Conservatives: A Warning

This article is not an attack on conservatism. It is a warning.

Nor is this a suggestion that conservatives should moderate.

In fact, each of you knows that I’m solidly conservative in my views. I believe not only that conservative principles are the only political principles that will make the world a better place, but also that they are the only truly moral principles one can hold. Only conservatism respects the rights and dignity of man, while liberalism seeks to make us slaves of others’ charity. And while we occasionally make mistakes, it is usually more the result of poor execution or demagoguery from opportunists than it is the result of our principles.

Thus, take it in good faith when I warn you that conservatives are about to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

The Good News

Obama is this generation’s Jimmy Carter. He is discrediting liberalism to an entire generation, and quickly demoralizing the left flank of his party. These should be good times for conservatives.

These should be good times for conservatives within the Republican Party as well. McCain the RINO King convinced everyone that we had to be moderate to succeed. His crushing defeat discredited the RINO cause. They still scream “moderation,” but no one is listening anymore. The RINO philosophy is dead and buried within the party. . . for now.

Indeed, while the Republicans are blowing the Democrats away in fund raising (with Blue Dogs having a particular problem), the RINOs are finding their easy support within the party vanishing. Remember McCaindidate Van Tran (Cal.)? He’s been out raised by another Republican Vietnamese challenger. Trey Grayson, a neocon who supported Clinton, is being blown out by Rand Paul (son of Ron Paul) in Kentucky. Even RINO Charlie Crist (Fla), another McCaindidate, who out raised his Democratic opponent 3-1, is suddenly facing a surging conservative Republican challenger in the primary who has raised more than one million dollars.

Now in New York 23, conservatives have forced the Democratic far left Republican to withdraw from the race so that an actual conservative can win the seat.

Sounds like good times for conservatives, right? Actually no. Conservatives are in danger of turning stunning victory into crashing defeat. Here’s why.

The Problem

Conservatives have the momentum. The Republican Party lies open, ready to be reshaped into the vehicle that brings the great rebirth of conservative America. But at the very moment conservatives should be streaming into the party, filling every empty chair, and seizing control of all levels of power, conservatives instead are throwing a tantrum. Rather than seizing the party, conservatives are talking vaguely of forming a new party. Rather than building and guiding the party, conservatives are destructively tearing it down. This must end lest we squander this victory.

Drop The Third Party Idea

Let’s start with something a lot of people don’t want to hear. Forget the idea of forming a conservative party. First, it can’t be done. Secondly, even if it could, it will only hurt conservatives.

The fact of the matter is that America is a two party system: Republicans and Democrats. Our electoral system and human nature mean that won’t change. A third party can briefly hurt one side or the other, but that’s about it. The only real power that a political movement can achieve is in using the threat of withholding its support to hurt one side or the other. If that threat is great enough, the movement can pull one party into the direction that the movement advocates.

Right now, conservatives have the attention (and fear) of the Republican Party. That is the path to conservative victory, to seize and shape the Republican Party. To fail to do this, because conservatives have utopian dreams of creating a new party, would irresponsibly squander our victory.

Moreover, let’s assume a conservative party of some size did appear. What do you think would be the effect on the country? Would the Republicans move to the right? No. Why should they? Everyone within the GOP who would advocate a turn to the right would have left. Would the Democrats move to the right? Hardly. With the right split in half, they’d be free to move as far left as they wished, knowing they no longer needed even the support of 50% of the population. Would the conservative party become the new majority party? No. If that were likely to happen, the Republican Party would represent 60% of the population today because they are closer to the right than the Democrats, but they don’t. If that were likely to happen, the Conservative Party in New York (where you can be a conservative without hurting the Republican Party because of fusion voting) could attract more than 155,000 registered members compared to 3.1 million Republicans.

Also, New York has had a Conservative Party since 1962, would you say that they have helped move New York politics to the right? Why should the result be different on a national level? And lest you think that New York is somehow just unique, keep in mind that the Libertarian Party has been a national party for decades, but hasn’t managed to move the Republicans or the Democrats one degree toward their cause.

The truth is that parties don’t listen to outsiders, and separating yourself from the inner workings of a party makes you an outsider. Outsiders are the people who refuse to join the committee that selects the location of a banquet and then wonders why they never choose their favorite restaurant. If you want the Republican Party to bend to your will, you must participate within its structures.

