- 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 21, 2009
The Road Ahead in the Health Care Battle
Posted by on 11.21.09 @ 8:10PM
While Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has secured the needed 60 votes to bring his health care bill to the Senate floor after Thanksgiving recess, there's still a long road to go until President Obama can sign legislation into law.
The optimistic take for Democrats today is obviously that health care legislation has cleared another hurdle. And it must be said that however many ups and downs there have been throughout the process, at each stage Democrats have found a way to move the ball down field. They managed to get bills out of committees, cobble together enough votes to get the bill passed in the House, and today, to get the bill to the Senate floor. Comprehensive health care legislation has never come this close to passing at any time in American history. Thus, there's good reason to believe that somehow the Democratic leadership, along with the White House, will be able to iron out their remaining differences, twist enough arms, and dole out enough goodies to get past the goal line.
With that said, there are plenty of ways for everything to completely fall apart for Democrats in the coming weeks and months. Though Reid was able to unite his caucus for tonight's vote, at least two Senators -- Joe Lieberman and Blanche Lincoln -- have unequivocally said that they would block any bill that still included a government plan at the end of the upcoming amendment process. Sen. Mary Landrieu said that Reid wouldn't have 60 votes unless Democrats agree to weaken the government plan so that it is triggered if private insurers don't reach certain benchmarks. Sen. Ben Nelson has said he wants more restrictive abortion language in the bill. That doesn't include other Democratic Senators whose votes could be in doubt depending on how the amendment process goes. It's worth keeping in mind that once the bill reaches the floor, Reid will need 60 votes to make any changes. It's really difficult to see how there could be 60 votes in the Senate to go as far as the House did to ensure that no taxpayer money covers abortions. And it's also questionable whether there are 60 votes to remove (or at least weaken) the government plan.
Even if Reid figures out a way to get his caucus to fall into line and squeaks the bill through the Senate, the Senate bill would still have to be reconciled with the House version. And anything that gets negotiated in that conference (on abortion language, the government plan, etc.) could upset the delicate balance that enabled Speaker Nancy Pelosi to pass the House bill by a narrow 220 to 215 vote margin.
Another thing to keep in mind is that with the bill first going to the Senate floor on November 30, this process is now all but assured to drag into next year. And there's a reason why the White House had been emphasizing the need to get health care done by the end of the year. The longer this drags on, the more pressure there will be on Democrats to do something about the unemployment crisis, the more President Obama's popularity can decline, the more chance there is that unforseen circumstances can get in the way, and the closer they get to the 2010 elections.
So, on one hand, Democrats scored a big victory today, but on the other hand, if it was this difficult to keep their caucus together on a vote to bring the bill to the floor, it may not bode well for the much tougher votes ahead.
UPDATE: As expected, the motion passed with 60 votes along straight party lines, shortly after 8 p.m. The Republicans had 39 votes against it -- George Voinovich was the only Senator who wasn't present. According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, he was back home observing the 30th anniversary of being elected mayor of Cleveland, with his old team.
In Sum, IPCC Discredited
Posted by on 11.21.09 @ 3:27PM
My colleagues at the Heartland Institute have posted their succinct summary of the implications from Climategate, and it is very simple: The UN IPCC gatekeepers have lost all credibility, and consequently their disciples no longer have it as an authority.
Emails exchanged by Phil Jones (director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit) and other leading scientists who edit and control the content of the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reveal a conspiracy to falsify the actual temperature record and silence so-called "skeptics." Anyone who continues to cite the IPCC as representing the "consensus" on global warming is wrong. The IPCC has been totally discredited.
And for good measure, Heartland has already consigned this event to their history archive, setting it in further context.
Blanche Lincoln Gives Reid Needed Votes to Advance Bill
Posted by on 11.21.09 @ 2:41PM
Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas said she would vote to allow the Senate health care bill to advance, thus giving Majority Leader Harry Reid the needed votes to bring the legislation to the floor for debate after Thanksgiving recess.
Lincoln also put fellow Democrats on notice that she would vote against moving the bill in the next major vote if the government-run plan is not removed by the end of the amendment process.
“Although I don’t agree with everything in this bill, I have concluded that I believe it is more important that we begin this debate to improve our nation’s health care system for all Americans, rather than just simply drop the issue and walk away,” Lincoln said.
She said that, “Attempts by the national Republican Party and other conservative groups to portray this as a vote for or against this particular health care reform bill, is untrue.”
Several times, she said she said it was “not my last or only chance to have an impact” and promised to be unswayed by pressure from political groups on the left or right.
“My first loyalties are to the people of Arkansas,” Lincoln insisted. But a Zogby poll released earlier this week found that Arkansans opposed health care legislation by a 64 percent to 29 percent margin, and after pollsters explained what was in the legislation, that number grew to 68 percent to 26 percent. It also showed that her reelection chances would be severely hampered in 2010 if she voted for the bill.
“I’m not thinking about my reelection, the legacy of a president, or whether Democrats or Republicans are going to be able to claim victory in winning this debate,” she said in announcing her support to advance the bill to the Senate floor.
But while securing a short-term victory for Reid, Lincoln also complicated things by vowing unequivocally to block any bill that included a government-run plan from getting a final vote.
“Let me be perfectly clear,” she said. “I am opposed to a new government administered health care plan as a part of comprehensive health insurance reform, and I will not vote in favor of the proposal that has been introduced by leader Reid as it is written.”
More specifically, she warned, “I am also aware that there will be additional procedural votes to move this process forward that will require 60 votes prior to the conclusion to the floor debate. I’ve already alerted the leader and I’m promising my colleagues that I’m prepared to vote against moving to the next stage of consideration as long as a government-run option is included.”
Earlier in her speech, Lincoln explained her reasons for opposing the government plan.
“I believe that we should work to make sure that we do not expose American taxpayers and the Treasury to a long-term risk that could occur over future government bailouts,” she said.
Landrieu Says She’ll Vote to Advance Health Care Bill
Posted by on 11.21.09 @ 12:51PM
And then there was one.
Sen. Mary Landrieu just announced she would vote to allow Harry Reid’s health care bill to make it to the Senate floor for a vote.
Landrieu, who was one of just two remaining Democratic holdouts, secured $100 million in special Medicaid funding for Louisiana as part of the bill. She cautioned that, "The vote today to move forward in this important debate should in no way be construed by supporters of this current framework as an indication of how I might vote as this debate comes to an end."
But her decision does make it much more likely that the legislation will ultimately pass, and leaves Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas as the only Democrat who has yet to declare her intentions. Reid needs Lincoln in order to reach the necessary 60-vote threshold.
UPDATE: Landrieu addressed the million payment to Louisiana in her remarks, blasting "very partisan Republican bloggers" for spreading the story. However, the news, as far as I can tell, was first reported by the Politico and ABC News. The argument she made was that post-Katrina federal aid to Louisiana made the state appear artificially richer, and thus deprived them of the federal Medicaid funding they deserve. And she boasted that the actual amount was $300 million.
In her remarks, Landrieu also suggested many improvements, and praised Sen. Ron Wyden proposal to open up the exchanges to those who may not be satisfied with their employer-based care.
She also continued to express reservations about the government plan, arguing that it would pose "significant risk to taxpayers over time.” Instead, she supports a proposal by Sen. Olympia Snowe to "trigger" the government plan if the private market doesn't meet certain government benchmarks.
That Dangerous Radical . . . Marvin Olasky?
Posted by on 11.21.09 @ 12:39PM
The late Francis Schaeffer was one of the most celebrated evangelical Christian writers of the late 20th century, the author of several influential books, including How Should We Then Live? Though less well-known than such figures as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, Schaeffer nonetheless played an important role in the rise of what is usually called the Religious Right.
Schaeffer's son, Frank, has in recent years begun to trade on his late father's legacy, asserting that Christian conservatives and the Republican Party have been bamboozled and hijacked by extremist charlatans. Chief among the charlatans, according to Frank Schaeffer, is Sarah Palin, whom he savages with a guilt-by-association attack involving Lynn Vincent, my longtime friend and co-author of Donkey Cons, who also happened to be Sarah Palin's collaborator on Going Rogue.
Among the telltale idiocies of Frank's attack is the way in which he cites a paragraph from Chapter 6 of Donkey Cons regarding Whittaker Chambers' revelations about Alger Hiss. This shows that (a) Schaeffer is getting his talking points from Media Matters, and (b) Schaeffer doesn't have any real comprehension of Chambers' significance in the history of American conservatism. Chambers' landmark memoir Witness was one of Ronald Reagan's favorite books, and Chambers interpreted his own experience through a religious lens. And it is scarcely an exaggeration to say that Chambers' exposure of Hiss was a turning point in world history. (Just in case anyone is curious -- I feel like Paul McCartney discussing his songwriting partnership with John Lennon -- Chapter 6 was largely Lynn's work.)
In his desperate desire to smear Palin, Schaeffer doubles down on idiocy by making Lynn the linkage for a second-degree guilt-by-association attack. Some such attacks -- including a misinformed outburst by Rachel Maddow a few weeks ago on NBC's "Meet the Press" -- have tried to use me as a stick with which to beat Palin, for having worked with Lynn, a "known associate" of such a terrible person as myself.
Schaeffer, however, chooses to focus his own guilt-by-association Palin smear on Marvin Olasky, who as editor-in-chief of World magazine was for many years Lynn Vincent's boss. (Readers are invited to smile with me at the irony of this. Would you wish to be held accountable for everything your boss ever said or did? And did I happen to mention that I spent 10 years working for The Washington Times, whose founder is the Rev. Sun Yung Moon?)
Schaeffer endeavors to convince readers that Olasky is a dangerous "far right" extremist, "who has been working to more or less turn America into a theocracy ever since the late 1980s and early 1990s," and whose work "was largely funded by far right banker" Howard Ahmanson. Generally speaking, I distrust any writer who, as Schaeffer does, insists on shoehorning three "far rights" into a single paragraph. Schaeffer earns compound interest on my distrust when, in support of his claim that Olasky is an advocate of "Bible-inspired totalitarianism/theocratic neofascism" (!) he cites Max Blumenthal, son of our old Clintonista acquaintance Sidney Blumenthal.
Most remarkably, Schaeffer does all this while posturing as a friend to Republicans and conservatives and -- further exposing himself as irony-impaired -- invoking another historic figure:
The chief characteristic of Palin's book is her trashing of the old cautious and respectable William F. Buckley-style Republican Party . . .
Buckley was among other things a close associate of that notorious extremist, Whittaker Chambers, but anyone familiar with Buckley's career knows that for many years the founder of National Review was regarded as anything but "cautious and respectable." Buckley's seminal book God and Man at Yale was famously denounced as "having the glow and appeal of a fiery cross on a hillside at night" (Saturday Review) and its author's methods described as "precisely those employed in Italy, Germany, and Russia" (New Republic).
By dint of his long and successful career, Buckley eventually obtained a stature that might be deemed "cautious and respectable," but to invoke Buckley's name as a means of denouncing an eminent conservative intellectual like Olasky as a "neofascist" is the act of a fool, which Frank Schaeffer most certainly is.
Elsewhere in the Enviro-Activist Mediasphere
Posted by on 11.21.09 @ 12:13PM
No need for me to leave out the other two media objects of my occasional denunciation in the Climategate story. George Soros's organizational daughter-in-law, Washington Post reporter Juliet Eilperin, apparently was instructed by her editor to come up with copy superficially sufficient to fill a 472-word space on page A14. Of course she obliged, tapping out a crime story while barely addressing the substance of what was discovered. She even read the statement from the Climate Research Unit confirming authenticity of the records, made at least four phone calls, and included the sexy part about the alarmists wanting to beat up Pat Michaels (Look at that face -- you wanna mess with him?!)!
