expected availability of competitive options through the exchanges," the report reads, "the potential savings from reductions in federal spending could have the adverse impact of significantly raising private health plan costs for employers and for employees."
The report also was critical of a proposal to tax high end health care plans: "This tax imposes extra costs on employer-sponsored plans which will likely lead to two unintended consequences: Employers will raise out-of-pocket costs for employees to mitigate the impact of the tax, and certain employers will drop employer-sponsored coverage as the cost of providing additional benefits exceeds the cost of paying their employees more in cash
Asked about this discrepancy, Romer responded that, "the things they point out as risks, we're actually dealing with." She said that by making sure that the government plan does not tie reimbursement rates to Medicare, Democrats in Congress are avoiding the problem of cost-shifting. She also argued that the excise tax on high-end plans is being altered to exclude those who have more expensive insurance because they are older or in higher risk occupations, such as fire-fighting.
One section of the report, which quotes Milton Friedman, is titled: "True Market Reform Can Yield Even Greater Savings." It notes that: "Empirical evidence is emerging from consumer-driven experiments using health reimbursement arrangements and health savings accounts as consumer-enabling vehicles. In many of these studies, utilization levels have dropped significantly without any corresponding decrease in quality of care. Efforts to mandate minimum benefit levels without the right incentives for providers and consumers will ultimately contribute to uncontrolled utilization that will drive the cost of these benefits to unaffordable levels."
However, Democratic reforms being proposed in Congress would move in the exactly opposite direction, by forcing individuals to purchase their health insurance through a government-run exchange in which federal bureaucrats would set benefit levels. In the House bill, the level of benefits individuals would be mandated to purchase would be determined by a new presidentially-appointed Health Choices Commissioner. All of this will discourage the use of HSAs. I asked Romer about this, and she suggested that the tax on high-end health care plans was actually about giving more power to the consumer.
"Part of the idea of how that is going to work is precisely because it does empower consumers," she responded. "It empowers each of us to have an employer-sponsored plan to call our HR office and say, 'would you negotiate harder? Would you think about [whether this] is the most efficient plan out there, because I don't want my plan paying an excise tax.' So I think that's something that is very much empowering consumers."
This is a jaw-dropping response on several levels. For one thing, candidate Obama blasted John McCain for proposing that we change the tax code that rigs the system in favor of employer-based insurance. But the difference is that McCain wanted to replace the current system with a level the playing field so that individuals could achieve the same tax advantages purchasing their own health care plans. Now, the Obama administration is supporting a proposal that would target some employer health care plans, without any offsetting tax credits for individuals, and calling it consumer empowerment. Furthermore, it may be true that workers will ask their employers to provide them with cheaper health care plans to avoid the tax - but that violates the spirit of the promise Obama made that those who like their health care plan can keep it.
Praising the report on the call, Romer declared: "The health legislation that as it's coming out of congress, they think, could lower costs relative to what they otherwise would have been by as much as $3,000 by 2019." But in actuality, Business Roundtable officer Antonio M. Perez,, who is also Chairman and CEO of Eastman Kodak Company, said in a statement that: "This report shows that effective reforms can slow health care costs by as much as $3,000 per employee in 2019." Emphasis mine.
The White House has become so desperate to show cost savings from health care legislation, that administration officials are willing to tout any report that says reform can save money - even a report that undermines the case for many of the specific proposals they are touting.
Obama Approval Sinks in Bellwether Ohio
Posted by on 11.12.09 @ 2:37PM
A new Quinnipiac poll taken in the political bellwether state of Ohio shows that President Obama's disapproval rating has jumped to 50 percent, with just 45 percent of voters approving of the job he's doing. In September, he had a positive approval rating of 53 percent to 42 percent. More:
Ohio voters disapprove 53 - 42 percent of the way the President is handling the economy and disapprove 57 - 36 percent of the way he is handling health care. In September, they approved of his handling of the economy 48 - 46 percent and split on his handling of health care 44 - 45 percent....
"Ohio voters are not happy with the President's handling of health care and the economy. The fact that they now are split whether he or the Republicans in Congress are better able to handle health care should be a very worrisome number at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. since the GOP is still pretty much a four-letter word in most of America," [said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.]
The poll also shows Republican Rob Portman leading his potential Democratic opponents in the 2010 Senate race.
Chris Dodd: Still Losing
Posted by on 11.12.09 @ 11:39AM
The latest Quinnipiac poll doesn't have much good news for Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT). He trails Republican former Congressman Rob Simmons, former Ambassador Tom Foley, and former wrestling executive Linda McMahon. He is in a dead heat with libertarian financier Peter Schiff and state Sen. Sam Caligiuri. Dodd is starting to look like the Jon Corzine of 2010: strong enough to fend off a Democratic primary challenge, not strong enough to win reelection against a Republican opponent. He has a year to turn it around.
Reid Mulls Payroll Tax Hike to Pay for Health Care
Posted by on 11.12.09 @ 11:21AM
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is considering a payroll tax hike on those earning more than $250,000 to pay for health care legislation, the Hill reports. The idea of raising taxes during a recession and double-digit unemployment is insane, of course. But it also raises another question -- if health care legislation is going to save us so much money, then why do Democrats have to raise taxes to pay for it?
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 11.12.09 @ 10:32AM
- Nigerian civil rights group demands that black African leaders apologize for their historical role in the slave trade (BBC)
- College student allegedly beaten in Ireland due to his American accent (Independent.ie)
- Democrats reportedly plan to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell in next year's Defense Authorization Bill (Hill)
- Congressman Lynch arranged over $1 million in earmarks for health centers that his wife works for and serves as a volunteer board member (Boston Globe)
VIDEO: Dede Scozzafava on 'Core Principles'
Posted by on 11.12.09 @ 9:16AM
Say Anything blog has the understatement of the year about Dede Scozzafava: "Her calls for unity seem a bit weak after she essentially stabbed Republicans in the back by backing the Democrat candidate." A bit weak, indeed:
Scozzafava continues playing the victim, claiming her conservative opponents engaged in "vicious" attacks. She displays a spectacular lack of self-awareness: "We need leadership that's going to make sure that the party is strong going forward and that independent voices are heard from all ranks of the party." Right -- Dede was anointed as the Republican nominee in NY23 by a cabal of GOP insiders, and now she whines about the need to listen to "independent voices."
Scozzafava dares to talk about "core principles" (!) and adds this: "Hopefully a lesson can be learned, and we can move forward and make the party stronger." Right -- she endorses the Democrat, then claims to want a stronger GOP.
She's been stripped of her post in the GOP leadership in Albany, so the "moving forward" is already under way.
The Day Ahead: November 12
Posted by on 11.12.09 @ 6:25AM
Today on the main site:
- Christmas with an Old Bailey Hack, by Larry Thornberry
- Harold's Heart Attack, by Jeremy Lott
- She is Gone, by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
- Treachery as Lifestyle Choice, by George Neumayr
Comment of the day:
Mart,
There is a simple rule of the road: Keep right, pass left. If you are not passing cars to the right of you, or worse, you are being passed on the right, you are the problem. It is not the absolute speed that is the problem. It is the relative speed. If you are keeping pace with the car in front of you, other drivers don't weave in or out.