Stop Destructive Attacks

And that brings me to the second problem. Conservatives need to stop making destructive attacks on the GOP. Not only do you not want to damage the brand of something you are looking to own, but ill-informed, blanket attacks are not constructive. They do not help what we are trying to achieve.

Criticism that is not constructive is destructive. Criticism that overstates a problem, that falsely accuses, or that fails to give the accused an understanding of what you want changed, is not constructive. Conservatives right now are guilty of all of this. And since the Republican Party is the vehicle we must use, this must stop.

For starters, we need to stop making blanket attacks. Not all Republicans are bad and not everything they do is wrong. If you have a restaurant that you generally like, but you don’t like their hamburgers, does it make sense to categorically trash the restaurant? The same analogy holds for political parties.

People claim that the Republicans aren’t conservatives. But is this true? Do those people who complain know what the leadership believes? Do they even know who the leadership are? Did you know that the House leadership have all earned extremely high lifetime ratings from the American Conservative Union?

• House Minority Leader: John Boehner (ACU rating 93.89)

• Minority Whip: Eric Cantor (ACU rating 96.25)

• Republican Policy Committee Chairman: Thaddeus McCotter (ACU rating 84.5)

• Republican Policy Committee Vice-Chair: Dr. Michael Burgess (ACU 93.83)

The Senate leadership is less conservative, but still firmly conservative:

• Senate Minority Leader: Mitch McConnell (ACU rating 89.4)

• Minority Whip: John Kyl (ACU rating 96.96)

• Republican Conference Chairman: Lamar Alexander (ACU rating 80.83)

• Republican Conference Vice Chair: Lisa Murkowski (ACU rating 70.56)

• Republican Policy Committee Chairman: John Thune (ACU rating 86.77)

Compare these ratings to Olympia Snowe’s 47 rating and Susan Collins’ 49 rating, and Democrats in the teens. Do you still think it’s fair to say these aren’t conservatives?

Ok, you say, they may be conservatives, but they sure haven’t acted like it. Under Bush certainly, but let me point out what they’ve done since the election:

• Only eight House Republicans out of 178 voted for Cap and Trade.

• Only nine Senate Republicans out of 40 voted to confirm Sotomayor.

• Only one Republican in the Senate has voted for ObamaCare.

• No Republicans in the House voted for ObamaCare.

• No Republicans in the House voted to support Obama’s stimulus.

• No Republicans supported Obama’s budget in the House or the Senate.

• The Republicans in the Senate held up two of Obama’s State Department Appointments in protest over Honduras.

• And lastly, they announced last night that they will unveil, this week, their own health care plan. It’s not CommentaramaCare, but it’s not just handing out more money to insurance providers.

What part of that don’t you like? And if you don’t like it, what did you do to make it better?

When conservatives continue to whine that the leadership isn’t conservative and they haven’t acted like conservatives, you’ve unfairly failed to credit them with a fairly resurgent form of conservatism. You’ve also made it impossible for them to know how to please you because your feedback is nonsense.

And that’s a critical point. Conservatives must outline what they want from the party. Conservatism means different things to different people. Some see it as only a strong foreign policy. Some see it as purely an abortion issue. Some see it as a smaller government issue. Some see it about personal freedom, others about law and order. And these groups often disagree.

Thus, when you complain: “I want conservatism,” that doesn’t help because the term is largely ambiguous. In other words, if you want your criticism to mean anything, i.e. to be constructive, you need to go further and tell us exactly what conservative policies you want. Just demanding “conservatism” is like taking hostages and then demanding “stuff."

Look beyond the buzzwords and be wary of politicians who wrap themselves in them, and hide behind their ambiguity. Look at people's real records, not just their words (FYI, after the new year, we're going to start looking at the records of possible presidential candidates). Ask yourself, what does "traditional values" mean, what does "conservative" mean, what does "smaller government" mean?

In Conclusion

Conservatives stand on the crest of a dramatic victory. But to complete that victory, they need to recognize it for what it is (it is victory over the Republican Party, not the birth of a new party). They must act accordingly by seizing the Republican Party at all levels. . . participate. They must stop tearing down the party, they must build it up. And they must focus their criticism: aim it at the people and policies that deserve it, and tell us what specifically you want done differently.