Not bad, I guess, for a getaway Friday -- but points deducted, Juliet, for accepting at face value the CRU/alarmist assumption that it was a hack job. Very well could have been an insider with a conscience.
As for my other target, I decided to visit the Web site of the Society of Environmental Journalists to see what, if any, buzz might be going on there (despite it being a usually quiet Saturday). It was quiet, but they do have a news aggregator with continual feeds from other news organizations. I found the following headlines among the most recent (which include Saturday stories):
- Hidden threat: Elevated pollution levels near regional airports
- Today's Arctic Circle Comic Strip
- Michigan recycling rates drop
- Children starve in parched southern Madagascar
- As nuclear reactor fleet ages, engineers ask,' is 80 the new 40?'
- Tree-eating bugs threaten Monarch butterfly in Mexico
No sign of climate research units, emails, scientist tricks, hackers, or East Anglia. Maybe Monday!
Forget the Committees
Posted by on 11.21.09 @ 11:33AM
Women all over America were thrown for a loop this week when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force dropped its endorsement of regular mammograms for women aged 40 and above. But it went even further and recommended against teaching women how to screen themselves for lumps in their breasts.
Yikes! For decades we have all been told that screening was essential in the war against breast cancer. “Early detection saves lives” was the mantra. There have been public service ads on TV. Forty-nine states have mandated coverage of screening in insurance policies. The importance of early mammograms and self-screening have been drummed into the heads of every woman everywhere.
Now they are telling us it does more harm than good. Now they say early detection results in false positives, needless biopsies, excessive exposure to radiation, and the excision of lumps that are benign.
This is only the latest in a string of reversals. Just recently the National Committee for Quality Assurance abruptly dropped its recommendations on lowering glucose in diabetics because it was discovered that in some cases following its guidelines could harm or even kill patients.
And two years ago it was found that, while hormone replacement therapy (HRT) might be effective is treating the symptoms of menopause and lowering the risk of colon cancer and dementia, it also raised the risk of breast cancer, stroke, and ovarian cancer. Suddenly all the guidelines that had been developed were thrown out the window.
In each of these cases, the fall-back recommendation of these guideline-producing committees was “consult your doctor.” Well, Duh!
The fact is your doctor is able to prescribe the therapy most appropriate for your condition, health history, risk factors, and even genetic profile. Doctors can customize treatments to the needs of an individual patient. All a committee can do is tally up what is happening to a large number of people and average it over the whole population.
But averages are meaningless in health care – and in everything else. Iowa may suffer a drought in one year and floods the next year. Average them together and you have a nice, mild amount of rainfall. But that average tells us absolutely nothing about how corn farmers fared in either year.
Health care by committee is not a great idea in any event. But the real problem comes when these committees declare with absolute, 100 percent certainty that its guidelines are the way to go and every doctor should do exactly what the guidelines say – until it changes its mind. Then it will declare with absolute, 100 percent certainty that the new guidelines are the only way to go.
Now today the Preventive Services Task Force is saying DO NOT get an annual mammogram. But the American Cancer Society is still saying you SHOULD get an annual mammogram. Each side accuses the other of being influenced by business interests. On one side the insurance companies don’t want to pay for mammograms, but on the other side the companies that make the machines and supply the x-ray film want to sell more stuff. Who should you believe?
And this is the biggest problem with most of the health reform ideas coming out of Washington. The politicians are all influenced by lobbyists on one side or the other. And none of them care a whit about you, the patient.
Forget the committees and the politicians. Listen to the one person who knows you bet -- your personal doctor.
Reid Disses David Broder
Posted by on 11.21.09 @ 10:20AM
In his opening floor remarks Saturday morning, Sen. Mitch McConnell cited this David Broder column from the Washington Post on Obamacare, headlined, "A budget buster in the making."
Reid responded with the familiar criticism that McConnell has no business talking about fiscal responsibility when McConnell supported President Bush's reckless spending on Iraq. Then Reid scoffed at Broder, who he dismissed as "a man who has been retired for many years, and writes a column once and awhile."
What to Expect in the Senate Today
Posted by on 11.21.09 @ 10:08AM
The Senate has just open for business this Saturday morning to consider the motion to proceed that would require 60 votes to pass, and thus allow the 2,074-page health care bill to get to the floor. There will be 10 hours of debate, followed by a vote at 8 p.m. So far, we don't know what the outcome will be, becuase Democratic Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu have not announced their intentions.
Here's the debating schedule that Harry Reid announced this morning:
10 am-6pm: Each party controling alternating hours, with Democrats controlling the first hour.
6-6:30 p.m. Democrats' time.
6:30-7:15 p.m. Republicans' time.
7:15-7:30 p.m. Democrats' time.
7:30-8 p.m. Time controlled by leaders Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell.
8 p.m. Roll call vote on the motion to proceed.
The proceedings are being broadcast on CSPAN-2. I'll be updating this blog with breaking news or other items I find interesting and amusing. If you want more blow-by-blow reaction, you can follow me on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/philipaklein .
McCain is Not Scozzafava, and Palin Won't Be Branded a "Sell-Out"
Posted by on 11.21.09 @ 9:40AM
Daniel Larison, in response to Bill Kristol's suggestion that Palin campaign for McCain in the Arizona Senate primary, writes:
Were she to side openly with McCain in a primary against Hayworth, whose views match up a lot more closely with her supporters’ views, she would be seen as imitating McCain’s worst habits. She would be considered a worse sell-out than McCain. She would be doing exactly the opposite of what she did in NY-23. Her intervention may have failed to elect Hoffman, but rank-and-file conservatives generally loved her for it anyway. She would fritter all that away if she backed McCain. In exchange for the contempt and disaffection of the people who currently adore her, she would win the enduring affection of editors at The Weekly Standard. McCain seems to be satisfied with this, but I doubt it would be enough for Palin.
There is not much nuance to Larison's thinking here. It's completely absurd to compare the NY-23 Congressional race to the Arizona Senate primary, because beyond the broad outlines -- a race between an establishment candidate and a conservative insurgent -- there are few similarities. Scozzafava was not a moderate, she was a liberal who ultimately endorsed the Democrat anyway. It was not a matter of one issue -- she held liberal views on abortion, pledged to vote for "card check," and called the cops on a reporter who asked whether she would vote for a health care bill that raised taxes. McCain is pro-life. He has been firmly against "card check" to the point where he has actually blocked the nomination of Craig Becker to serve on the National Labor Relations Board (Becker is an SEIU lawyer who has written that "card check" could be implemented by the NLRB without Congressional action). He voted against the economic stimulus bill. And he has been adamantly against the health care bill. There's also the distinction between losing a single House seat and losing a Senate seat that could mean the difference between giving Obama a rubber stamp in the Senate or perhaps gaining a few seats next year to be able to effectively block anything major that Obama proposes. And while it was realistic to think that Hoffman could have a chance of winning, there's less reason to believe that J.D. Hayworth -- who couldn't win a Congressional race -- could win statewide. Now, I've had my share of issues with McCain over the years and am not going to argue that he's a perfect conservative. And for those who see immigration as such a crucial issue to them that they have to support Hayworth as a matter of conscience, I'm not going to tell them not to. But for Larison to sugeest that for Palin to keep in the good graces of her base, she has to back the more conservative candidate in every single race, no matter what other circumstances are in play, is totally ludicrous.
If there's one thing I've learned about Palin supporters -- especially when I've criticized her -- it's that they are generally very forgiving of her and willing to cut her a lot of slack. Ever since she burst onto the scene, I've been trying, to no avail, to argue that we shouldn't compare her to Ronald Reagan when he spent decades studying conservative philosophy and defending it and served two terms as governor of California, and she has a very slim governing record and it's unclear whether she's really a committed small government conservative. Even though I avoid the personal vitriol that has consumed much of the anti-Palin commentary and try to raise what I see as fair questions about her qualifications to be president, her acceptance of pork spending, her initial support for the "Bridge to Nowhere," etc., I'm brandished an elitist RINO who should shut up and go back to my brie and chablis. This is a long way of saying that it would take a lot more than backing McCain over Hayworth for Palin's supporters to view her as a "sell-out."
Presto! Alarmist Emails Not Such a Big Deal
Posted by on 11.21.09 @ 8:44AM
That's The Amazing Revkin for you -- the New York Times' DotEarth blogger/environmental reporter attempts some M*A*S*H-style meatball surgery this morning on the badly hemorrhaging climate alarmoscientists' scandal that has erupted in East Anglia, UK. First he acknowledges that some of the most prominent climate fictionalizers in the world said some very naughty things about global warming skeptics, but then he promptly cues the violins:
Some of the correspondence portrays the scientists as feeling under siege by the skeptics’ camp and worried that any stray comment or data glitch could be turned against them.
And then Revkin asserts that it's all pretty meaningless in the overall scheme:
The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument.
Revkin has authored two global warming books and so has a lot to lose himself from this controversy, as his reputation is just as much at stake as the scientists.' Therefore his defense mechanisms are fully engaged. In his blog post yesterday about the revelations, he states that repercussions "continue to unfold" and "there’s much more to explore," but do you really think he can be counted on for follow-up stories about it this week? We'll see, but this attitude doesn't give much hope:
The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here. But a quick sift of skeptics’ Web sites will point anyone to plenty of sources.
And what a surprise: He offers no links to those skeptics' sites. Meanwhile, blogger Tom Nelson notes Revkin's past freedom-of-information heroics when it came to scrutinizing the Bush administration. So while Revkin and alarmists engage in crybabyism, the climate realists among us train our eyes on the substantive. For example, Czech physicist Lubos Motl identified a few juicy morsels from the emails, including one in which the University of East Anglia CRU's Phil Jones writes to U.S. atmospheric scientist (and realist) John Christy:
...If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn't being political, it is being selfish. Cheers, Phil
Indeed, selfishness appears to be at the heart of much of the alarmism movement. Motl discovers money transfer methods and tax evasion schemes, as well as Jones's well-funded endeavors over the years:
So far, the most interesting file I found...shows that since 1990, Phil Jones has collected staggering 13.7 million British pounds ($22.6 million) in grants.
There is oh-so-much. Like I said yesterday, it's like watching the ACORN-sting videos over and over again because you just can't believe what you're seeing.
Friday, November 20, 2009
The Threat to Medical Innovation
Posted by on 11.20.09 @ 5:55PM
Earlier today, I attended a panel discussion at the Cato Institute about one of the most important aspects of health care that has gotten very little coverage during the current debate -- medical innovation.
Raymond Raad, a resident in psychiatry at New York Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center and co-author of a new Cato study, presented evidence showing that the United States leads the world in the development of drugs, medical devices, and other advanced treatments. For instance, between 1969 and 2008, 57 of the 97 Nobel Prizes in medicine and physiology -- or nearly 60 percent -- were awarded to people who did their research in the U.S., and nine of the top 10 medical innovations between 1975 and 2000 were developed here. But these achievements aren't reflected in rankings of different health care systems that typically show the U.S. faring poorly and provide fodder to those pushing for government-run health care. This even though once these products are developed in the U.S., they become widely available and improve health care outcomes around the world.