Try a simple experiment next time you are on a highway. Observe a bunch of cars, "a pack", and then the distance to the next pack. I bet you will see a substantial distance between packs. The danger is the tightness of the packs. You will note that the cars in the left lanes are not passing cars in the right lane.
I travel the Garden State Parkway with a 65 mph limit. You will find packs of 40 - 80 cars doing 65 - 70 with only a couple of feet between them. This is dangerous. But, you look up ahead and there is a half mile gap from the next pack.
The cars in the center and left lane heading the packs are the problem. They are going too slowly, relative to other drivers. Driver after driver catches up to the pack and can't get through.
If you and other drivers follow, then keep left, pass right rule, and tight packs wouldn't occur and the weaving will decrease. In Germany, on the Autobahns there were no speed limits. The rule was you only got into the left lane if you were passing or, you kept your lights on to indicate you were driving at a very high rate of speed. It is very effective.
Regarding, not driving, in the right lane because of merging; some one above made a comment about active vs. passive drivers. Driving is an important action. You have to be alert and should never be on auto pilot. If you drive in the right lane and you see a car merging, your responsibility as an active, courteous driver is to carefully move to the left lane and allow the car to merge; or to speed up so the other car can merge or slow down. Regardless of the choice, the responsibility is yours to be an active driver.
What to watch for:
- Tariq Ramadan, a
controversial Muslim public intellectual, is
in North America.
- The Department of Energy has announced that Energy Secretary Steven Chu will be travelling to India and China from November 12-18 to discuss "Clean Energy" partnerships the US.
- Bosnian Serb wartime leader Radovan Karadzic, who faces at least 11 counts of genocide, originally asked for 7500 hours of legal counsel, was granted 4500 hours. Beforehand, he boycotted his own trial, and was angered about his trial date being March 1. Meanwhile, his 8 legal advisors have gone on strike over unpaid fees.
Wednesday's best:
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
What Era Does Obama Live In?
Posted by on 11.11.09 @ 10:19PM
(Catching up from being out of town....) To give credit where it is due, I thought that the overall tenor of President Obama's speech at the Fort Hood Memorial on Tuesday was quite good. Nice words, well expressed, appropriate, and at times quite eloquent.
That said, it REALLY REALLY REALLY grates to hear, again, especially on such an occasion, the following rhetorical trope:
"In an age of selfishness, they embody responsibility. In an era of division, they call upon us to come together. In a time of cynicism, they remind us of who we are as Americans."
What era does Obama live in? The America I know, that we all know, in 2009, is not an America that is suffering from an age of selfishness, an era of division, a time of cynicism. Mr. Obama can speak for himself. This is not a land nor an epoch of selfishness and cynicism, and the divisiveness is not extraordinary or even terribly bad -- and it often comes from Obama himself. But somebody should look the president in the eye and say "WHo are you calling selfish and cynical, Kemosabe?" I look around me and see idealism, love of country, generosity. I see the incredible outpouring of church groups and other citizens in aiding the victims of Katrina. I see people volunteering hither and yon for all sorts of good causes. And yes, I even see TEA partiers who are out there of their own free will, at their own expense, trying to defend the freedoms they love for the sake of their children, for the sake of posterity.
It is way past time for this president to stop telling us that the general state of affairs is cynical, selfish, angry, and benighted (and, tacitly, that he and his circle are the only light that offers hope amidst the darkness he describes). Enough is enough. Mark Hyman today on our main site writes that this president despises America (except for the America he would remake in his own image). Perhaps so. He certainly apologizes for our flaws far more often than he actually specifies our strengths and the things that make us admirable. Either way, though, Mr. Obama's act as moral judge of the supposed cynicism and selfishness of others, indeed of society in general, is an act that is well beyond tired. It is a tired act, an unpleasant act, an unnecessary act. And it just isn't true.
Physician, heal thyself.
Lou Dobbs Leaving CNN
Posted by on 11.11.09 @ 8:10PM
Jeff will be one of the last people to get the opportunity to appear on Dobbs' show. CNN has announced that Lou Dobbs is leaving the network. CNN's story suggests that Dobbs is leaving on his own to pursue a more activist role on the issues that he has been covering, like immigration and the economy. We'll learn later whether that's the whole story or if the silence-Dobbs campaign Jeff Lord has been covering for us might have had some success. Dobbs was rumored to be considering a third-party presidential bid in 2008. He was the last of the original anchors still working at the network.
Jeff Lord on Lou Dobbs
Posted by on 11.11.09 @ 7:46PM
Congrats and thanks to Jeff Lord for his boffo six-minute appearance (7:37-7:43 PM ET) on CNN's Lou Dobbs this evening, to discuss his recent columns exposing the efforts of his church and others in the "So We Might See" coalition to silence right-wing media. We'll post a link to the segment as soon as it's available.
UPDATE: Surely, it's just a coincidence, but Jeff's appearance came on what's turned out to be Lou Dobbs' final broadcast on CNN.
UPDATE: Here's the segment:
Big Pharma's Good Deal at America's Expense
Posted by on 11.11.09 @ 2:17PM
In 1993 and 1994 the pharmaceutical industry fought against nationalized health care. This time Big Pharma cut itself a deal--offering a bit of a discount in return for a big increase in insurance coverage and thus the number of pills expected to be sold. As a result, the pharmaceutical industry has become one of the strongest proponents of "reform."
And Big Pharma's financial reward is likely to be large.
Critics have complained that a drug industry got a sweetheart deal when it struck a bargain with the White House and Senate Finance Committee over health care reform.
There's new reason to think those critics were right.
It comes from an October forecast by IMS Health, a respected global research and consulting firm. The report, which IMS distributed to clients and which a source provided, projects that the drug industry will see average annual growth of 3.5 percent between 2008 and 2013.
Back in March, IMS had projected no growth at all during that same five-year stretch. In fact, it projected the drug business would actually contract slightly--with negative annual growth of 0.01 percent.
What changed? A major factor, according to IMS, was the emerging details of health care reform.
It is yet another example of how the greatest enemies of capitalism tend to be the capitalists.
Only time will tell, however, whether proponents of government control will live up to the deal. Or whether they will turn on the industry as a convenient source of financial savings when spending skyrockets, as it will. If that happens, the rest of us should wave cheerfully as Big Pharma finds itself transported to the political guillotine.
Veterans Day
Posted by on 11.11.09 @ 2:07PM
At the church I attend in northern Virginia, there is a tradition on the Sundays before Memorial Day and Veterans Day. The organist plays the hymns of each service branch and people stand when they hear their branch's hymn play. The people who rise from their pews are usually veterans. Some of them are currently serving. Others are family members of the fallen.
There are a lot of ways, both large and small, to pay tribute to those who have worn this country's uniform and served in harm's way. Veterans Day is as good as any to find them, in order to thank those who have served in our military and remember those who have given the ultimate sacrifice.
Not Just Rasmussen
Posted by on 11.11.09 @ 2:06PM
Below, Doug noted the Rasmussen poll giving an edge to the GOP on the Congressional ballot. But what's noteworthy is that the findings aren't isolated to Rasmussen, which tends to produce poll results more favorable to Republicans. The Gallup poll now gives Republicans a 4-point edge, which includes a 22-point lead among independent voters.