Now is the time. We must stop complaining and start instructing. We must recognize the victory that lies before us, and seize it, lest we squander this moment and thereby allow the RINOs to continue on happily, ruling a minority party as Democratic majorities continue to strip away the America that we love.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama Agenda: Foreign Policy

Let’s continue our tour through Obama’s agenda. With the resolution of the Honduras situation this week and Obama continuing to dither over Afghanistan, now is a good time to examine Obama’s foreign policy agenda.

Obama was a big critic of Bush’s foreign policy. He claimed it was arrogant and made it harder to “rally international support for our leadership.” He also claimed Bush used foreign policy “as a political wedge” issue to divide Americans -- even though it was actually the Democrats who did that. In the end, Obama promised to “meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe” to get the world to rally behind American leadership.

It is, therefore, no small irony that Obama has angered the French by snubbing Sarkosy, angered Britain by snubbing Gordon Brown and by dealing behind Whitehall’s back with Bermuda about terrorists, snubbed the Poles in their commemoration of the invasion of Poland by the Nazis (and by telling them on that same day he would abandon them on the missile shield), started a trade war with Canada, and spat on just about everybody else. Not to mention his indiscriminate giving of gag gifts and his penchant for giving back diplomatic gifts.

In any event, let’s go through his goals and plans:

1. World Liberalism. Right out of the gates, Obama promised a thorough adoption of a number of liberal sacred foreign policy cows. Strangely, things haven’t gone as planned:

Debt Forgiveness. Obama promised to cancel 100% of the debt of the world’s heavily-indebted poor countries. No action.

Fight Global Poverty. Obama promised to spend $50 billion in foreign aid to cut “extreme poverty” around the world in half by 2015. He mentioned this in his 2010 budget as a “goal”, but took no real action.

World Health Aid. Obama promised to launch a Health Infrastructure 2020 to give aid targeted at developing countries health care systems. No action.

Small Business Aid. Obama promised to create an agricultural initiative to create a fund that will provide seed capital and technical assistance to small and medium enterprises. No action.

Tax Havens. Obama promised to create an international tax haven watch list of countries that do not share information returns with the United States. No action.

Climate Change. Obama promised to bring the United States into the suicide pact that is climate change theology. But he disappointed the world by not submitting Kyoto the Senate, and now it looks like the Copenhagen Treaty is in trouble because the Senate hasn’t passed a cap and trade law, and China and India won’t participate in a new treaty until we agree to cut our emissions. No action.

Nuclear Weapons/Proliferation. Obama made several promises vis-a-vis nuclear weapons:

• He promised to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Yet, one of Obama’s first acts was to authorize the transfer of nuclear equipment to India in violation of the treaty. . . an evil for which Bush was roundly criticized. He then poured salt (or is it SALT 2?) into the wound by letting Hillary state that this arrangement (which violates the Treaty) can “serve as the foundation of a productive partnership on non-proliferation.”

• He promised to seek reductions in US and Russian stockpiles. On April 1, Fools Day, Obama and Medvedev agreed to pursue a new agreement by the end of the year to reduce the number of strategic warheads from 2,200 to around 1,600. Woo hoo, an agreement to agree on an insignificant reduction.

• He promised to stop the development of new nuclear weapons. No action.

• He promised to work with Russia to take US and Russian missiles off “hair trigger alert.” No action. In fact, Russian Presidential Security Council Chief Nikolai Patrushev recently declared that Russia reserves the right to use pre-emptive nuclear strikes on both a “large, regional and even local” scale to safeguard Russia from aggression, and he singled out Obama’s United States and NATO as foes who still pose threats to Russia.

• He promised to institute a global ban on intermediate-range missiles. No action.

• He promised to secure all loose nuclear material within four years and to negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear material. No action.

2. War On Terror. Obama promised to refocus the war on terror (in fact, he has even informally banned the phrase).

End The Use of Torture & Extreme Rendition. Obama promised to stop both torture and extreme rendition. He signed an executive order on January 22, 2009 that claims to end these practice, but really doesn’t. It did however, establish a task force to study these issues. Yipee!

Guantanamo. Obama promised to close Guantanamo and to ensure that the terrorists housed there receive all the rights afforded by international law. On his second day in office, he signed an executive order that promised to close Guantanamo within one year. That won’t happen. White House counsel Greg Craig has been offered as a scapegoat for this failure.