Raad argued that one of the big dangers of health care legislation is that expanding the role of government and trying to impose price controls could change incentives to innovate. When the government is such a large consumer of health care, it has tremendous influence over whether some innovations succeed. As an example, Raad noted how government stunted the growth of specialty hospitals by not allowing Medicare money to spent at them. Specialty hospitals are smaller institutions formed by doctors to focus on one type of illness, such as heart disease. They can deliver better health outcomes and a more personalized experience for patients than giant factory hospitals that benefit from their tax-exempt non-profit status even as they rake in billions of dollars. Raad explained that some of the most common and important medical innovations --such as CT scans -- were quite controversial when first introduced, and thus putting more constraints on the market could prevent wider use of new products that may ultimately prove beneficial.
Gerard Anderson, director of the Center for Hospital Finance and Management at Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, described himself as the liberal on the panel. He emphasized the importance of universal access to new medical innovations, and argued that it was "naive" to talk about where innovations originated, since they all tend to be developed on a multi-national basis in many stages. He also showed that the pace of medical innovation has slowed in recent years, in both the U.S. and Europe, and said that it's important to do something to change incentives that are currently in place. Currently, large drug companies spend just 12 percent to 15 percent of their outlays on researching and developing new drugs, and 30 percent on marketing them.
John Calfee of the American Enterprise Institute suggested several reasons to worry about in the current health care bills. He said they would increase the costs to both the public and private sector well beyond what Congressional Budget Office is projecting. And he warned that it would be difficult for government to resist the temptation to impose price controls on products that were very expensive relative to their marginal costs. For instance, once drugs are developed, the cost to manufacture each additional pill is small relative to the price charged for the drug. But imposing such controls would reduce profits and thus the incentives of drug companies.
Get That Hacker a Pimp Coat
Posted by on 11.20.09 @ 5:29PM
What made the ACORN-exposing work of James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles so sensational was that they successfully infiltrated the habitats of the subjects they investigated, and observed their routine behaviors. They didn't have to coerce or pressure the ACORN office workers to say or do things they did not want to do. It wasn't "60 Minutes," but it reflected the new paradigm under cable TV news and Web rules. James and Hannah were like computer hackers walking in the front door and literally being given what they wanted.
So now an actual hacker -- or an insider -- has exposed something similar in the global warming activism realm: scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (regarded as Britain's top authority) caught in behaviors they would never want the outside world to see. Marc Morano at Climate Depot is developing the link archive and Australian reporter Andrew Bolt is harvesting revelatory remarks from emails and documents, as he explains:
So the 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. I’ve been adding some of the most astonishing in updates below - emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. If it is as it now seems, never again will “peer review” be used to shout down sceptics.
This is clearly not the work of some hacker, but of an insider who’s now blown the whistle.
The clogosphere (climate blogs) is awash in this story (again, see Climate Depot). Even if this isn't your issue, you ought to at least spend a little time this weekend (all us politico-infojunkies still get our fixes on Saturdays, right?) perusing what Bolt has unearthed. Amazing stuff which Chris Horner says could be alarmism's "blue dress moment." As Bolt notes, it's not just the East Anglians -- it's the foremost global warmer scientists from all over, caught. Wow.
Justice Dep't Recusal List!
Posted by on 11.20.09 @ 3:03PM
To give credit where it is due, Byron York had a good piece on a brewing battle between Sen. Chuck Grassley and AG Eric Holder about how many times Justice officials have been forced to recuse themselves on suspected-terrorist detainee cases. Well, just within the past hour, we at the Wash Times advanced the story in a special early editorial. The answer for one official, departmental number 3 Tom Perelli: 39 times. This is a Wash Times opinion department exclusive.
The names of the detainees? Saad Al Qahtani. Mohammed Zahrani. Achraf Salim ("Sultan") Abdessalam. Abdul Rahman Abdul Abu Ghityh Sulayman. ......
Again, here's the link. Interesting stuff. Please read.
And it comes on the heels of my colleague Kerry Picket's great report yesterday that makes Chuck Schumer look a bit two-faced, about whether or not foreign terrorists captured abroad should be tried in criminal courts here.
All in all, this whole KSM trial continues to look worse and worse every day and every hour.
Mac is Back on the Right as 2010 Approaches
Posted by on 11.20.09 @ 3:03PM
Politico reported last night that Senator McCain is expressing disapproval towards Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman's attempt to write a bipartisan climate bill. The piece suggests a position switch, pointing out that McCain has previously introduced climate legislation to the Senate multiple times. The article raises the question over whether the recession in Arizona, which has been especially hard-hitting, is playing a role in his current stance towards a cap and trade bill.
What also could be at play is McCain's 2010 race. Rasmussen polling reported this morning that McCain is only two points ahead of former conservative Republican Congressman J.D. Hayworth for the primary. The last thing McCain needs right now politically is to be labeled as a "job killer" or even as a "Republican in name only."
The Ben Nelson Shuffle
Posted by on 11.20.09 @ 3:01PM
The conservative constituents of red-state Democratic senators should see through what Ben Nelson is doing. Many Democrats in difficult states will vote to let the bill go forward and then switch on the second cloture vote or vote no on the Senate floor after cloture is invoked. But voting for the motion to proceed now makes it more likely that the bill will pass and much more difficult for it to be significantly reshaped.
In fact, an analysis by the Congressional Research Service performed at the request of Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-Okla.) office found that in 40 of 41 cases between the 106th and 110th Congress where there was a successful motion to proceed and a final Senate vote on a bill, the bill in question passed. That 97.6 percent figure doesn't apply to bills that ended up getting pulled before the final vote, meaning that there would still be a chance to defeat the bill. But Democrats who profess to be concerned about the Senate bill -- because of abortion or any other reason -- should not vote for the motion to proceed.
Obama Gallup Rating Drops to Below 50%
Posted by on 11.20.09 @ 2:43PM
For the first time of his administration, President Obama's job approval rating has dropped to 49 percent in the Gallup poll. While it has been hovering in the low 50s for months now, the drop below 50 percent in the most well-known poll is an important symbolic moment that will add to the narrative that Obama is losing the support of the American people. The news comes just as Congress is hoping to enter the homestretch on health care, his top domestic priority. Click on the link for some historical context of other presidents.
Nelson to Vote to Advance Health Care Bill
Posted by on 11.20.09 @ 2:18PM
Sen. Ben Nelson said that he would vote to allow the Senate health care bill to move to the floor for debate, even though he said yesterday that the abortion language in the bill is not acceptable to him.
His decision leaves Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu as the remaining holdouts.
“Throughout my Senate career I have consistently rejected efforts to obstruct," Nelson said in a statement. "That's what the vote on the motion to proceed is all about."
He continuted:
“It is not for or against the new Senate health care bill released Wednesday.
“It is only to begin debate and an opportunity to make improvements. If you don't like a bill why block your own opportunity to amend it?
“As we have seen before, obstructionists are inviting a move toward reconciliation by opposing this first procedural vote. Let's be clear. That route shrinks debate and amendments, eliminates bipartisanship and needs only 50 votes to pass a bill.
“In the end, far more Washington-run health care policies win, but Nebraskans lose.
“In my first reading, I support parts of the bill and oppose others I will work to fix. If that's not possible, I will oppose the second cloture motion—needing 60 votes—to end debate, and oppose the final bill.
“But I won't slam the doors of the Senate in the face of Nebraskans now. They want the health care system fixed. The Senate owes them a full and open debate to try to do so.”
The problem, as his co-Senator from Nebraska Mike Johanns noted yesterday, is that once the bill gets to the floor, there will need to be 60 votes to change the abortion language. And there simply aren't that many pro-life votes in the Senate. So this really was a key test of his professed anti-abortion views.
Jim Antle wrote about the moment of truth facing pro-life Democrats on our main site.
AHIP Opposes Senate Health Bill
Posted by on 11.20.09 @ 2:10PM
America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group that has tried to remain in the good graces of the Obama administration and Democtrats in Congress on health care legislation, today issued a statement opposing the Senate bill.
"The promise of health care reform is that it will provide all Americans coverage, allow them to keep their coverage if they like it, and bends the cost curve to put the system on a sustainable path," AHIP's president, Karen Ignagni, said. "These are the standards by which any reform bill should be judged, and the Senate bill falls short of meeting them."
Ignagni specifically attacks the $6.7 billion annual tax on health insurers and warns that the introduction of a government-plan will shift more costs to those who obtain insurance privately. She also criticizes the $117 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage.
But AHIP is no fan of free markets, as it is pushing for an even stronger government mandate that would force individuals to purchase its product in exchange for agreeing to cover those with preexisting conditions.
The question is whether AHIP will actively begin to campaign against Democratic legislation, and even if so, whether it's too late for that to make a difference.
England's Lost Decade Ahead
Posted by on 11.20.09 @ 12:37PM
In February, the Times explained the lessons the U.S. could take away from Japan's Lost Decade. But now it seems that those morals are better suited for the U.K., which, the Times is now claiming, is staring down the barrel of it's own Lost Decade:
Britain may be emerging from recession, but that is little solace for those who suggest that the economy here might follow in the steps of Japan's lost decade in the 1990s unless the twin threats of burgeoning national debt and ruined banks are adequately addressed.
The parallels are easy to see: Like Japan, Britain enjoyed a decade of booming growth, fueled by aggressive bank lending and real estate investments. Haunted by the comparison, policy makers have been extra aggressive in using fiscal and monetary levers to prevent the type of sustained period of stagnation and banking stasis that plagued Japan for so long.
One of the interesting notes in the February article on the Lost Decade is that the fiscal measures Japan enacted throughout the 90s were a mixed bag, at best:
Japan’s rural areas have been paved over and filled in with roads, dams and other big infrastructure projects, the legacy of trillions of dollars spent to lift the economy from a severe downturn caused by the bursting of a real estate bubble in the late 1980s. During those nearly two decades, Japan accumulated the largest public debt in the developed world — totaling 180 percent of its $5.5 trillion economy — while failing to generate a convincing recovery.
...
In the end, say economists, it was not public works but an expensive cleanup of the debt-ridden banking system, combined with growing exports to China and the United States, that brought a close to Japan's Lost Decade.
So before paving over its rural areas, the UK should probably first address its "ruined banks." Weird that the Bank of Englad should be worrying about these things now, a full year after Gordon Brown's government interventions saved not only the banks, but also the world.
If WH Wants to Assauge Fears of Socialized Medicine
Posted by on 11.20.09 @ 11:35AM
Peter Orszag probably shouldn't be writing an op-ed in the Washington Post titled, "A leap forward to better care."
Global Warming Fraud Exposed: The Bogus Scientific 'Consensus'
Posted by on 11.20.09 @ 11:02AM
That supposed scientific "consensus" about global warming may actually be a conspiracy. E-mails from a British climate-research organization -- obtained by an Australian magazine, Investigate -- disclose scientists discussing a statistical "trick" to "hide the decline" of global temperatures in their data.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 11.20.09 @ 11:01AM
- Bay Area bookstores would rather lose money than sell Going Rogue (San Francisco Chronicle)
- Students outraged that tuition at the University of California is being raised 32% due to the University budget cuts by Sacramento (New York Times)
- Fred Thompson pulls a Harry Reid, says the Afghan war "has been lost" (Politico)
- $123,000 of federal stimulus money is being used to protect a party cruise ship in Boston from an attack (Boston Globe)
Poll Shows Blanche Lincoln Senate Seat at Risk if She Votes for Health Care Bill
Posted by on 11.20.09 @ 10:54AM
The White House has been trying to convince red state Democrats that it would be worse for their reelection chances if no health care bill passed and President Obama were seen as a failure, then if they could tout an acheivement. They note that Democrats killed health care legislation in 1994 and still lost Congress anyway.