Gallup also adds some historical context:
Since Gallup regularly began using the generic ballot to measure registered voters' preferences for the House of Representatives in 1950, it has been rare for Republicans to have an advantage over Democrats. This is likely because more Americans usually identify as Democrats than as Republicans, but Republicans can offset this typical Democratic advantage in preferences with greater turnout on Election Day. Most of the prior Republican registered-voter leads on the generic ballot in Gallup polling occurred in 1994 and 2002, two strong years for the GOP.
UPDATE: Pew is out with a survey showing anti-incumbent sentiment "among the most negative in two decades of Pew Research surveys. Other low points were during the 1994 and 2006 election cycles, when the party in power suffered large losses in midterm elections." The survey also found Republicans have a "sizable" enthusiasm advantage.
Another Reason for Democrats to Vote No on Obamacare
Posted by on 11.11.09 @ 12:52PM
It's bad news for Democratic congressional candidates. According to Rasmussen Reports:
Republican candidates have stretched their lead over Democrats to six points in the Generic Congressional Ballot.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 43% would vote for their district's Republican congressional candidate while 37% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent. Republicans have held the lead for over four months now.
Voters not affiliated with either party continue to heavily favor Republicans, 43% to 20%.
A vote for nationalizing the health care system could easily be the final nail in the political coffin for a number of moderate Democratic legislators.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 11.11.09 @ 12:39PM
- Male Columbia professor allegedly punches female Columbia employee in the face while debating race issues (New York Magazine)
- Rio, a city supposedly better than Chicago with respect to the Olympics, gets its electricity back after widespread power outages (Associated Press)
- Taliban praises Fort Hood attack (Telegraph.uk)
- The 1970s we can believe in? Democrats in California seem stuck with Jerry Brown (MSNBC)
Pass Anything
Posted by on 11.11.09 @ 11:43AM
That was Bill Clinton's advice to Senate Democrats yesterday. He told them, "The worst thing to do is nothing. It's not important to be perfect here. It's important to act." This mentality is a perfect description of what is wrong with the political class -- the appearance of action always takes precedence over ensuring that the actions being undertaken are wise or just.
Fifteen years later, Clinton has never paused to consider that the Democrats might not have lost control of Congress because they failed to pass his health care reform bill. There is a case to be made they lost in no small part because the bill in question was such a federal power grab. Clinton is asking Senate Democrats to risk their seats based his memories of 1994, but not all of them will go along. Consider Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), for example.
America's European Welfare Queens
Posted by on 11.11.09 @ 10:59AM
The U.S. has created a defense dole in Europe, allowing the Europeans to spend their money on lavish social welfare benefits rather than military forces. Explains the Greek ambassador to the U.S. to the Washington Times:
NATO members' reluctance to assume a larger role in Afghanistan is partly the legacy of U.S. military protection, which allowed Europeans to stress social programs over defense for decades, the Greek ambassador to the United States said.
"For 40 years, you have a system [of] not bothering about military, security and stability expenses," Vassilis Kaskarelis told editors and reporters of The Washington Times. "Because these issues were handled by the United States after World War II ... everybody was happy."
Everybody is no longer happy. It's time to adopt some international welfare reform and get the cheats off of the backs of American taxpayers.
Why a Jobless Recovery?
Posted by on 11.11.09 @ 9:00AM
Government economic meddling doesn't help. University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan explains how government gets in the way:
Labor market distortions are a collection of factors that hold back employment, even when employees are creating a lot of value.
These distortions include difficulties in job search, income taxes, minimum-wage laws and incentives that are eroded by means-tested government benefits (determining whether someone should receive benefits based on things like the person's income). These factors can be difficult to quantify individually, but we know from the poor employment results that at least some of them are important.
Labor market distortions have gotten progressively worse during this recession. The federal minimum wage, for example, was increased once shortly before the recession began, a second time in the summer of 2008, and yet again this summer. The housing collapse has also had multiple harmful effects, such as impeding families who might want to move out of some of the hardest-hit regions toward areas where the economy is doing better.
These types of factors can make a bad labor market much worse.
Some distortions may at least stabilize in coming months, but he adds:
Congress appears poised to further erode incentives to earn income as an accidental byproduct of its plans reforming health care. Nor do consumers seem to be spending in anticipation of a grand employment recovery.
Rather a helping hand we have the unhelpful foot of government, giving job-seekers an unpleasant kick in the rear.
Who Is this Crazy Four Percent?
Posted by on 11.11.09 @ 8:06AM
The other 19 percent aren't looking too bright either.
According to Rasmussen Reports:
Some folks may be surprised that the number is this high, but only four percent (4%) of U.S. voters say most politicians keep their campaign promises.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 76% say the majority of politicians do not keep the promises they make on the campaign trail. Nearly one-out-of five voters (19%) aren't sure.
Maybe the four percent represent the population of America's mental hospitals.
The Day Ahead: November 11
Posted by on 11.11.09 @ 6:30AM
Today on the main site:
- The Man Who Despises America, by Mark Hyman
- On Speed, by Eric Peters
- The Absolutely Worst Bill Ever, by Peter Ferrara
- Fear of the Mother, by Shawn Macomber
- We Win, They Lose, by Lisa Fabrizio
- Antichrist, by James Bowman
Comment of the day:
Reader Philhoey on The Bigger Picture:
I remember flying over the Wall in the summer of 1970 when landing at Temphof. Later, I walked up as close to the wall as sanity permitted in those days. Somehow, I feel Mr. Obama has led a very sheltered life and has no understanding of what really went on during that period of time. There is an old saying that, 'What you do speaks so loudly, that I cannot hear a word you are saying." If the current Government in Washington continues on for the next three years as they have for the first year, then Jimmy Carter will no longer be on the bottom rung of the worst US Presidents.
What to watch for:
Tuesday's best:
Hollywood's Health Care Hypocrisy
Posted by on 11.11.09 @ 12:33AM
Back in September, Hollywood celebrities made a web ad mocking greedy insurance executives as part of a pitch for a government takeover of the health care system. But as it turns out, their commitment to reform has its limits. Variety reports:
The presidents of SAG, the WGA and the Hollywood Teamsters have asked Congress to back off a proposed tax that would hit the "Cadillac" health plans that cover members of their unions....
"We applaud your efforts to expand affordable health care coverage to more Americans and to reform the health insurance industry," the letter from the guild toppers said. "However, we are deeply troubled by the provisions of the bill passed by the Senate Finance Committee that would levy a new tax against so-called 'Cadillac plans.' The individual unions and guilds of the entertainment industry have struggled and sacrificed for decades to negotiate and defend their own Taft-Hartley health insurance plans."
So in other words, Hollywood actors and writers are perfectly okay with a national health care scheme that would tax middle-class Americans who don't purchase a govenment- approved insurance policy. But once the tax affects their precious "Cadillac" plans, it's a bridge too far.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Tea Partiers Claim A Scalp...