On May 15, Obama also announced that he would keep the current system in place for handling the inmates. In fact, he even tried to strip them of more rights.

Iraq. Obama promised to remove American troops from Iraq by August 31, 2010. There appear to be about the same number of troops there right now as before the surge, and Obama has stated that he plans to keep 35,000 to 50,000 troops in Iraq through 2011.

Afghanistan. Calling Afghanistan the “good war,” Obama promised to send two more brigades to conduct a non-surge surge. He did that and it didn’t work. So now his generals are very publicly asking for 40,000 more troops, and Obama seems incapable of coming up with a plan -- largely because his own party is split on whether or not to continue the war.

Obama also promised to use his messianic powers of persuasion to get the Europeans to contribute more forces and to remove the restrictions those countries placed on the troops they did send. Most of the Europeans right away ruled out sending more troops, and some are discussing pulling out entirely. On September 29, 2009, Obama finally met with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen. He achieved nothing.

Pakistan. Obama promised to condition US military aid to Pakistan on their shutting down training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a base to strike into Afghanistan. Obama did sign a law placing such conditions on Pakistan’s aid for the next five years. Whether or not this is verifiable remains to be seen.

Anti-Extremist Schools. Obama promised to establish a $2 billion Global Education Fund to “offer an alternative to extremist schools.” No action.

3. Russia. Obama promised to “address the challenge posed by an increasingly autocratic and bellicose Russia” by (1) supporting democratic partners in the region and upholding principles of sovereignty in Eurasia; (2) strengthening the transatlantic alliance so that it speaks with a unified voice to Russia; (3) decreasing the dependence of Europe on Russian energy; and (4) engaging directly with Russia on issues of mutual interest. Um, fail. He slapped down Poland and abandoned Georgia, thereby ensuring that no alternative to Russian gas would be available to Europe. He has done nothing to stop Germany and England from becoming Russian natural gas addicts. And he’s pandered and kowtowed to the totalitarian Vladimir Putin.

4. Middle East. Obama promised a realignment of United States policy in the Middle East. Good luck with that.

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Obama promised that resolving this conflict would be a key diplomatic priority. He also promised to “never distance” the United States from Israel and to support Israel’s right to self defense (including continuing US cooperation with developing an Israeli missile defense system). So far, his diplomatic efforts have lost the good will of the Palestinians: “All hopes placed in the new US administration and President Obama have evaporated.”

He also promised to continue military and economic aid to Israel ($30 billion over the next decade). No action to date.

Iran. Obama planned tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Obama promised to offer Iran (1) membership in the World Trade Organization, (2) economic investments, and (3) normal diplomatic relations, if Iran abandons its nuclear program and its support for terrorism. If Iran refused, Obama promised increased economic and political pressure. Iran rebuked Obama’s offer before he made it. He has since ignored Iran. He ignored the uprising by the Iranian people. He has been unable to stop Russia from adding to Iran’s nuclear capability. And now even the French are upset that he's been so weak.

The Arab World. Obama promised to use his unique talents to explain to the Arab world that we “are not at war with Islam.” So far he’s given one speech in Egypt and one in Turkey, claiming that the United States is a Muslim nation. Only 19% of Americans think this will improve our relations with the Muslim world.

5. Asia. Obama plans to seek new partners in Asia, while maintaining strong ties with allies like Japan, South Korea and Australia, and work to ensure that China plays by international rules.

Japan. Japan’s recent elections have resulted in a new government that wants United States military bases removed from Japanese soil.

China. Obama promised to use all tools available to demand that China (1) respect human rights, (2) fight intellectual piracy, (3) end their suppression of Tibet, (4) improve the safety of their products, (5) end their currency manipulation, which “contributes to massive global imbalances and provides Chinese companies with an unfair competitive advantage,” and (6) to end their support of repressive regimes in Sudan, Burma, Iran and Zimbabwe. Other than sending Geithner to beg the Chinese to buy American debt, no action to date.

North Korea. Obama promised to use “sustained, direct and aggressive diplomacy” to handle North Korea, promising to impose “strong international sanctions” against North Korea for any violation of United Nations resolutions. They’ve been shooting rockets into the Pacific ever since. No action.