But a new Zogby poll finds that Sen. Blanche Lincoln, one of a few Democrats who has not yet committed to voting to bring health care legislation to the Senate floor, would face a much tougher reelection fight in Arkansas in 2010 if she were to vote for the bill.
The poll finds that as it is, Lincoln holds a thin 41 percent to 39 percent lead over her potential Republican challenger, State Senator Gilbert Baker. But when pollsters followed up and asked how their support would change if Lincoln voted for the health care bill, suddenly it's Baker who enjoys a comfortable 49 percent to 37 percent lead. Overall, that's a 14-point swing against her just based on the health care vote.
Arkansans oppose the health care bill by an overwhelming 64 percent to 29 percent margin, and after pollsters explained what was in the legislation, that number grew to 68 percent to 26 percent.
A vote for the health care bill, in short, would be toxic for her reelection chances. It's certainly something she must be thinking about as the Senate prepares for a Saturday night procedural vote to move the bill to the floor, which Republicans are sure to use against her as a vote for the bill itself.
The American Spectator Gala: Conservatives Return From the Wilderness
Posted by on 11.20.09 @ 9:36AM
The hottest ticket in our nation's capital last night was the American Spectator's annual Robert L. Bartley Gala Dinner. The chardonnay was splendid, the mushroom-stuffed chicken delicious and, by evening's end, conservatives were nearly delirious with joy as they celebrated their return from the wilderness, as announced by our esteemed editor R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.
The keynote speaker, Rep. Mike Pence, delivered a Churchillian oration that inspired a spontaneous "Pence-Palin '12" grassroots movement, at least among several of the ladies in attendance. Some gentlemen argued for "Palin-Pence '12," but this portent of a future schism notwithstanding, the evening was a smashing success.
Roger Scruton of
the American Enterprise Institute shows his dance moves with a
young lady to the big beats of the Alex Donner
Band.
The
Wall Street Journal's John Fund and American
Spectator columnist Jay Homnick.
Hannah
Giles, who gained fame in videos exposing ACORN, with the
American
Spectator's David Bass, who received the Young
Journalist Award last night.
ACORN-busters: James O'Keefe, who
collaborated with Miss Giles to produce undercover videos for
BigGovernment.com, and
longtime American
Spectator contributor Matthew Vadum of the Capital Research
Center, whose investigative reporting has made him a leading
authority on ACORN.
David
Keene of the American Conservative Union and Jeri
Thompson.
The
Wall Street Journal's Daniel Henninger, recipient of
this year's Barbara Olson Award, with the American
Spectator Washington correspondent Philip Klein.
The Day Ahead: November 20
Posted by on 11.20.09 @ 6:30AM
Today on the main site:
- Methodist Madame, by Mark Tooley
- Bureaucrats with Badges, by Mark Hyman
- A Writer Speaks, by William Tucker
- No Sales Days in the Afghan War, by George H. Wittman
- What Has Changed? by Robert P. Kirchhoefer
- High Stakes, by Manon McKinnon
Comment of the day:
In George Gilder's mid nineteen seventies book, "Sexual Suicide," he clearly proved that men look to women to civilize them. One need not recite proofs of this theory; one only needs to casually glance at a kindergarten class to see boys behaving and playing singularly and then glance at the girls creating order, priorities and conversation. This type of separation by maturity and the long-term concept of delayed gratification for the good of the group as grasped early by girls is what distinguishes mammals from lower forms of life.
What happens between that female biologically determined behavior in childhood where propriety and behavior constraints rule and then women behaving as wildly as immature boys s indicative of a society that refuses to acknowledge the value of women behaving responsibly. Freedom to behave badly is no freedom at all.
As the envelope is pushed ever farther toward social chaos by media outlets and the entertainment industries, ever in search of the outrageous to capture market share, young women are encouraged to deny their biology in favor of fifteen minutes of fame, but end up attaching a stain to their names forever.
One wonders what generation of parents have permitted their daughters to destroy themselves. In the end, a society gets what it raises, and parental neglect does not always come in the form of denying food and shelter. It is abuse of children when the rules of decorum and self-protection are not taught early and continually.
What to watch for:
Thursday's best:
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Sen. Johanns Calls Reid's Abortion Language a "Bookkeeping Gimmick"
Posted by on 11.19.09 @ 4:27PM
Sen. Mike Johanns of Nebraska said in a Thursday conference call that Harry Reid’s abortion language in the Senate health care bill was merely a “bookkeeping gimmick” that would not prevent federal funding for abortion.
Under the language approved by the House of Representatives, nobody could use federal subsidies toward the purchase of a policy that covered abortion. But under pressure from pro-choice groups, Reid placed language in the Senate bill that would work out a complicated formula aimed at segregating funds so that women who received federal subsidies could still purchase policies with abortion services as long as the subsidies didn’t support the cost of the abortion coverage.
“It’s a bookkeeping gimmick,” Johanns said. “The same argument was made on the House side and it was just aggressively rejected by the pro-life community and by those House members who stood up.
He explained, “A premium is a premium. The government is going to have its dollars in that and this idea that somehow you’re segregating that just isn’t going to past muster. You just can’t draw that line in a bookkeeping entry, and they know it. What they’re trying to do is to provide some cover to pro-life members, but the pro-life community has aggressively rejected that.”
Johanns also warned that if Reid gets the necessary 60 votes on Saturday’s motion to bring the bill to the Senate floor in its current form, that the abortion language will not get changed. Once the bill is on the floor, it would take 60 votes to amend it, and there aren’t that many pro-life votes in the Senate. That’s why he said it was crucial to stop the bill from moving to the floor in the first place.
“The real key vote here is on the motion to proceed if you’re pro-life,” he said.
Re: Herman Van Rompuy Elected EU President
Posted by on 11.19.09 @ 3:54PM
In the you-heard-it-here-first category, Doug Bandow, in his Tuesday piece on the EU sweepstakes, had Van Rumpuy leading his list of favorites to win today. Better yet was this quote Doug included from a Tony Blair supporter: "God knows what the Americans would do if we got [a] Belgian as European president. They already can't be bothered with us most of the time." Well, as the saying goes, we're about to find out.
NY23 UPDATE: Virus Found in Vote-Machine Software
Posted by on 11.19.09 @ 3:50PM
After the earlier post about Conservative congressional candidate Doug Hoffman's accusations of "mischief" in the special-election vote count, a source in New York called my attention to a breaking story in the Gouverneur (N.Y.) Times:
GOUVERNEUR, NY - The computerized voting machines used by many voters in the 23rd district had a computer virus - tainting the results, not just from those machines known to have been infected, but casting doubt on the accuracy of counts retrieved from any of the machines.
Cathleen Rogers, the Democratic Elections Commissioner in Hamilton County stated that they discovered a problem with their voting machines the week prior to the election . . .
Read the whole thing. This story could get very interesting.
Senator Rudy?
Posted by on 11.19.09 @ 3:10PM
The New York Daily News is reporting that Rudy Giuliani will not run for governor of New York, but instead will run for Senate in 2010 with ultimate designs on running for President in 2012.
Let's take those issues one at a time. Polls have shown Giuliani performing better in a hypothetical matchup with Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand than against the likely Democratic nominee for governor, Andrew Cuomo. So in that sense, it isn't surprising to me that he may choose to run for Senate instead. However, let's keep in mind that over the course of his bid for the 2008 Republican nomination, Giuliani moved to the right in an attempt to appease conservatives. While he remained pro-choice, for instance, he still moved against federal funding for abortion (a very hot topic right now), pledged to appoint conservative judges, and said that overturning Roe v. Wade would be okay. Such positions --as well as plenty of statements to conservatives over the course of the campaign -- would be very difficult to overcome running for Senate in an overwhelmingly Democratic state. While polls don't reflect it now, Giuliani may actually have a better shot running for governor, a position for which he can run on executive competence, then running for Senate -- on which he will get hammered on how he would vote on national issues.
As for running for president in 2012, that wouldn't make any sense to me. Even if he were to win the Senate seat, the battle for the Republican nomination would begin the morning after. After repositioning himself as a moderate once again to win in New York, Giuliani would then have to instantly turn around again to court the conservative base. And throughout 2011 -- theoretically his first year in office -- his potential rivals would be hunkering down in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. If he joins them, he'll recieve a heap of criticism back home, and yet if he doesn't, he'd have no realistic chance of competing. And without much of a voting record to reassure conservatives who rejected him in 2008, there's no reason to think he'd make the sale in 2012.
I'll wait to see if there's any official announcement from Rudy on the Senate race, but I think he faces an uphill battle.
Herman Van Rompuy Elected EU President
Posted by on 11.19.09 @ 2:57PM
The first president of the EU is Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy. Van Rompuy is regarded as a center-right candidate, and is to my knowledge the first blogger president in the world.
Shelby Wants Depression-Style Banking Investigation
Posted by on 11.19.09 @ 2:49PM
Today Richard Shelby of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, ripped Chris Dodd's financial regualation overhaul proposal. Shelby warned that "This committee has not done the necessary work to even begin discussing changes of this magnitude," and, according to the Wall Street Journal, recommended a thorugh investigation along the lines of the Great Depression's Pecora Investigation.
In 1933, Ferdinand Pecora became the chief counsel for the Senate Banking Committee's investigations into the stock market crash of 1929. He spearheaded an exhaustive, multi-year search into the crash's causes that helped shape many New Deal regulations and provided most of the data for later histories of the Depression. The New York Times published a new look at the Pecora Investigation in January, and it's worth a reread.
(An aside: if you click through to the Times article, take a look at their picture of Pecora... one wonders if the Times meant to display that particular image.)
Reid: Vote on Saturday, No Reconciliation
Posted by on 11.19.09 @ 2:37PM
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has scheduled the first procedural health care vote for Saturday on a motion to bring his bill to the Senate floor.
Reid, according to the Politico, would not say whether he had the 60 votes he needed, and also ruled out reconciliation as an option for passing a bill.
Back in August, I called bluff on all of the reconciliation talk.
CBO Confirms Dem Health Care Changes Will Increase Deficit By $89 Billion
Posted by on 11.19.09 @ 2:07PM
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that House Democrats' changes to the health care system would add $89 billion to federal deficits over 10 years.
At the request of Rep. Paul Ryan, the CBO analyzed the budgetary effects when the health care legislation that passed in the House earlier this month is combined with the costs of the $210 billion so-called "doc fix" bill that would prevent scheduled cuts to physician payments under Medicare.
It found that the bill would add $89 billion to deficits from 2010 to 2019, and increase deficits even more over time.
On a longer-term basis (which it cautions is harder to project), "the combination of the two bills would increase the budget deficit in 2019 by $23 billion relative to current law. Those increments would grow during the following decade."
It's no surprise, then, that Democrats have split the measures into two bills, to create the appearance that the overall health care effort will be deficit reducing.
Relative Prices
Posted by on 11.19.09 @ 1:59PM
Got $584,000? In the Petworth neighborhood of Washington, DC, that'll get you this 3 bedroom/3.5 bath townhouse:
In Detroit, it will get you the Pontiac Silverdome:
Ben Nelson Rejects Reid's Abortion Language
Posted by on 11.19.09 @ 1:57PM
Sen. Ben Nelson tells the Hill that the language in Harry Reid's Senate health care bill does not go far enough in making sure that federal tax dollars are not paying for abortion:
"We have looked at the language," Nelson told The Hill. "That language is not language that I would prefer."
"I think you need to have it eminently clear that no dollars that are federal tax dollars, directly or indirectly, are used to pay for abortions and it needs to be totally clear. [It’s] not clear enough, I don’t think," Nelson said.