Posted by on 11.10.09 @ 7:14PM
The Pro-Choice Pushback
Posted by on 11.10.09 @ 1:46PM
Despite my skepticism that the Planned Parenthood wing of the Democratic Party will go away quietly, this Dana Goldstein piece suggests it won't be very strong. The Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus won't even release the names of the members who will supposedly vote against the bill to kill the Stupak amendment.
Citigroup Executive Pulls Out of Sham ACORN Panel Under Pressure
Posted by on 11.10.09 @ 1:24PM
Citigroup executive Eric Eve has resigned from ACORN's phony, allegedly independent advisory panel, a move that removes one of the few people on the panel who could even remotely claim to actually be independent.
If you read between the lines, it also seems to mean Citigroup agrees the panel is a sham. According to ACORN, the advisory council was established in early 2009 "to help facilitate a transition to a new management team under the leadership of CEO Bertha Lewis." The emergence of the undercover prostitution sting videos in September gave the council another problem to mull over.
Eve, senior vice president of Global Consumer Group, Community Relations, at Citigroup, quit after the National Legal and Policy Center pressed Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit to cut ties with ACORN.
In a letter to NLPC president Peter Flaherty, Citigroup announced Eve's resignation from the panel.
"We too are deeply concerned about the recent media reports regarding ACORN and, because of those reports, have suspended our charitable financial support and program relationships with ACORN, and we are awaiting the results of the independent audit of ACORN activities now underway," wrote Natalie Abatemarco, Citigroup's vice president, Global Community Relations.
"On a related topic, please be advised that Eric Eve has resigned his position on the ACORN Advisory Council," she added.
Citigroup is a Big Government lovers' bank that funds just about every trendy left-wing cause in America.
Long before it started drowning in red ink, the poster child for so-called corporate social responsibility was a longtime donor to left-wing pressure groups such as Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition and Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's Nature Conservancy. In tax year 2003, Citigroup's foundation gave 20 times more money to groups on the left than to groups on the right, according to Capital Research Center's 2006 study of Fortune 100 foundation giving. (Foundation Watch, August 2006.)
Citigroup's foundation has given a staggering $1.4 million to the alarmist World Resources Institute, as well as $509,000 to ACORN in recent years. The ACORN funding included a $500,000 grant to ACORN's American Institute for Social Justice, which offers Saul Alinsky-style training in community organizing. Other donations to liberal groups include the Aspen Institute ($762,500), Rainbow/PUSH Coalition ($750,000), Nature Conservancy ($380,000), Rainforest Alliance ($200,000), and the Council on Foreign Relations ($50,000).
For her part, former ACORN national board member Marcel Reid never believed the council would accomplish anything. Reid and board member Karen Inman were expelled from ACORN by chief organizer Bertha Lewis for asking too many questions about the $1 million embezzlement perpetrated by ACORN founder Wade Rathke's brother and then covered up for eight years.
When Reid, who is now a member of a reform group called ACORN 8, first heard of the panel, she told me this:
As former members of the Interim Management Committee elected by the national board of ACORN, we say that all of the things that this so-called independent panel is going to examine are things that we tried to accomplish. We called for all of these things -an audit, examination of the books, restructuring of the organization- all of this was already demanded by us.
And because we were trying to exercise due diligence as duly constituted directors of ACORN, we were relieved from our positions, forced out by the board under Bertha Lewis's direction.
We have no idea how an independent, thorough audit of ACORN can be conducted by these people who were not selected by ACORN's national board but were put in place by the same senior staff who conspired with Wade Rathke to cover up his brother's embezzlement for eight years and who subsequently silenced any voice that called for truth, transparency and accountability.
Former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger was appointed by ACORN to lead an investigation after the undercover videos made headline news. He's a former president of the left-leaning group Common Cause.
The members of the advisory council are ACORN allies and funders.
The members are
* John Podesta, President and CEO, Center for American Progress
* Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Board Member, RFK Foundation, former MD Lt. Governor
* Andrew Stern, International President, Service Employees International Union
* Henry Cisneros, Executive Chairman, Cityview (and a former HUD secretary)
* John Banks, Vice President of Government Relations, Con Ed
* Harvey Hirschfeld, President, Lawcash
* Dave Beckwith, Executive Director, Needmor Fund
Podesta helped manage Obama's presidential transition team and heads the aggressively left-wing Center for American Progress. The center is heavily funded by George Soros and the subprime mortgage hucksters Herb and Marion Sandler.
Podesta has always been there for ACORN in its time of need. When ACORN got hit with a new wave of election fraud-related charges in May, the Center's "Progress Action Fund" invited liberal and radical groups - including Harshbarger's Common Cause - to a meeting in Washington, D.C., to plan how to use rhetorical misdirection to take the focus off ACORN's increasingly well publicized corruption.
Andy Stern of SEIU is a longtime crusader for something called "social justice." Social justice is when you have more toys than your friends, so your friends hit you over the head and take some of your toys away. That way everyone is equal. That's social justice.
SEIU is intimately connected to ACORN but since the undercover sting videos surfaced showing ACORN employees giving advice on how to break the law, it's trying to distance itself from the group.
Good luck with that, SEIU.
President Obama As King Solomon
Posted by on 11.10.09 @ 12:30PM
As I've said before, in Barack Obama's world there are no trade-offs or costs to be weighed against benefits. There are only false choices to be repudiated by wise thinkers. And everything can be worked out in a perfectly nuanced fashion, under his leadership. This is well illustrated by his response when asked whether he supports jailing people who don't buy health insurance:
During an exclusive interview with ABC News' Jake Tapper today, President Obama said that penalties are appropriate for people who try to "free ride" the health care system but stopped short of endorsing the threat of jail time for those who refuse to pay a fine for not having insurance."What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don't, you're subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it's affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there's a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are -- are burdened by because of the fact that people don't have health insurance, you know, there's nothing wrong with a penalty."
Under the House bill those who can afford to buy insurance and don't' pay a fine. If the refuse to pay that fine there's a threat - as with a lot of tax fines - of jail time. The Senate removed that provision in the Senate Finance Committee.
Mr. Obama said penalties have to be high enough for people to not game the system, but it's also important to not be "so punitive" that people who are having a hard time find themselves suddenly worse off, thus why hardship exemptions have been built in the legislation.
Penalties strong enough to alter behavior but not strong enough to penalize.
Don't Bail Me, Bro!
Posted by on 11.10.09 @ 11:48AM
The Columbia Journalism Review, published by my alma mater, makes a disturbing case for government aid for journalism.
The CJR editors attempt to qualify their argument:
We are not in favor of a bailout for the newspaper business, and we certainly don’t support subsidies that would simply prop up the status quo. But it seems increasingly clear that, at least in the short term, sustaining the kind of accountability journalism that our society needs—and that newspapers have been the chief producers of—will require some creative help from Uncle Sam. And not because newspapers failed to adapt to the digital age. Ultimately, this isn’t about newspapers.
The editorial argues that diminishing sources of revenue have reduced the amount of money available to finance "accountability journalism," and thus we need to consider "smart" strategies to make sure such journalism is being done. The editors cite the magazine's cover story, in which Leonard Downie Jr. and Michael Schudso suggest "requir[ing] broadcasters, Internet service providers, and telecom users to pay into a fund that would be used to support local accountability journalism in communities around the country."