6. Africa. Obama promised to make Africa a top diplomatic priority. He promised to open consulates in “hopeless corners” of Africa. He promised to immediately take steps to end the genocide in Darfur by “increasing pressure” on Sudan. And he promised to create a Global Energy and Environment Initiative to ensure that African countries have access to low cost energy. No action to date.

7. Latin America. Obama promised to rebuild diplomatic links throughout the hemisphere through aggressive, principled and sustained diplomacy. He promised to promote democracy in Cuba by allowing unlimited family travel and remittances, which he has done. He also promised to offer Cuba normal relations and a lifting of the embargo if Cuba takes significant steps toward democratization, which hasn’t happened.

He also promised (threatened) to rethink trade agreements, saying he will stand firm against agreements that “undermine our economic security” and promised to use trade agreements to “spread good labor and environmental standards around the world.” No action to date.

Finally, he promised to foster regional security through an initiative to cooperate in combating drug gangs. No action to date.


That’s it. Not much to write home about, is it?


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Honduras Explained

With the details of the deal in Honduras finally coming out, it’s time to analyze why Honduras became so important to the international community, what this deal really means, and why this is anything but the “historic” victory that the internationalists claim. This deal has, in fact, exposed the emptiness of the “rhetoric and peer pressure” approach to foreign policy. Expect the world to become a more dangerous place.

Why Honduras Mattered To The International Community

First, let’s explain why Honduras became such a big deal for the international community, and why they chose to support Zelaya despite his attempts to remake himself into a dictator.

• South/Central Americans. All of the Americas panicked when they heard that the Honduran military had tossed President Zelaya out of the country. The reason is simple. Central and South America were dominated by military coups for decades, Honduras included. In the past twenty years, they believed they had finally broken that cycle and become stable democracies. The prospect of a new military coup in Honduras reigniting that cycle scared the entire region. That’s why both left and right condemned “the coup.” This is also the reason they kept insisting that “the negotiations must not reward a coup.”

• The Internationalists. The internationalists, i.e. the effete Europeans who dominate the international talk shop, became involved because they saw this as their first chance to show that their brand of “international peer pressure without resorting to military means” could solve a crisis. In other words, this looked like an easy victory and they needed one badly since they can’t seem to solve anything else (Middle East, Iran, North Korea, Georgia, etc. etc.).

Some have attributed the support for Zelaya by the international community to being simply the support of leftists for a leftist. But that's not correct. Indeed, across the international community (and particularly in South/Central America), both left and right condemned “the coup.” Moreover, despite the MSM rebranding Micheletti’s government as “conservative” (which they always do with their perceived bag guys), Micheletti and Zelaya are both from the same leftist party (the Partido Liberal de Honduras).

In reality, the internationalists needed to support Zelaya because their theory of foreign policy requires that they maintain the unanimity of the international community, and with the South/Central Americans already choosing to support Zelaya, they had little choice. Nevertheless, this choice suited them because it also fit with their instinctual opposition to unilateral action, like throwing out a president, and with their desire to avoid disruption of the international order, i.e. they don’t like change, especially forced change. Not to mention that public perception is everything to the talkers, and supporting the government would have put them on the side of what appeared to be a military coup, which is unacceptable in their circles.

• Team Obama. Obama, who was late to the party, saw this as his first chance to let multilateralism work in South/Central America, with the United States taking a back seat to Brazil and other emerging powers. He thought this was a good way to show that the United States had changed since the end of the Bush administration, and would treat the South/Central Americans as more equal partners.

This is why Hillary Clinton has stressed that this “victory” was the result of diplomatic talk shops set up by Central/South Americans, and why they relied for so long on Costa Rica’s President to negotiate a resolution. Said Clinton: “This is a big step forward for the Inter-American system and its commitment to democracy as embodied in the Inter-American Democratic Charter.”

This “follow the crowd policy” also fit with his seeming utter disinterest in foreign affairs. However, this approach has brought on significant criticism of Obama from that same community, with Brazil’s Foreign Minister Celso Amorim grousing that these negotiations were taking too long. And more recently, Julie Sweig, Latin American Director of the Council on Foreign Relations complaining: “Why didn't they go down there four months ago? I have no idea why we didn't just do this to begin with, other than the fact that we wanted to give others a chance.” Also, Peter Hakim, President of the Inter-American Dialogue, asserts that Obama “made the mistake that multilateralism doesn't mean letting others do the work.” Instead, he argued, the situation needed “intense U.S. engagement.”