Nelson is one of a few Democrats who remains uncommitted on whether he will vote to bring the bill to the Senate floor, a key procedural hurdle scheduled to take place on Saturday.
Wooing Landrieu
Posted by on 11.19.09 @ 1:23PM
Chris Frates notices that a provision in the Senate bill gives special help to Louisiana to pay for the cost of the proposed expansion to Medicaid, and wonders whether it's Harry Reid's way of gaining the support of Sen. Mary Landrieu, a red state Democrat who has been among the most resistant to vote for the legislation.
WH Health Czar Says Reid Language Blocks Federal Abortion Funding
Posted by on 11.19.09 @ 1:14PM
Nancy-Ann DeParle, the director of the White House Office on Health Reform, insisted on Thursday that new language in Harry Reid’s Senate health care bill would prevent federal funds from being used to cover abortion.
Here’s what DeParle had to say about the measure on a conference call with reporters earlier this afternoon:
“It was carefully worked through by the leader, who cared very much about making sure that this maintains status quo on abortion policy and doesn’t shift federal abortion and conscience clause policy in either a pro-life or a pro-choice direction so it’s very much trying to keep the balance on the scales and ensure that the bill does nothing to restrict or expand existing abortion law. But it is very clear that federal funds cannot be used for abortion coverage or care. So that’s where he struck the balance. I mean, it’s pretty clear. I don’t know that anyone is 100 percent happy with it because some people would like it to do more to move away from where the federal balance has been in not covering it, and others would like for it to move in the opposite direction. So he’s right there in the middle maintaining the status quo.”
Under the language approved by the House of Representatives, nobody could use federal subsidies toward the purchase of a policy that covered abortion, and abortion could not be covered by the government-run plan. But under pressure from pro-choice groups, Reid placed language in the Senate bill that would work out a complicated formula aimed at segregating funds so that women who received federal subsidies could still purchase policies with abortion services as long as the subsidies didn’t support the cost of the abortion coverage. The bill would also force state insurance exchanges to offer one plan that covers abortion and make it possible for the government-run plan to cover abortion.
Pro-choice lawmakers have backed the Reid language, while the National Right to Life Committee has called it “completely unacceptable.”
Earlier today, Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad acknowledged that he wasn’t yet sure whether the Reid language prevents taxpayer funding for abortions.
NY23: Hoffman Charges Vote 'Mischief' by ACORN, Unions
Posted by on 11.19.09 @ 12:04PM
In a letter to his supporters, the Conservative Party congressional candidate writes:
As evidence surfaces, we find out that reported results from election night were far from accurate. ACORN and the unions did their best to try and sway the results to Obamacare supporter Bill Owens. I was forced to concede after receiving two pieces of grim news - - down 5,335 votes with 93 percent of the vote counted on election night - and barely won my stronghold in Oswego County. On Election Night, the information we received was far different from what we received this week! . . .I'm sure you are as dismayed as I am to learn of the mischief that took place in Oswego and neighboring counties. . . .
A recanvassing in the 11-county district shows Owens' lead has narrowed to 3,026. In Oswego County, I was reported to lead by only 500 votes with 93 percent of the vote counted election night, but inspectors found I actually won by 1,748 votes . . . .
The district's second biggest voter turnout was in Jefferson County, where I had also benefited from a turnaround since election night, gaining another 700 votes. Owens led by 300 votes on the final election night tally, but after recanvassing, I'm now leading by 424 votes. Jerry Eaton, the Republican elections commissioner for Jefferson County, said inspectors found a problem in four districts where my vote total was mistakenly entered as zero. The new vote totals mean the race will be decided by absentee ballots, of which the state Board of Elections distributed about 10,200. . . .
You can read the whole thing. My own source suggested last week that it is unlikely that Hoffman's margin in those absentee ballots would be enough to erase the 3,026-vote gap. However, the need to ensure an accurate count, and to expose any potential illegalities, is still very important. If anyone has committed criminal wrongdoing in this upstate New York district, they need to be identified and prosecuted.
Furthermore, the narrowing of the gap by more than 2,300 votes between the reported results on Election Night and the actual vote tally shows how misreporting can affect political outcomes. If the reported margin had been narrower -- and especially if the tallies in Oswego and Jefferson had been accurately reported -- Hoffman never would have conceded that night.
Most of all, the discovery of the errors (or "mischief") in the vote-count makes it a near-certainty that Hoffman will challenge Owens in NY23 in 2010.
More at Townhall.com and Politico. (Hat-tip: Memeorandum.)
UPDATE 3:53 p.m.: Virus found in voting-machine software taints results.
Conrad: "I do not yet know" whether Reid Bill Subsidizes Abortions
Posted by on 11.19.09 @ 11:31AM
Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad said on Thursday that he wasn't yet sure whether Harry Reid's Senate bill prevents taxpayer dollars from covering abortions, and acknowledged that it was an "open question" whether there were enough votes to pass the bill.
"I don't think this will pass unless you can assure people taxpayer funds are not being used to fund abortion," Conrad said in an interview on Fox News. "That is the current law of the land, as you know, with the Hyde amendment. And whether or not Sen. Reid's formulation accomplishes that, I do not yet know. We are studying that language right now to try to determine whether it accomplishes that goal."
He also said that the bill was likely to get to the Senate floor, but that it was unclear whether it would ultimately pass.
"The first vote will be to go to a debate on the proposal, to offer amendments, to be able to improve it," Conrad said. "I think we will get 60 votes to go to it, then the question is, what will happen in the amendment process? Will the package be altered in a way that can command 60 votes? That I think is an open question."
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 11.19.09 @ 10:55AM
- Postal service lost $3.8 billion last year (Associated Press)
- No Afghan decision before Thanksgiving (Washington Post)
- There's a right way to bow, but Obama did it the wrong way (FrumForum)
- Jesse Jackson reportedly causes a stir last night at Congressional Black Caucus reception for saying "You can't vote against health care and call yourself a black man" (Hill)
White House Supports "Doc Fix" That Would Add $210 Billion to Deficit
Posted by on 11.19.09 @ 10:26AM
Just as Democrats tout a CBO report finding that the Senate Health care bill will reduce deficits over 10 years by $130 billion, the White House has sent a letter to House Democrats saying the administration "strongly supports" passage of legislation to avoid scheduled cuts to doctors payments under Medicare that the CBO has said would add $210 billion to deficits.
Democrats have moved the so-called "doc fix" to separate bills so that they can make it appear as though health care legislation is cheaper than it actually is. In October, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to pass the so-called "doc fix" in the Senate, but only received 47 votes, far short of the 60 he needed to advance the legislation.
On top of being a financial sleight of hand, the "doc fix" push also reinforces why the larger health care bill is unlikely to reduce the deficit -- it's doubtful that the politically unpopular Medicare cuts proposed by Democrats would actually be enacted by future lawmakers.
In 1997, Congress tried to control the growth in doctor's payments under Medicare, but it has consistently voted to avert those cuts under mounting opposition from physicians' groups. Democrats heavily courted -- and won -- the support of the American Medical Association in large part by pushing the "doc fix."
(Tip off via Brian Faughnan).
The Day Ahead: November 19
Posted by on 11.19.09 @ 6:30AM
Today on the main site:
- No Class, by Christopher Orlet
- Why is No One Laughing? by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
- Troubles Everywhere, by Quin Hillyer
- Obama's Off-Shore Banking, by George Neumayr
What to watch for:
Wednesday's Best:
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Reid Bill Mandates Government Exchanges Cover Abortion
Posted by on 11.18.09 @ 10:08PM
Not only does Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's health care bill strip the Stupak abortion language that was approved by the House, but it actually requires at least one plan in each of the the state-based government insurance exchanges to offer abortion coverage.
In addition, the Reid bill would allow the new government-run insurance plan to cover abortion -- provided that the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines that no federal tax dollars are being used to subsidize abortions.
While the Stupak amendment would prevent any abortion coverage on the government plan and prohibit anybody who uses taxpayer subsidies from getting an abortion, the Reid bill simply calls for a "segregation of funds." The idea would be to prevent tax dollars from paying for the actuarial value of abortion coverage in any plan purchased with government subsidies.
The National Right to Life Committee has blasted the language as "completely unacceptable."
CCHD Head Ralph McCloud Defends His Radical, Marxist Charity
Posted by on 11.18.09 @ 8:33PM
Earlier today Ralph McCloud, director of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD), offered an eloquent but unconvincing defense of the radical charity he works for. He provided the commentary at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Fall General Assembly in Baltimore. Listen to the platitude-heavy discussion about the charity that finally cut off ACORN last year here.
An amusing exchange from the USCCB streaming video from the event today that sounded strangely like a PBS telethon:
PRIEST: You know that old axiom: Give a man a fish, he eats for a day; teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime. As I read more and more about CCHD it's about teaching fishing and it seems like that's part of where these monies go, that our own generosity helps others to sustain themselves and also to contribute to the life of society as well, right?
MCCLOUD: Sure. I would take it even a step further in that it's kind of like teaching an individual to fish but in addition teaching an entire community to fish where they can be supportive of one another.
That's not quite the way I see CCHD. The charity only reluctantly cut off ACORN last year and continues to fund the equally radical community organizing group Industrial Areas Foundation that was founded by Saul Alinsky himself. It also funds PICO, DART, and the Gamaliel Foundation.
CCHD funds groups that teach a man to steal another man's fish so that he will survive at the expense of the other man for life.
That's "social justice." That's what CCHD believes in.
Alito Morphing into a Young Brando?
Posted by on 11.18.09 @ 7:13PM
A fun write-up of Samuel Alito's recent Federalist Society dinner speech.
Reid Promises Senate Health Care Bill Will Be Posted Tonight UPDATE: 2,074 Pages
Posted by on 11.18.09 @ 6:59PM
Majority leader Harry Reid, in a press conference with other top Democrats, promised that the Senate health care legislation would be posted online tonight.
Reid said the bill would reduce the deficit and strengthen Medicare by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse from the system.
"The finish line is really in sight," he said, and expressed optimism that the bill would pass. But he was evasive when asked specifically whether he already has lined up the 60 votes needed to bring the bill to the floor, telling reporters that they would have to ask individual Senators.
UPDATE: Sen. John Cornyn, via Twitter, says the bill is 2,074 pages.
UPDATE 2: Here it is.
Senate Bill Does Not Include Stupak Language on Abortion
Posted by on 11.18.09 @ 6:18PM
The Hill reports that Harry Reid has modified the language concerning taxpayer funding for abortion in the Senate bill, but that he has avoided the Stupak language that was essential to getting legislation approved in the House.
The article quotes Sen. Ben Nelson, who said that Reid assured him that his concerns about abortion financing would be addressed, but that he had not yet seen the modified language himself.
Reports: CBO Says Senate Bill to Cost $849 bln
Posted by on 11.18.09 @ 5:13PM
The Senate health care bill bill being presented by Harry Reid to Democrats today will cost $849 billion over 10 years, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, several news outlets have reported. According to the reports, the CBO has also estimated that the bill would reduce deficits by $127 billion and cover 31 million uninsured Americans.
I still haven't seen either the bill or the actual CBO report, and the devil is always in the details. In other health care bills, Democrats have used accounting tricks to disguise the true cost of legislation -- such as delaying the major spending provisions. So it's worth waiting to see what the actual CBO analysis says.