The editorial also notes that, "Media historian Paul Starr, in testimony in September before a congressional committee, made a similar case for subsidies. He suggested that they be 'viewpoint-neutral,' 'platform-neutral,' and 'neutral' or at least reasonably balanced as to organizational form."
The problem, of course, is who is going to determine what is considered "accountability journalism"? Who is going to decide what's "viewpoint neutral"? Or "reasonably balanced"? Once you put government in a position to make such judgments, everything becomes politicized. Would a government body determine that exposing ACORN is a valid example of "accountability journalism," or would that qualify as a right-wing political crusade? Should health care coverage be more critical of the cost estimates put out by Democrats, or put more emphasis on abusive practices by the insurance industry?
CJR editors advocate government help because they want people like Paul Starr to determine what's "viewpoint neutral." But while they see Starr as a "media historian," I see him as a liberal activist and co-editor of the left-wing magazine the American Prospect. If CJR editors were to get their wish, they may come to regret it one day. Conservatives are outraged about liberal media bias as it is, but wait until government officials decide what constitutes fair and balanced coverage. Suddenly, news coverage would become a political issue, and candidates stumping in Iowa would be promising to confront media bias. And at some point, conservative lawmakers would be in a position to appoint the government media monitors. Suddenly, these same CJR types would be complaining about how the journalism regulatory process was becoming too "politicized." The challenges facing journalism are real, but the solution is not more government meddling that would ultimately compromise the independence of the press.
The Stupak Amendment and the Stupid Party
Posted by on 11.10.09 @ 11:17AM
Much as I dislike anything that wins votes for the Democratic health care bill, I agree with Bill McGurn's take on how Republicans needed to react to the Stupak amendment:
Now, some believe Republicans should have voted "present" on the Stupak amendment, on the grounds that the worse they could make the bill, the harder for Speaker Pelosi to get the magic 218 votes. That's pretty short-sighted, for several reasons. For one thing, in September all but a few Republican House members signed a letter to Speaker Pelosi demanding such a vote. Had Republicans defeated a pro-life amendment they had asked for, they would have paid a dear price for their cynicism.
For another, it's not even clear it would have worked. The Stupak alliance of Democrats was a broad one, from liberals like Minnesota's Jim Oberstar to conservatives like Mississippi's Gene Taylor. The danger of the cynical GOP strategy is that it could easily have backfired, freeing up Democrats to give Mrs. Pelosi her victory-and putting Republicans in the awkward position of being unable to press for funding restrictions they had explicitly defeated.
I don't, however, agree that the "Planned Parenthood wing" of the Democratic Party is too weak to impose its will on the health care bill at some point. But that points to another reason it was correct for Republicans to vote for the amendment: it might have made short-term passage more likely, but it will complicate the bill's long-term prospects.
"Only Dictators...
Posted by on 11.10.09 @ 10:51AM
A small tribute to an oft-overlooked aspect of the long fight to free the peoples and minds of Eastern Europe on this, the anniversary week of the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 11.10.09 @ 10:15AM
- Telegraph.uk ponders whether a trip to the Berlin Wall would have been Obama-focused enough for him to make it.
- Obama says he wants to bring the apology tour to Hiroshima, but can't make it on his coming Asia trip (Associated Press)
- Democratic healthcare holdouts Costa and Cardoza win pork for their district after voting in favor of the bill (Hill)
- Gay Democrats are boycotting the DNC, Obama from fundraising (Politico)
Re: Healthcare: An Open-Ended Commitment
Posted by on 11.10.09 @ 10:06AM
Political calculus. Yikes.
Let's just spell that last part out. The political calculus is that the more voters can be made dependent on government, the greater the number of them who will support the statist party. Tocqueville, where are you now, sir????
Liberal Concedes Health Care Bill Will Create New Entitlement "Impossible to Rescind"
Posted by on 11.10.09 @ 10:05AM
Like most liberals, the John Cassidy supports the passage of health care legislation. But, unlike most liberals, he's honest about the costs and consequences of passing it. Via WSJ, I see this item Cassidy recently wrote. While the substance should not surprise anybody who is a regular reader of this blog, it is rather startling coming from the pages of the New Yorker.
"[W]e will be dealing with its consequences for decades to come, and I think it’s important to be clear about what the reform amounts to," Cassidy wrote. He goes on to confess that, "The future cost savings that the Administration and its congressional allies are promising to deliver are based on wishful thinking and sleight of hand. Over time, the reform, as proposed, would almost certainly add substantially to the budget deficit, thereby worsening the long-term fiscal crisis that the country faces."
After explaining many of the accounting tricks the Democrats have used to obtain a passing grade from the Congresssional Budget Office, which I have detailed on numerous occasions, Cassidy concludes:
So what does it all add up to? The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment to help provide health coverage for the vast majority of its citizens. I support this commitment, and I think the federal government’s spending priorities should be altered to make it happen. But let’s not pretend that it isn’t a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won’t.
Many Democratic insiders know all this, or most of it. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration, like the Bush Administration before it (and many other Administrations before that) is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind. At some point in the future, the fiscal consequences of the reform will have to be dealt with in a more meaningful way, but by then the principle of (near) universal coverage will be well established. Even a twenty-first-century Ronald Reagan will have great difficult overturning it.
That takes me back to where I began. Both in terms of the political calculus of the Democratic Party, and in terms of making the United States a more equitable society, expanding health-care coverage now and worrying later about its long-term consequences is an eminently defensible strategy. Putting on my amateur historian’s cap, I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically necessary to get great reforms enacted. But as an economics reporter and commentator, I feel obliged to put on my green eyeshade and count the dollars.
If there is any smidgen of hope for small government conservatism at some future date, it hinges on whether or not we can stop this monstrous legislation.
A Sign of the Times?
Posted by on 11.10.09 @ 9:05AM
New York Times' columnist Bob Herbert, to me, has always epitomized the kind of unyielding and predictable liberalism that makes the newspaper's editorial and op-ed pages a bore, but at the same time, his columns are something of a barometer of elite public opinion. That's why today's column by Herbert, framed with the hypothetical "If I were a close adviser of President Obama’s, I would say to him..." is noteworthy:
Reforming the chaotic and unfair health care system in the U.S. is an important issue. But in terms of pressing national priorities, the most important are the need to find solutions to a catastrophic employment environment that is devastating American families and to end the folly of an 8-year-old war that is both extremely debilitating and ultimately unwinnable.
If Obama's singular focus on passing health care legislation is starting to make even a dependable liberal like Herbert get antsy, then it tells me Democrats are running out of time to get this done.
The Day Ahead: November 10
Posted by on 11.10.09 @ 6:31AM
Today on the main site:
- The Bigger Picture, by Ropert P. Kirchhoefer
- Czars along the Potomac, by Frank Schell
- Bursting the Economist's Population Bubble, by Joseph Meaney
- The Wall, the Fort and a Movie: The Real Disaster of 2012, by Jeffrey Lord
- Abandoned Under Obama, by Heather Robinson
What to watch for:
Monday's best:
Medvedev speaks on the Berlin wall:
Monday, November 9, 2009
Meeting of the Minds in Houston
Posted by on 11.9.09 @ 7:24PM
Houston readers, I'll be doing a book signing for The End of Secularism Tues, Nov. 10 at Houston Baptist University in the university art gallery. Come see me, won't you?