These are the reasons why this became important and how the sides were chosen. And while this was not a coup, see prior article, the Honduran government admittedly handled this poorly from a public relations perspective. Given the touchy nature of military coups in the region, they should not have sent the military to arrest Zelaya. They should have sent their equivalent of the United States Marshalls. Secondly, they should have voted to impeach him in their Congress before sending anyone to arrest him. Since their Congress would have done so easily, and it is dominated by members of his own party, few in the international community would have raised an objection (other than Chavez).

Position Of The Parties

Now, let’s explain the position of the international community versus the position of the Hondurans:

• The international community wanted Zelaya restored immediately to serve out his full term -- no restrictions. From their perspective, this was about undoing a military coup, and there could be no compromise. Thus, they took the position that they could not allow any part of that coup to succeed.

• Honduras wanted Zelaya removed from office until he could be replaced by the winner of the November 29 election. Though, in reality, all they really wanted was to stop him from holding a referendum to change the constitution to allow himself to remain in power. This was identical to the process used by the quasi-dictators in Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador, to gut their own constitutions.

The Honduran constitution forbids even the attempt to amend the constitution to allow the president to serve a second term. And not only had Zelaya done that, but he'd acted illegally in attempting to pull it off:

• Zelaya supporters told people to sign the petition to hold the referendum under threat of being denied health care or other government benefits.

• Zelaya violated a Supreme Court order not to attempt to hold the referendum.

• Zelaya illegal fired General Romeo Vasquez, who refused to carry out the illegal order to distribute the ballots and the Supreme Court order to reinstate him.

• Zelaya led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots were stored, and told his supporters to distribute them.

Zelaya also was accused of other crimes, though these were not the reason he had been deposed:

• Zelaya’s government was accused of accepting kickbacks and of being involved in the drug trade.

• Zelaya was accused to taking several million dollars from the Honduran Central Bank.

• Zelaya forced all radio and television stations to broadcast his daily speeches.

• Zelaya’s government began monitoring private phone conversations in the country.

The Deal

This entire matter settled late-Thursday after some last minute diplomacy by Thomas A. Shannon, the Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs. The deal will be signed Monday. Here is what Honduras got under the deal:

• Zelaya must drop his attempts to amend the constitution.

• The international community will recognize the results of the November 29 election.

• Financial aid would be restored to Honduras.

• The visas of the Honduran leaders are to be restored.

• The international community will send poll workers to help perform and monitor the fairness of the November 29 election.

• A truth commission will be established to investigate the events leading up to and following “the coup.”

That’s everything Honduras wanted.

In exchange, the Internationalists got a promise that a national unity government would be installed by November 5. That sounds like everything the Internationalists wanted, except. . .

Whether or not Zelaya gets restored to the presidency has been left to the Honduran Congress, after a review by the Supreme Court. (According to Shannon, the “when, if and how” will be left to the Congress.) While the Congress backed his ouster five to one, they have signaled that they “will not stand in the way” of this agreement. And there's really no reason they should stand in the way, because they will be defining his power for the last month of the term. For example, it is clear already that control of the army will be transferred from the office of the President to the Supreme Court. Also, his term will not be extended to make up for the six months he lost.

Summing this up, even assuming that Zelaya is returned to “power,” Honduras got everything it wanted. Zelaya was kept out of power from June until mid-November. He must drop his attempts to change the constitution, and he will be stripped of any real power by the Supreme Court and the Congress. There is no mention of any amnesty that would cover the allegations against him. Moreover, Honduras gets its aid restored and returns to the international community none the worse for wear.

Internationalists Try To Claim An Historic Victory

Not surprisingly, the internationalists are calling this a huge victory for international pressure of the talking variety:

• Gushed Hillary Clinton: “I cannot think of another example of a country in Latin America that, having suffered a rupture of its democratic institutional order, overcame such a crisis through negotiation and dialogue.” Yes, the Hondurans won a great victory over you.

• Daniel Restrepo, senior director for Latin America at the White House National Security Council attributed this grand victory to the “recognition throughout Honduran society that, for Honduras to move forward in a sustained way, the election had to be accompanied by international support.” Uh huh, and the fact they got what they wanted and gave up nothing had nothing to do with it?

• Sen. John Kerry (D, Masshole) said this was “an historic accomplishment.” Worthy of a Nobel Prize perhaps?