Key Democratic Senator Remains Non-Committal on First Procedural Vote
Posted by on 11.18.09 @ 4:12PM
Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, one of the moderate Democrats who has not yet commited to voting on a procedural measure to bring the health care bill to the Senate floor, released an equivocal statement shortly after meeting with Reid earlier this afternoon. On the one hand, Nelson said he wanted more time to understand what he was voting on:
“Once Senator Reid releases his merged health care bill and the Congressional Budget Office fiscal analysis I and my colleagues will need adequate time—over several days—to review both. Later this week, the Senate is expected to vote on a motion to proceed, which needs 60 votes to pass. As I’ve said many times before I won’t decide how I’ll vote on the motion to proceed until I know what I’m voting on."
On the other hand, he pushed back against the argument that Republicans have been making that providing Reid with the 60 votes he needs at any juncture of the process should be considered the same thing as a vote for the bill:
Some who define it as supporting or opposing President Obama and his agenda do so because they either want him to succeed or fail. And some who define it as the last chance to stop bad legislation have a political agenda: They want to kill any health care bill Congress considers this year for leverage in next year’s congressional elections.
That’s more of the old Washington political gamesmanship people are fed up with. It’s not about working together on a bipartisan basis for the good of the American people. It’s not about taking time to get the right health care bill.
In reality, the meaning of the motion to proceed is very simple:
It’s a motion to commence debate and an opportunity to make changes.
Let me say it again: it is a motion to start debate on a bill and to try to improve it.
If you don’t like the bill, then why would you block your own opportunity to amend it? Why would you stop senators from doing the job they’re elected to do—debate, consider amendments, and take action on an issue affecting every American?
He concludes, once again, by emphasizing the need for enough time:
But before I say yes or no on that motion to proceed, I believe Nebraskans want me to have adequate time to read the bill and to study its costs. That’s just common sense.
To do otherwise would be like deciding before the opening kickoff of a football game to punt on first down. Once I have the ball—or the bill—and can assess the situation, I’ll be ready to call a play.”
My reading of this statement is that Nelson will ultimately vote on the motion to proceed, but that he'll push Reid to wait until after Thanksgiving recess to hold that vote, as opposed to rushing a vote this Saturday.
It's a Dog Eats Your Tax Dollars World
Posted by on 11.18.09 @ 3:54PM
Katherine Mangu-Ward has the details on the latest Obama stimulus promise to go up in smoke.
Prediction: How the Media Will Report Sarah Palin's Book Tour
Posted by on 11.18.09 @ 2:35PM
The Detroit Free Press reports that hundreds camped out overnight to see Sarah Palin in Grand Rapids, Mich., and by 7 a.m., an estimatef 1,500 were already waiting in line -- for a 6 p.m. event.
Remember, the media elite view Palin's popularity as an existential threat. So how are they to cover the massive crowds that turn out for Palin's book tour?
First, expect the major national outlets (NBC, New York Times, etc.) to ignore this evidence of Palin's overwhelming popularity. They've been commissioning polls especially designed to show that Palin is unpopular, and they're not going to let facts get in their way.
Second, to the extent that the elite media take notice of the huge crowds at Palin events, expect them to focus obsessively over any tinfoil-hat crackpots who turn up. Time or Newsweek will send reporters out to these book-signings, and the reporters will interview scores of Palin fans until they find one or two conspiracy kooks who think Obama was born in Kenya or that 9/11 was an "inside job." And those will be the only Palin supporters quoted in the MSM stories.
Finally, expect the media to take the good-news-is-bad-news angle: If Palin is "bad news" for the GOP -- hey, Newsweek told you so! -- then the fact that she's drawing big crowds can only mean that the Republican Party is headed for oblivion, you see.
She's still driving 'em crazy -- or, in the case of Andrew Sullivan, crazier. Today the Palin-obsessed Sullivan tells readers he's "gone silent" because he and his team of "rigorous and careful" analysts are busy poring over Going Rogue. In a single 440-word post, Sullivan manages to call Palin a "delusional fantasist," a "deeply disturbed person" with an "unhinged grip on reality" who is peddling "lies," "fabrications and delusions" in a book that is a "work of fiction." Oh, and also, "We want to be fair to her, and to her family."
Thank goodness for that! We look forward to Andrew Sullivan's next book, Inside Sarah Palin's Uterus: The Most Shocking Scandal Ever. Bet they'll be standing in line for that one . . .
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 11.18.09 @ 12:41PM
- Obama campaign manager David Plouffe claims that Edwards tried to sell his endorsement to either Obama or Clinton in exchange for the Vice Presidency (McClatchy)
- With a month left before Obama accepts the Nobel Peace prize, Obama is scrambling for accomplishments (ABC)
- Stupak threatens to defeat healthcare bill if amendment is taken out (Hill)
- Cheney on the Obama bow to the Emperor of Japan: "There is no reason for an American president to bow to anyone" (NY Daily News)
Democrats Move the Goal Posts on Health Care Reform
Posted by on 11.18.09 @ 12:31PM
As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid prepares to unveil his health care bill to Democrats at 5 p.m. today, President Obama has moved away from a year-end deadline to finish the health care bill, telling NBC that he expects to sign a bill by his State of the Union address, typically at end of January. But Sen. Dick Durbin, the Democratic whip, would not predict on CNN yesterday that Democrats would even get it done by then.
Should Reid release his bill tonight with a preliminary score by the Congressional Budget Office, he'll need to obtain 60 votes on a motion to proceed, allowing the bill to be brought to the floor. He was hoping to hold that vote this week, but it's not clear whether he even has the votes for this first procedural hurdle, and Republicans have a number of delaying tactics at their disposal. Today, the Senate GOP is reminding everybody of a letter sent by eight Democrats last month demanding a full CBO score before any procedural vote on the bill -- but the estimate expected later today will be preliminary. In addition, Sen. Tom Coburn may demand that the entire bill be read on the Senate floor, but Jonathan Cohn at TNR notes that Reid could respond by leaving the Senate open on Thanksgiving week, allowing Republicans who are so inclined to read the bill then.
Even assuming Reid has the votes to get the bill to the floor, the actual debate and amendment process won't commence before Nov. 30, the Monday after Thanksgiving. Reid and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer have said that they intend to close Congress for the year on Dec. 18 -- giving them just 19 days, including weekends, to work with. Keep in mind they still have to pass a number of appropriations bills, and Hoyer is now promising an additional jobs bill, essentially another stimulus package.
Should Reid pass something in the Senate during this narrow window, the bill still has to be reconciled with the House version, and then it must pass both chambers again. But should the Stupak language and/or the government-run plan ultimately get stripped, it suddenly changes all of the vote calculations in the House.
Flier Tips Liberals' Hand
Posted by on 11.18.09 @ 11:59AM
Dr. Jeffrey S. Flier is the dean of Harvard Medical Schoo. As such, he resides in the tallest Ivory Tower, within the most impenetrable Ivory Keep, surrounded by the deepest Ivory Moat. So when he writes, in the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, that what you see is not what you get with the left's currently proposed health care reform, he knows what he's talking about.
Flier notes the lessons of the Massachusetts health care reform, which he notes has insurance-expanding measures similar to those in the bill under consideration. MassCare, he warns, expanded insurance (although not quite to everyone) but increased spending to the point that in the near future Massachusetts will have to find ways to cut spending drastically.
This example, he warns, should be taken to heart, because we can expect a similar outcome for Obamacare:
Selling an uncertain and potentially unwelcome outcome such as this to the public would be a challenging task. It is easier to assert, confidently but disingenuously, that decreased costs and enhanced quality would result from the current legislation.
So the majority of our representatives may congratulate themselves on reducing the number of uninsured, while quietly understanding this can only be the first step of a multiyear process to more drastically change the organization and funding of health care in America. I have met many people for whom this strategy is conscious and explicit.
We should not be making public policy in such a crucial area by keeping the electorate ignorant of the actual road ahead.
Thanks for the honesty, Dr. Flier. It's good to know that, while too discreet to let it slip in public, liberal proponents know that Obamacare is only half the goal: first get everyone insured, and then worry about paying for it.
There are plenty of ways to control costs or manage the budget overruns once everyone's on the rolls. But you have to imagine that the option Flier's interlocutors have in mind is single payer.
AARP Received $18 Million In Stimulus Money (UPDATED with AARP response)
Posted by on 11.18.09 @ 11:25AM
AARP, which has given its full-throated support to Democratic health care legislation even though seniors remain largely opposed, received an $18 million grant in the economic stimulus package for a job training program that has not created any jobs, according to the Obama administration's Recovery.gov website.
The Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP), according to the website, is "a work training program for unemployed mature workers who are 55+ and are at or below 125% of the poverty guidelines." So far, $6.5 million has been spent on the program, and it has not reported creating any jobs.
In February, the Politico reported that AARP was putting pressure on Republican members of Congress to support the stimulus package.
Since then, AARP has moved on to lobbying for passage of health care legislation, even though Democratic proposals have called for several hundred billion dollars in cuts to Medicare, a program that the group typically defends tooth and nail when Republicans propose cutting it. A recent Pew survey found that just 31 percent of those over 65 supported health care legislation being touted by AARP.
As it turns out, AARP is also in a position to benefit financially if the health care legislation passes, because seniors losing benefits as a result of cuts to Medicare Advantage will be forced to buy Medigap policies, which is the main source of AARP revenue.
Barry Rand, the chief executive of AARP, was a big donor to the Obama campaign and has retained a cozy relationship with the administration.
The stimulus grant to AARP was reported by WatchDog.org, a site run by the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, which also found that stimulus funds were funneled into another liberal interest group, the National Council of La Raza.
UPDATE: AARP has not yet returned a call seeking comment.
UPDATE 2: AARP responds that the purpose of the program is not to create jobs, but to offer job training and find work for participants, an effort the group claims has been successful. Here's the full response, from Drew Nannis, AARP's senior vice president:
“The Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) is a job training program that places older workers living at or below the poverty line at community non-profit organizations. The AARP Foundation is one of 18 national organizations that administer SCSEP for the US Department of Labor.
“In 2009, the US Department of Labor allotted all 18 national sponsors of the SCSEP program, as well as the state-level SCSEP programs, additional funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to help older Americans reenter the workforce. These funds were allotted in direct proportion to the amount each organization receives annually for the program. AARP Foundation received $18 million.
“We understand there is some confusion stemming from the reporting outputs listed on Recovery.gov. Simply put, the federal stimulus program reporting documents ask organizations to report the number of jobs created at the organization receiving the funds. AARP’s role in administering the SCSEP program is not to create jobs at AARP. Instead, we stipend SCSEP participants who train at and provide additional services at no cost to community non-profit organizations. Participants receive on-the-job training and local non-profits increase their capacity to help the communities they serve.
“In just the first four months of additional funding, 2,601 people are being trained while working at local non-profit organizations. This translates into:
-- $315,000 in weekly training stipends for SCSEP participants
-- 46,000 hours of no-cost service provided to our host agencies each week (valued at about $980,000)
“Additionally, to date we have placed 500 retrained older workers into permanent jobs in 75 communities across the nation.
“The AARP Foundation is incredibly proud of SCSEP. Over a 40 year history, SCSEP has helped more than 500,000 lower-income older Americans find jobs and provided more than $190 million a year in no-cost services to 5,000 non-profit organizations across the country.”
Syllabus As Racketeering?
Posted by on 11.18.09 @ 8:36AM
The New York Times offers Professor Scott Stein a bunch of free swag if he'll force his students to become subscribers.
That's the kind of whoopsie! missive you'd send to Stein only if you've skipped Mean Martin Manning.
Does John Cornyn Endorse This?