And hey, I'm not J.K. Rowling, come with or without a book and we shall speak of many things over university provided refreshment.
Conservative Leaders Oppose David Hamilton's Nomination
11.9.09 @ 7:17PM
MEMO FOR THE MOVEMENT:
Senate Should Reject Nomination of David Hamilton to Seventh Circuit
RE: Judge David Hamilton's nomination to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Senate may consider this controversial nomination in the near future. Judge Hamilton fails to meet the qualifications for the high office to which he has been nominated, and his record demonstrates that he would decide cases on the basis of his politics and personal agenda instead of the Constitution.
Continue reading…
With Friends Like This...
Posted by on 11.9.09 @ 7:06PM
For the record, Republicans aren't scared of Michael Steele because he's black, but rather because this man supposedly representing their philosophic ideas and political goals is a hammy buffoon who can't decide if he wants to be, as an adept purveyor of incoherent hip-hoppity gobbledygook, merely incompetent or just plain vanilla embarrassing. Let's hope he's struggling toward an identity beyond Ticker Offer in Chief, anyway.
But then again, maybe I'm just too dim to understand the grand chess game he's playing in his head.
Obama: "This is a health care bill, not an abortion bill"
Posted by on 11.9.09 @ 5:38PM
President Obama said in an interview with ABC's Jake Tapper that the language in the House Democrats' health care bill that would bar taxpayer funding for abortion should be changed:
"I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill," Obama said. "And we're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions.
Saying the bill cannot change the status quo, the President said "there are strong feelings on both sides" about an amendment passed on Saturday and added to the legislation, "and what that tells me is that there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we're not changing the status quo."
...
"I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test -- that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we're not restricting women's insurance choices," he said.
The problem, as I explored in depth on the main site, is that the reason why the Stupak amendment restricts women's insurance choices is that it restricts everybody's insurance choices. The bill prevents individuals from purchasing insurance outside of a government-run insurance exchange and only allows them to purchase policies that have been approved by the Health Choices Commissioner. And the reason why existing restrictions on taxpayer funding for abortion need to be applied to private insurance for the first time, is that for the first time taxpayer subsidies are being used for people to purchase private insurance.
16 Members Cited Anti-Abortion Language in Reasons for Voting for HC Bill
Posted by on 11.9.09 @ 4:36PM
Following Saturday night's vote, I posted a list of the 42 members of the House who voted for the Stupak amendment to bar taxpayer funding for abortions and then in favor of the main bill. In the list below, I've narrowed it down to 16 members who specifically cited the anti-abortion language in their subsequent press statements explaining their final votes. Keep in mind that the final vote was 220 to 215, and if Nancy Pelosi would have lost any three of these members without picking up support elsewhere, she would not have been able to pass the bill. And while it's true, as some have argued, that Pelosi may have released some vulnerable Democrats to vote against the bill once she secured enough votes, it's unlikely that if she had sufficient support to pass the bill without the anti-abortion language, that she would have risked the fierce backlash among pro-choicers. Today, 41 Democrats vowed to vote against the final bill if the Stupak language isn't stripped.
While we can't know for sure how many of the 16 members listed below would have voted for the bill anyway, it at least gives us some idea of how many members are at least sensitive enough about the abortion issue to tout the adoption of pro-life language. All of the members listed below are Democrats, with the exception of Joseph Cao, the lone Republican who voted for the bill but has emphatically stated that he could not have done so without the Stupak amendment. I linked to their press release in each case, and put an asterik next to the names of those who co-sponsored the Stupak provision.
Marion
Berry (AR-1)
Sanford
Bishop (GA-2)
Chris Carney (PA-101)
Joseph Cao (LA-2)
Jerry
Costello (IL-12)
Kathy Dahlkemper* (PA-3)
Joe Donnelly (IN-2)
Steve Driehaus (OH-1)
Brad Ellsworth* (IN-8)
Baron
Hill (IN-9)
Paul Kanjorski (PA-11)
Marcy Kaptur* (OH-9)
Daniel Lipinski* (IL-3)
Alan Mollohan (WV-1)
James Oberstar (MN-8)
Bart Stupak* (MI-1)
Obama and the Street
Posted by on 11.9.09 @ 4:29PM
It's not very surprising that the New York Times' Alessandra Stanley would shoehorn Obama worship into the opening paragraph of a story on Sesame Street's fortieth anniversary, but still sort of fun to document anyway. Here we go:
It is almost too perfect that the first African-American president of the United States was elected in time for the 40th anniversary of "Sesame Street." The world is finally beginning to look the way that the PBS show always made it out to be.
I must have missed the giant talking birds, cantankerous garbage can dwellers, and cookie monsters walking the streets in the aftermath of Election 2008 and almost too perfect?! That's a pretty wishy washy assessment, no? What is this lady, an angry tea bagger?!
But don't worry she still finds nits to pick with the show's sometimes regressive politics:
The pedagogy hasn’t changed, but the look and tone of “Sesame Street” has evolved. Forty years on, this is your mother’s “Sesame Street,” only better dressed and gentrified: Sesame Street by way of Park Slope. The opening is no longer a realistic rendition of an urban skyline but an animated, candy-colored chalk drawing of a preschool Arcadia, with flowers and butterflies and stars. The famous set, brownstones and garbage bins, has lost the messy graffiti and gritty smudges of city life over the years. Now there are green spaces, tofu and yoga.
It’s still a messianic show, but the mission has shifted to the more immediate concerns of pediatricians and progressive parents, especially when it comes to childhood obesity. “Sesame Street” takes the Muppets, rhymes and visual verve that were developed to instill tolerance, racial pride and equality, to preach exercise and healthy eating.
***
It is an urban myth that Cookie Monster was turned into Veggie Monster to appease nutrition Nazis, however — that was a blogosphere rumor in the Paul-Is-Dead school of whispering campaigns. But Cookie Monster’s palate was refined during Season 36 as part of the show’s “healthy habits for life” campaign. He now also gobbles fruits and vegetables, which are labeled by the show as “anytime” foods while cookies are held in reserve as “sometime” food. And almost every episode has a subliminal message about exercise and nutrition, along with a fruit bowl.
I think the key terms here were pedagogy, gentrified, green spaces, racial pride, Veggie Monster, palate was refined during Season 36, Paul is Dead--what? seriously?!--sometime food, and subliminal...fruit bowl. Did I miss anything? Keep burning that revolution fire New York Times!
Carly Fiorina's Twitter Opponent
Posted by on 11.9.09 @ 1:04PM
In the last week, Senate candidate Carly Fiorina has mentioned Senator Barbara Boxer six times on her campaign's Twitter page. Since the page was launched in September, it has not once mentioned her Republican primary opponent, California Assemblyman Chuck DeVore. A Greenberg Quinlan and Rosner poll released on Sunday showed the two candidates as even, 27-27 percent each, in the primary race. While Fiorina's cash resources might make her the favorite eventually, she might miss an interesting primary race if she continues to look ahead.