Posted by on 11.18.09 @ 7:46AM
Florida Gov. Charlie Crist plans to begin attacking his Republican rival as soft on immigration:
Buffeted by weeks of negative press and a newly threatening rival from the right, FL Gov. Charlie Crist's (R) campaign will step up direct engagements with his opponent, insiders tell OnCall.
Crist will attack former FL House Speaker Marco Rubio (R), citing his rival's failure to advance some conservative causes while leading the state House, for spending excessively while in the Speaker's office and for dragging his feet on immigration legislation that many Republicans favored.
"We're now running a campaign, and it's one where this campaign will aggressively talk about the governor and his record and his vision heading to Washington as a candidate for the Senate, and we will aggressively talk to voters about our opponent's record, a record that was eight years in the state legislature, a record that has not been discussed to date," said Eric Eikenberg, Crist's new campaign manager.
To attack Rubio on immigration might make sense, if Crist were a Tom Tancredo-style hardliner and Rubio were an amnesty supporter like John McCain. In fact, Crist's own stance on immigration is ambiguous, while Rubio has clearly stated his opposition to amnesty, saying: "Legal immigration has been a great source of strength and prosperity for America, but I believe illegal immigration threatens the foundation of this system. If I had been in the Senate at the time, I would have opposed the McCain-Kennedy bill."
Why, then, is Crist launching this nonsensical attack on Rubio? Perhaps to distract from the scandal surrounding Crist's connection to accused Ponzi schemer Scott Rothstein.
The Day Ahead: November 18
Posted by on 11.18.09 @ 6:36AM
Today on the main site:
- The Republican Alternative, by Peter Ferrara
- The Right of Conscience in the Age of Obama, by Daniel Allott and Matt Bowman
- AMA: Marriage is the Cure, b James M. Thunder
- Deflating Copenhagen, by Peter Hannaford
- Scary Porches, Scarier Doctors, by Ralph R. Reiland
Comment of the day:
Reader 1FreeMan on Major Hasan A True Believer:
I have to disagree, Sir.
Maj Hasan was in contact with "persons of interest" in his mosque and was in contact with other "sleeper" elements here in the US. He was also seeking connections with known terrorist organizations. He was not a lone rogue but, instead, part of a growing problem. You need to better understand Islam and the interconnectivity of the Mosque and the people in that Mosque before you write another article. The men in the mosque are intimately connected and form a nucleus of thought and purpose. He did not act alone; he was prodded and encouraged from within the mosque and his weaknesses, many as they were, were exploited.
Your feeble attempt to pretend that the wolf is not at the door, organized and with a combined purpose, is irresponsible. When this investigation is over you will eat this article with a drink of wormwood to wash it down. You missed the mark.He attacked heroic soldiers with a purpose and he was not acting alone or as a individual fanatic; he was aimed at that base like a weapon and the triggger-man is the Imman at his mosque. Plain and simple.
What to watch for:
Tuesday's Best:
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
CCHD Bishop Defends Charity, Viguerie Urges Boycott
Posted by on 11.17.09 @ 8:29PM
The Roman Catholic bishop who oversees the radical left-wing Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) defiantly lashed out at critics earlier today. (audio file here)
"This year some of the allegations and the claims [about CCHD] have simply been outrageous," said Biloxi, Miss., Bishop Roger P. Morin. Morin chairs the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) subcommittee on CCHD.
Since its creation in 1969 -the year before ACORN was founded- CCHD says it has given more than $290 million to fund what it calls over 8,000 "low-income-led, community-based projects that strengthen families, create jobs, build affordable housing, fight crime, and improve schools and neighborhoods." Some observers say the grand total is closer to $450 million.
The charitable arm of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, CCHD has never provided direct relief to the poor. That's not its purpose.
CCHD is an extreme left-wing political organization that was created to feed and foster radical groups, but most Catholics are blissfully unaware of its true mission. CCHD says right on its website that it aims to support "organized groups of white and minority poor to develop economic strength and political power."
The speech came days before this Sunday's "second collection" from parishioners that funds CCHD. Prominent conservative Catholics including Richard Viguerie are urging Catholics to boycott the collection that traditionally takes place every year on the weekend before Thanksgiving.
Morin made the speech at the USCCB's Fall General Assembly in Baltimore.
From the bishop's speech:
Some others it seems to me may not understand or accept the church's social teachings on justice, having a priority for the poor, or being focused on the root causes of poverty and eradicating them or highlighting a need for institutional change. There are a few who have their own ideological or political agendas. They repeat and spread outrageous claims.
[...]
We do not ever grant funds to any group that is specifically involved in any activity contrary to church teaching. No group that acts against the Catholic social or moral teachings is eligible for CCHD funding and if and when such problems are discovered, and as soon as they are reported, all funding is cut off.
As you recall CCHD was the first national organization to cut off all funding to ACORN when the national problems of fiscal accountability, organizational direction, and political partisanship became apparent. Long before the federal government and other groups severed relationships with them we were the first and this will be the third consecutive year of CCHD collections where no ACORN group at any level is even considered for CCHD funding for any purposes. If any CCHD-funded group violates the conditions of a grant and acts in conflict with Catholic teaching the funding is terminated in consultation with the local dioceses.
Diana DeGette Thinks Bishops "Shouldn't Have Input" UPDATE
Posted by on 11.17.09 @ 4:42PM
UPDATED 3:15, November 18
The Hill's Michael O'Brien reports that Diana DeGette (D-CO), co-chairwoman of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, while discussing the viability of the Stupak Amendment, claimed that the Catholic bishops and other religious groups should not have a say in the health care debate.
She also said that religiously-affiliated groups like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which had pushed for the Stupak provision, should be shut out of the process.
"Last I heard, we had separation of church and state in this country," she said. "I've got to say that I think the Catholic bishops and all of the other groups shouldn't have input."
Family Research Council president Tony Perkins responded with a press release calling DeGette's words "religious bigotry."
Apart from whether DeGette is a religious bigot, it's clear she is a constitutional ignoramus.
UPDATE:
Apparently The Hill misquoted DeGette. She said "I think the Catholic bishops and all of the other groups should have input." Obviously that changes her point entirely.
Although the line about the separation of church and state was not a misquote, so the point that she is a constitutional ignoramus still stands.
Effectiveness Research At Work
Posted by on 11.17.09 @ 2:43PM
In recent decades the American Cancer Society had been recommending that women get mammograms annually after age 40, but a government task force has now said that women only need to get them after age 50, and then only every two years.
The new guidelines were issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which is a government panel of doctors, scientists, and medical experts along the lines of the comparative effectiveness board pushed by President Obama as a way to improve health care quality and contain costs. But the new mammogram advice is dividing doctors and triggering pushback from the American Cancer Society, and ultimately causing more confusion among women. This is just a sign of things to come if Democrats get their way and begin to issue more findings on a wider range of medical treatments. And it can only be made worse if future lawmakers decide to require government programs, or policies offered through the government-run exchange, to adopt the panel's recommendations. While the advice would be non-binding according to current legislation, many policy makers have argued for giving more power to such a board, including Obama's first choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tom Daschle.
Spare the Heel, Spoil the Patient
Posted by on 11.17.09 @ 1:23PM
My six year-old niece solves one of the greatest conundrums of the U.S. health care system--yes, better medicine is administered in flat shoes rather than heels--and wins an honorable mention in Reading Rainbow's Fifteenth Annual Writing Contest.
Maybe she can get a consulting gig on Nancy "Children's Congress" Pelosi's staff? "Dr. Emily Lynn's Shoes," after all, seems better reasoned than 95 percent of what's thus far come out of the health care reform debate!
Pawlenty's Flip Flop
Posted by on 11.17.09 @ 11:49AM
The Center for American Progress is criticizing Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota (Hat tip: Tom Nelson) for his apparent flip-flop on anthropogenic causes of global warming, according to The Economist, which reported:
He recently explained that the earth might be warming, but that it is unclear “to what extent that is the result of natural causes.”
Hard to blame CAP, considering this is the kind of thing Pawlenty, a likely GOP presidential candidate, was saying two years ago:
Our global climate is warming, at least in part due to the energy sources we use. We cannot solve it by ourselves, but we need to lead and do our part. We also need to push for an effective national and international effort.
And only last year he assisted global warming activist groups, funded by the alarmist Rockefeller Brothers Fund, to produce this propaganda video. Key Pawlenty narrative:
I don't think many people would disagree with the fact that what we're doing is unsustainable -- environmentally, economically, and from a national security standpoint. But we have a chance to try to make a difference, and to do good. (Emphasis Pawlenty's)
Sprint to the right -- the primaries start in only 26 months!
Hope Obamacare Covers Viagra!
Posted by on 11.17.09 @ 11:40AM
No word on how much of this particular recession growth industry can be attributed to Democrats' stimulus. But it would be interesting to see how many jobs the Administration claims to have "saved or created" in Hollywood...
The Opportunity Costs of Health Care Financing
Posted by on 11.17.09 @ 11:08AM
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, under pressure from unions to drop a tax on high-end health insurance plans, has been considering raising the payroll tax on those earning more than $250,000 as an alternative means of financing. Aside from all of the arguments against raising the price of labor at a time of double-digit unemployment, there's an important point about the fiscal tradeoffs involved in paying for health care legislation.
Democrats would like to have us believe that because they can wave around estimates by the Congressional Budget Office saying that their legislation would reduce deficits over ten years, that it means the proposals costless. But paying for legislation that ranges from $900 billion to $1.3 trillion has meant some combination of Medicare cuts and tax increases. Aside from the direct consequences of these decisions, a key problem is that all of these cuts and tax increases deprive us of money that would otherwise be available to address our looming entitlement crisis. The reason why the Reid payroll tax hike idea is so telling on this front, is that during the campaign, candidate Obama also proposed raising payroll taxes on those making over $250,000 -- but he was going to use the money to "extend the life of Social Security" without raising the retirement age or cutting benefits.
In other words, instead of raising money to pay for existing entitlements that are bankrupting our country, Democrats are raising money to create a new entitlement.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 11.17.09 @ 10:30AM
- Recovery.gov reported that 30 jobs were created or saved in Arizona's 15th Congressional district, amounting to $760,000. The only problem is that there is no such district (ABC)
- The nation cringes as Obama bows at a near-90-degree angle to the Emperor of Japan (Washington Times)
- Hitchens: the case against Hasan (Slate)
- Hoffman is still challenging NY-23 with a 3,026 vote deficit and 10,000 absentee ballots left (Hill)
ObamaCare: We’re Scrooged
Posted by on 11.17.09 @ 10:27AM
Our government just issued new guidelines for breast cancer screening which eliminate routine mammograms for women 40-49 years old, cut in half the frequency of mammograms for women 50-74, and eliminate them for women 75 or older. The American Cancer Society and other experts condemned the change.
Isn’t this rationing exactly what the “Angry Mob” has been worried about?
ObamaCare: We’re Scrooged
By Asher Embry
Our government just said we screen for cancer way too much.
They think we’re spending too much dough on mammograms and
such.
(Our private doctor heard the news and summoned up a
swear.)
What happened to O’s constant praising of preventive
care?
And what comes next? What other routine healthcare will be
lost?
Perhaps Barack will rule that EKG’s aren’t worth the cost.
Who needs a new hip, MRI or blood test anyway?
We’ll wait until the Health Choices Commission has its say.
So, we just got a glimpse of what our healthcare holds in
store.
Like Scrooge, we got to see the future Congress voted for.
It’s clear the kind of treatment which ObamaCare will give.
We vote: it’s not the system under which we choose
to live.
(You can read more of Asher Embry's Political Verse at www.politicalverse.com.)