Report: 41 Dems Pledge to Vote Against Bill With Pro-Life Amendment
Posted by on 11.9.09 @ 12:54PM
Greg Sargent has obtained a working copy of a letter in which 41 House Democrats pledge to vote against a health care bill that includes the Stupak amendment that would prevent taxpayer dollars from funding abortion. The 41 Democratic "no" votes could be sufficient to block final passage of any health care bill. The problem for Nancy Pelosi is that without the pro-life language, the bill would not have passed on Saturday night. The abortion issue is now causing a civil war within Democratic ranks, and has emerged as one of the biggest obstacles to getting health care legislation passed.
The New Army: Psychiatrists, Strip Clubs, Jihad and 'Diversity'
Posted by on 11.9.09 @ 12:35PM
The Army that Patton and McArthur commanded has apparently ceased to exist:
The Army psychiatrist authorities say killed 13 people and wounded 29 others at the Fort Hood Army Base Thursday was a recent and frequent customer at a local strip club, employees of the club told FoxNews.com exclusively.
Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan came into the Starz strip club not far from the base at least three times in the past month.
Whereas the Old Army specialized in killing our nation's enemies, today's New Army specializes in diversity:
The general said that while what happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, "I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here."
"And it's not just about Muslims," he said. "We have a very diverse Army. We have a very diverse society. And that gives us all strength. So again, we need to be very careful with that."
Diversity is our strength, until it kills us.
Fort Hood Gunman Tied to Same Mosque As Two 9/11 Hijackers
Posted by on 11.9.09 @ 11:36AM
It is now being reported that alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan attended the same Virginia mosque as two of the 9/11 murderers. If confirmed, it will show that Hasan shared more with the 9/11 hijackers than a taste for strip clubs and murderous intent.
Wash Post Editorial Page Editor Warns PelosiCare Could Bankrupt U.S.
Posted by on 11.9.09 @ 10:59AM
For all the criticism it receives from conservatives, the Washington Post should not be lumped together with the New York Times. While the Times is a consistent shill for the liberal policy agenda, the Post has actually consistently published editorials critical of the Obama administration's policies, especially on fiscal issues. Today, Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt, in a piece that opens by celebrating the aims of the House health care bill, declares that the "bill also could take America a step closer to bankruptcy."
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 11.9.09 @ 10:39AM
- Intelligence officials reportedly knew that Fort Hood shooter had tried to contact suspected Al Qaeda figures (ABC News)
- Devout Muslim Hasan was a regular at a strip club, but was apparently a classy customer who tipped (Fox News)
- NY-23 Congressman Owens flipped on public option (Governeur Times)
- Health bill, public option is "dead on arrival" in the Senate -- Lindsey Graham (CBS)
Reagan at Brandenburg Gate
Posted by on 11.9.09 @ 10:30AM
This is what it was like to have a President who wasn't afraid to promote American values abroad.
No Berlin Wall Apology?
Posted by on 11.9.09 @ 9:27AM
As we celebrate the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, it's clear not everyone learned the lessons President Reagan taught us about American strength, commitment to freedom, "meddling," and dealing with the world's evil empires.
No Berlin Wall Apology?
By Asher Embry
Of course Barack’s not in Berlin to celebrate the
fall.
At least he’s not apologizing for "…
tear down this wall."
(You can read more of Asher Embry's Political Verse at www.politicalverse.com.)
The Day Ahead: November 9
Posted by on 11.9.09 @ 6:10AM
Today on the main site:
- Leaving Parents Behind, by RiShawn Biddle
- Walls Can Fall, by Darrell Issa
- Obamanomics' Backlash Stimulus, by Ralph R. Reiland
- The GOP's Civil "Civil" War, by G. Tracy Mehan, III
- The Old Horse Home, by Bill Croke
Comment of the day:
Reader Mark Pettifor on The Spirit of 1989:
Mr. Bandow,
Something that everyone seems to be missing in all the nostalgia and reflecting back on that historic time is that human nature doesn't change much.
When I see statements like "Communist Party boss Erich Honecker wanted to shoot them; rather than commit mass murder, the Politburo dumped Honecker" and "Within a year the ugly, brutish regime, which had distinguished itself by shooting desperate people seeking to escape to freedom, disappeared", the question that comes to mind is this: Are you saying that the Kremlin killers at some point just changed their minds, and decided that well, heck, we're gonna lose this ideological war (not to mention the guns and bullets war with weapons and all that other stuff that we made to back up our ideology and give it teeth) so we might as well cut our losses and become happy little capitalists?
If we really won not only the Cold War, but the ideological struggle between freedom and the totalitarian ideologies in the East, then why hasn't anyone who was part of the group of strategists who plotted for a generation the destruction of the West come forward to admit that they were wrong, the West was right, freedom is their new god, and, oh, regarding those hundreds of millions of people we killed, well, sorry 'bout that, can we be friends now?
Nope. I'm not buying it. Russia (and China) are just as much a threat now as they were then, only it's different kind of threat. When your enemy fakes death, and you believe it, you're in twice the danger as you were before.
Soviet defector Golitsyn told us all of this in his book "New Lies For Old." If only people had paid attention to what he wrote.
By the way, he predicted that the Communists would tear down the Berlin Wall 5 years before it happened. Makes one want to go read what else he had to say, doesn't it?
What to watch for:
Friday's best:
Allen West on the Fort Hood Massacre
Posted by on 11.9.09 @ 5:46AM
Retired Army Lt. Col. Allen West -- a Republican congressional candidate in Florida -- has blunt words:
Our Country has become so paralyzed by political correctness that we have allowed a vile and determined enemy to breach what should be the safest place in America, an Army post.
We have become so politically correct that our media is more concerned about the stress of the shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan. The misplaced benevolence intending to portray him as a victim is despicable. The fact that there are some who have now created an entire new classification called; "pre-virtual vicarious Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)" is unconscionable.
This is not a "man caused disaster." It is what it is, an Islamic jihadist attack. . . .
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Re: Defending Cao
Posted by on 11.8.09 @ 8:55PM
Quin, I understand your point and agree with it as far as it goes. Rep. Cao certainly has an obligation to represent his constituents and he also must follow his conscience on taxpayer funding of abortion. This vote, as long as the Stupak Amendment remains intact, allows him do both. But conservative criticism of Cao is understandable too. As long as Republicans are in the minority and have little leverage in the House, there are only a few issues where they (combined with moderate Democrats) potentially have the votes to do some good: health care, card check, cap and trade, some abortion financing issues. As I said during the Dede Scozzafava kerfuffle, the fewer of those issues a Republican is any good on the less point there is for conservatives to support them, however admirable their personal qualities may be.
Defending Cao
Posted by on 11.8.09 @ 12:59PM
Conservatives need to take a deep breath, relax, and stop bashing Joseph Cao. The man never claimed to be a fully committed economic conservative. He represents a district that is about 75 percent Democrat and 62 percent black (or thereabouts). He SAID ALL ALONG, FOR MONTHS, that he would probably vote for health care reform if it included strong pro-life language such as the Stupak Amendment. He stuck to his guns, even though his district is not majority pro-life. He is a traditionalist Catholic, former Jesuit seminarian, and he stands up for the principles he holds dear, one of which is the sanctity of innocent life. He is willing to lose his office on behalf of that pro-life stance. And he has taken a leadership role in anti-Communist measures, meeting with the Dalai Lama when Obama wouldn't, and calling out the Vietnamese Communist government when too many these days refuse to recognize that Vietnam's mostly free market does NOT mean it is a free society. He is a thoughtful, principled, well-intentioned public servant. He also represents a district that is fundamentally liberal. Congressmen have two roles: they are delegates, meaning their voters delegate to them the ability to use their judgment on complicated policy matters; and they are representatives, meaning they are there, specifically, to represent the will of their constituents. Serving in Congress is often a balancing act: When your district slightly favors one course of action but you strongly favor the opposite, you do what you believe and try to explain to your constituents why you bucked their wishes. That is being a delegate. But when you are ambivalent about an issue, even slightly against a course of action but only slightly, and your constituents STRONGLY favor the course of action, then your responsibility is to accurately reflect -- to REPRESENT -- the will of your constituents and vote in favor.
As Cao is no expert on things economic, and believes that something has to be done for the uninsured, and is neither convinced that the Pelosi bill is the right approach but ALSO not convinced that it is wrong, he then felt an obligation to act as a representative. There is no shame in that.
Meanwhile, note that Cao did not hold out for just some ridiculous pork project favored by big-money lobbyists; he instead asked for help with local issues caused by THE GREATEST NATURAL CATASTROPHE THAT EVER HIT THIS NATION. These are not roads to nowhere; they are health issues for a still-recovering population. Agree or disagree with his request, it is not outlandish.
Ronald Reagan understood that sometimes local issues prevail. He played the game brilliantly. Remember that to pass one of his big initiatives -- either the Reagan-Kemp-Roth tax cut or the major Gramm-Latta spending cuts, I can't remember which -- it was Reagan's willingness to horse-trade that led Democratic then-Rep. John Breaux of Louisiana to boast about some protection he got for the sugar cane industry. Asked if his vote had been for sale, Breaux cracked: "No, of course it isn't for sale, but it is for rent!"
What Cao did was nowhere near as cynical as that; but conservatives loved it when Breaux did it, because it brought him to Reagan's side on a key vote.
But again, ALL ALONG, for months, Cao had said his line in the sand was abortion financing, and openly said he would likely vote for a bill that blocked such financing. In short, he did the honorable thing by saying where he stood and sticking with it. No, of course I don't like his vote. But give the man a break: He's an honorable, incredibly hard-working, inspirational young representative who is doing his darnedest to do a good job in a district ordinarily incredibly hostile to conservatives and Republicans of all stripes.
More power to him.
The Elite Search for Non-Meaning at Fort Hood
Posted by on 11.8.09 @ 11:37AM
Jeffrey Goldberg notices that his Atlantic Monthly colleagues are in See-No-Evil mode. A few thoughts on why this is so:
The nature of elite reaction is not strictly a matter of the potential political ramifications of events. There is also the matter of complexity and nuance, which are specialties of the intelligentsia. When events seem to teach a simplistic liberal lesson, there is no need to seek out any mitigating factors. Yet when the simple lesson would seem to favor a conservative argument, there is a frantic search for mitigation, or else the event is dismissed as meaningless.
The murder of Matthew Shepard was interpreted as evidence of mass homophobia induced by Christian conservatism, even though the murderers were a couple of two-bit hoodlums with no known ties to the Religious Right. Yet here we have Nidal Malik Hasan reportedly screaming "Allahu Akbar" while gunning down U.S. troops and . . . well, this means nothing.
You can read the whole thing. But obey President Obama and don't "jump to conclusions," or else you'll forfeit any hope of ever belonging to the elite.
Members to Watch
Posted by on 11.8.09 @ 1:26AM
I've done an analysis of Saturday's roll call votes, and I've found that there were 42 members of the House who voted both in favor of the Stupak amendment to bar taxpayer funding for abortions and in favor of the main bill. The reason why I've focused on these members is that clearly, Speaker Nancy Pelosi couldn't have won passage of health care legislation had the House not adopted pro-life language. The names below are all of those who voted in favor of both measures, with an asterik next to those who were considered undecided on the morning of the vote. To be clear, many of these members would have supported the health care bill no matter what. However, given the 220-215 vote margin on Saturday night's vote, what it means is that if the pro-life language is stripped from the bill during negotiations with the Senate, if Pelosi loses the support of any three of these people below as a result -- without picking up anybody else's support -- the bill cannot pass the House.
Joe Baca
Marion Berry*
Sanford Bishop
Dennis Cardoza*
Chris Carney*
Jim Cooper*
Jim Costa*
Joseph Cao*
Jerry Costello
Henry Cuellar*
Kathy Dahlkemper
Joe Donnelly*
Mike Doyle
Steve Driehaus*
Brad Ellsworth*
Bob Etheridge*
Baron Hill
Paul Kanjorski*
Marcy Kaptur*
Dale Kildee
Jim Langevin
Daniel Lipinski
Stephen Lynch
Michael Michaud*
Alan Mollohan
John Murtha
Richard Neal
James Oberstar
David Obey
Solomon Ortiz
Tom Perriello*
Earl Pomeroy
Nick Rahall
Silvestre Reyes
Ciro Rodriguez*
Tim Ryan
John Salazar
Vic Synder
Zack Space*
John Spratt
Bart Stupak*
Charles Wilson
Cao Cites Pro-Life Language, Promises from Obama For His Health Care Vote
Posted by on 11.8.09 @ 12:39AM
Joseph Cao, the lone Republican to vote in favor of the health care bill, released a statement explaining his decision. In his statement, he emphasizes the adoption of the Stupak pro-life amendment, and also notes:
“Today, I obtained a commitment from President Obama that he and I will work together to address the critical health care issues of Louisiana including the FMAP crisis and community disaster loan forgiveness, as well as issues related to Charity and Methodist Hospitals. And, I call on my constituents to support me as I work with him on these issues.
Pelosi: No "Common Ground" Yet on Abortion Language
Posted by on 11.8.09 @ 12:11AM
In a news conference following the House health care vote, Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked to react to the passage of the Stupak pro-life amendment and the harsh criticism coming from pro-choice groups.
“We have sought over the course of the development of this bill common ground in many areas, this being one of those," Pelosi said. "We did not reach the common ground yet that we hoped to achieve, therefore we had an amendment on the floor. We will continue to seek common ground.”
Translation: don't worry liberals, it's unlikely that the Stupak language will make it into the final bill.
Meanwhile, in a separate news conference, Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur, one of the co-sponsors of the Stupak amendment, said: “This bill would not have moved forward in the House without the votes of the members who supported our amendment. And indeed I think two-thirds of those on our side who voted for this ultimately voted for passage.”
UPDATE: Democratic Rep. Brad Ellsworth said: “I’m very proud to be able to vote for the bill, but couldn’t have had this legislation not been part of it.”
- Common Prayer, Uncommon Beauty
- Evolve or Die
- Progressive Derangements
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