Sheldon Whitehouse, Terrified of Gov't Health Care Takeover
Posted by on 11.17.09 @ 9:33AM
...but only when the "health care" is abortion. From a truly insincere Politico article:
Added Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.): "For the first time, what the anti-choice advocates are saying is that [the federal] dollar now has to control ... what these private-sector companies can offer. That’s new, and that’s a big intrusion into the relationship of the private citizen with his or her insurance company.”
Well thank God, then, that Sen. Whitehouse is working overtime to keep the government out of health care! Oh wait.
Sheldon Whitehouse doesn't want people making decisions for others about "health care." But at the same time he wants the government to make far more decisions for others about health care. I wonder if the good people of Rhode Island realize just what a genius they have representing them.
Although it's a little unfair to single out Whitehouse, when almost all the Democrats are engaging in this very basic hypocrisy.
The larger problem is that Politico presents this quote without any context, as if it were a legitimate point. If the reporter, David Rogers, included just the very basic background, that Whitehouse is advocating that the government take on these kinds of health care decisions, Whitehouse would be exposed as a fool.
The entire article is filled with such sleights of hand: Rogers quotes the Guttmacher Institute without mentioning its close ties to Planned Parenthood, which should be an obviously necessary disclosure. He subtly hints at the possibility that Catholic bishops are motivated by racism. He follows a quote from an anti-abortion source with a shamelessly weaselly "or is it?" And so on.
One would never guess from the article that the Democrats are trying to have this both ways: they want to socialize health care decisions, but condemn pro-lifers for trying to make the socialized decision not to pay for abortions with tax dollars.
The Day Ahead: November 17
Posted by on 11.17.09 @ 6:26AM
Today on the main site:
- Major Hasan -- A True Believer, by William Tucker
- Political Phalanxes, by J.T. Young
- Europe as Weltmacht, by Doug Bandow
- Madoff Madness, by Jackie Mason with Raoul Felder
- Two Weddings and a Demerol, by Jeremy Lott
What to watch for:
- The suspect might be a 60 year old man with a blue Toyota.
Monday's best:
Monday, November 16, 2009
Palin on Oprah
Posted by on 11.16.09 @ 5:39PM
I thought Sarah Palin came off very sympathetically on Oprah -- as the mother struggling to balance the challenges of work and family, used to following the beat of her own drummer, and then suddenly swept up into a heated presidential campaign, with all of the scrutiny and choreography that goes along with it. Everybody who watches the interview will probably come away with the same opinions they've always had about Palin. To Palin hater Andrew Sullivan, "She really does see politics as an extension of being a Beauty Queen, subject to nice p.r. events, interviews that are restricted to the 'light-hearted, working mother' puffery that Oprah is enabling, and cover images on magazines."
For me, Palin remains somebody who is personally likable but better off remaining out of elective office. She seems a lot more comfortable when she's free to say and do what she wants, but running for (or holding) office means constant scruitiny, giving up a lot of freedom and independence and having to delve into policy questions in more detail than she's ever shown interest in.
Come to Your Consensus
Posted by on 11.16.09 @ 3:57PM
Willie Soon and David Legates, both respected members of the American Geophysical Union, tell the story of how their planned session to discuss scientific papers that consider the many contributing factors to climate variability was a "go," until suddenly it wasn't:
We developed this session to honor the great tradition of science and scientific inquiry, as exemplified by Galileo when, 400 years ago this year, he first pointed his telescope at the Earth’s moon and at the moons of Jupiter, analyzed his findings, and subsequently challenged the orthodoxy of a geocentric universe. Our proposed session was accepted by the AGU.
In response to its acceptance, we were joined by a highly distinguished list of scientists – which included members of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, France and China, as well as recipients of the AGU’s William Bowie, Charles Whitten and James MacElwane medals. Our participants faithfully submitted abstracts for the session.
But by late September, several puzzling events left us wondering whether the AGU truly serves science and environmental scientists – or simply reflects, protects and advances the political agendas of those who espouse belief in manmade CO2-induced catastrophic global warming.
Could this AGU position have anything to do with it?
The scientific consensus on climate change was expressed in an open letter sent to the US Senate on last Wednesday, 21 October....
While the signatories represent a wide variety of scientific disciplines, they all came together to express their concern over anthropogenic climate change. The letter states: “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."
What about the independent lines of evidence of no global warming the last ten years, which the vast body could not see below their extended gut?
AP: 64% Oppose Insurance Mandate
Posted by on 11.16.09 @ 3:08PM
A new Associated Press health care poll demonstrates that when asked follow up questions about the trade-offs involved, Americans are much less supportive of Democratic health care policies than other polls would have us believe. For instance, when asked, "Do you favor or oppose requiring that everyone has at least some health insurance?" respondents say they favor the mandate by an overwhelming 67 percent to 27 percent margin. Yet when the pollsters actually described how the mandate would work by adding "and pay money to the government as a penalty if they do not, unless the person is very poor" suddenly the numbers reversed, with only 28 percent supporting the mandate and 64 percent opposing.
Additionally, one of the most popular elements of health care legislation, we are told, is the requirement that insurance companies cover those with pre-existing conditions. Yet it turns out to be much less popular when people find out the catch. While 82 percent said in a Pew poll last month that they would support a ban on pre-existing condition exclusions, that number was just 43 percent in the AP poll, which told respondents that "such a ban would probably cause most people to pay more for health insurance." We can only wonder how much lower that number would be if they were also told that such a ban would necessitate creating a mandate that would require a penalty for those who do not purchase health insurance that is approved by the Health Choices Commissioner and offered on a government-run exchange.
Obama Admin. Actuary Finds Unsustainable Status Quo Cheaper than Obamacare
Posted by on 11.16.09 @ 12:27PM
One of President Obama's primary justifications for pushing health care legislation has been that the status quo is "unsustainable" because of the skyrocketing cost of medical care in the United States. The way to rein in costs, he argues, is to do adopt the policies that he and his fellow Democrats are proposing. But a new report by the government actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a branch of the Obama administration's Department of Health and Human Services, has found that the exact opposite is true.
CMS took a close look at the health care bill that was passed by House Democrats and endorsed by the White House, and it found that not only would the bill not reduce health care costs -- it would increase them. Time and again, we have been reminded that the United States spends a higher percentage of its GDP on health care than any other nation -- about 16 percent. As Obama put it in his June speech to the American Medical Association, "If we fail to act, one out of every five dollars we earn will be spent on health care within a decade." Yet if we adopt the legislation supported by Obama -- which finances expanded coverage through tax increases and Medicare cuts -- health care spending will actually rise to 21.1 percent of GDP, according to CMS, compared to 20.8 percent if we simply do nothing.
"Make no mistake: The cost of our health care is a threat to our economy," Obama told AMA. "It's an escalating burden on our families and businesses. It's a ticking time bomb for the federal budget. And it is unsustainable for the United States of America."
I suppose a liberal could still argue that it's better to cover more people even if it will cost us more as a nation. But given that Obama has spent much of the year arguing that the reason we need to do something about health care is that the status quo is "unsustainable," then it's pretty hard to justify health care policies that are more costly than the status quo.
Amazon: Levin Book Closes on Dan Brown
Posted by on 11.16.09 @ 11:59AM
Hmmmmm.
Amazon has put out the word that their Number One bestseller for 2009 was Dan Brown's Lost Symbol.
But right behind Dan Brown, nipping at his heels? Why, none other than Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny.
Now, I don't know about you, but when I read a Dan Brown book -- and I think he's a great storyteller -- I'm busy casting the movie. As we all know, Tom Hanks has been the star of the first two Dan Brown-based movies.
So I think it's fair, since Mr. Levin is within striking distance of Mr. Brown, to put some serious thought into the movie version of Liberty and Tyranny. Levin being Levin, he's doubtless suggesting Brad Pitt.
My first thought was Dom De Luise but, alas, Mr. De Luise has been released from his earthly contract.
Well, however it works out, here's a congratulations from this corner. The success of this book is one very real testament to what the American people are thinking about what is going on in this country right about now.
2010 looms. Talk about a disaster movie for Democrats. No Lost Symbol there.
Skinned
Posted by on 11.16.09 @ 11:13AM
In exciting news Washington Redskins' faithful have been awaiting as eagerly as they do an extra-point try, the Supreme Court has declined to look into a case that alleges the NFL team's name is offensive to Native Americans. Now maybe the high court will do something about the name of the once-feared New England team, which after last night's el-foldo against Peyton Manning no longer deserves to be known as the Patriots.
December 11th: Afghan Decision Day
Posted by on 11.16.09 @ 10:39AM
Obama picks up his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo on December 10th. Want to bet when his Afghan troop decision will come?
December 11th: Afghan Decision
Day?
By Asher
Embry
As we await his second Afghan plan in half a year,
“Obama’s just so thoughtful, give him time” is what we
hear.
His indecisive weakness is the problem, that’s
our fear.
But here’s the actual reason his
decision isn’t near:
He always puts Obama first; he’s not
surprised us yet.
So we are now quite certain and we’ll gladly place our bet
That “O” won’t make a call on how the Afghan war is manned
Until he’s gone to Oslo and the Nobel’s in his hand.
(You can read more of Asher Embry's Political Verse at www.politicalverse.com.)
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 11.16.09 @ 10:32AM
- Attorney General Jerry Brown, candidate for governor of California, is investigating an undercover ACORN tape both for the legality of the making of the tape and for the organization's condoning of smuggling Mexican girls for prostitution. Chronicle reports that Brown's spokesman has also been embroiled in a secret recording scandal (San Francisco Chronicle)
- Irish Taliban trains for war with British soldiers but would "settle" for combat with an American (TimesOnline)
- David Brooks calls Palin "a joke" (ABC)
- McCain campaign attacks Palin book as "fiction" (Politico)
Pelosi's Stupak Complex
Posted by on 11.16.09 @ 9:09AM
Senior House Democrat leadership aides say that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and majority leader Steny Hoyer were not concerned about the potential backlash from left-wing women groups, such as the National Organization for Women and pro-abortionists like Planned Parenthood, for their allowing the so-called Stupak amendment, which would have limited the use of federal health care funding for abortion.
"Fine. Let [the groups] be mad, where are they going to go? The Republicans?" said one aide. "They can be mad all they want, but it's not like they have anywhere else to go. You hate to say it, but we take them for granted because they've allowed themselves to be taken for granted. The Speaker was very confident that at the end of the day, those groups are going to be standing with us when the next big issue comes along. We'll make it up to them and they'll get over this pretty quick."
The Day Ahead: November 16
Posted by on 11.16.09 @ 6:30AM
Today on the Main Site:
- Islamic Iran's American Base, by Kenneth R. Timmerman
- No Education Silver Bullets, by Rishawn Biddle
- Say What You Mean, by Daniel Allott
- Fair Trade for Taiwan -- and America, by John J. Tkacik, Jr.
- State vs. Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, by Jay D. Homnick
- I was Lou Dobbs Last Guest: Witness to a Star Reborn, by Jeffrey Lord
Comment of the day:
Reader Dai Alanye on Blue Dog Backfire:
Men are allowed to take human life for purposes of legal execution, war or self defense.
If we apply this to women—as I believe we should—the only justification for abortion would be self defense. If the mother's life is endangered by carrying the child to term, or the pregnancy is the result of rape, self defense is the issue.
Incest should not enter into it unless rape, either forcible or statutory, is involved.
What to watch for:
Friday's best:
- Bowling Alone
- Who's Really Conservative?
- Barney Shuffles Off
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