Yet, it's a phony victory at best. They wanted Zelaya restored to serve out the entire remaining six months of his term. That won’t happen. They wanted him restored unconditionally, that won’t happen. Instead, assuming he is restored, all they got was that he would be re-installed as a figure head for the remaining month of his term. If that’s a victory, I’d hate to see what it takes for them to admit defeat.

In the end, these fools can delude themselves into thinking that they’ve “won,” but troublemakers around the world will see through this Orwellian doublespeak and self-delusion. The lesson here is that the international community was unable to push around a country of 7.5 million people. Their peer pressure strategy crashed and sank against the rocks of an opponent who simply refused to be swayed. Out of ideas, the internationalists did what they always do, they surrendered and then lied to themselves for comfort, declaring their surrender to be what they really wanted from the get-go.

And you can be sure that the lessons of Honduras will not be lost on countries like Iran and North Korea, or on future coup plotters everywhere, who will see this as confirmation of the international community’s weakness. Anyone who declares a total surrender as an historic victory is ripe for the plucking.


** Thanks to Joel for pointing out that my analysis the other day beat the Wall Street Journal, which apparently agrees, by a day.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Weekly Bidenism

Today we're introducing a new feature: The Weekly Bidenism. Joe Biden is a liar. He's also perhaps the dumbest politician this country has ever produced. This guy makes Forrest Gump look like Einstein. And we think that such carefully cultivated stupidity deserves a little appreciation. So every Sunday morning from now on (notice we're starting on a Saturday night), we will post a Bidenisms or two for you to enjoy. . . and to make you wonder how this man could possibly ever be put a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

Today we start with a classic in which Joe tells us how smart he is. During the Robert Bork hearings, it was discovered that Slow Joe had been disciplined as a first year law student for plagiarism (something he has a history of doing). On April 3, 1987, at a campaign stop in Claremont, New Hampshire, he was asked about that and a slew of recent reports about other instances of plagiarism. Joe angrily attacked the questioner:

"I think I probably have a much higher IQ than you do, I suspect. I went to law school on a full academic scholarship, the only one in my class to have a full academic scholarship. . . . I went back to law school and, in fact, ended up in the top half of my class. I won the international moot court competition. I was the outstanding student in the political science department at the end of my year. I graduated with three degrees from undergraduate school and 165 credits, only needed 123 credits, and I'd be delighted to sit down and compare my IQ to yours, if you'd like, Frank."

While this is not a very nice (or smart) thing for a politician to say, what makes this a Bidenism is a certain lack of candor here, and Biden's follow up comments.

For example, it turns out that Biden did not go to school on a full academic scholarship. He received a partial scholarship, and it was based on financial need. . . not academic credentials.

Moreover, while Biden claims he ended up in the top half of his class, his law school records show that he finished 76th out of 85. That puts him almost in the bottom 10%.

And while Biden claims he won an international moot court competition, Newsweek noted that he'd never listed this on his resume.

His three degrees also turned out to be a single degree with a double major, and his law degree.

When all of this was exposed, Biden first responded with a true Bidenism:

"I exaggerate when I'm angry, but I've never gone around telling people things that aren't true about me."

So exaggerations are true?

He then responded angrily:

"I don't understand all this. [expletive] I guess every single word I've ever said is going to be dissected now."

No Joe, just the stupid ones. . .


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Mouse That Called Obama’s Bluff. . .

Want some actual news you haven’t heard anywhere: Honduras just won. Seriously. Funny that the MSM hasn’t mentioned this. Image, the entire world, standing shoulder to shoulder. . . led by the greatest power the world has ever known. . . guided by the greatest leader that country has ever produced. . . a man so compelling and hopeful that he deserves the Nobel Prize just for being. . . and Honduras just humbled them all.

Here’s the set up: In one corner, we have the current government of Honduras. They tossed their former president (Manuel Zelaya) out of the country when he tried to make himself into a Hugo Chavez-like dictator. (If you don’t know the background, or why this was not a coup, then read my prior article: HERE. I’ll wait for ya.)

In the other corner, we have the world. . . literally. Every other country in the world is doing their internationalist best to demand that Honduras allow Zelaya to return to power.

Here’s the twist: On November 29 of this year, there will be an election in Honduras. That election was already scheduled to take place before Zelaya got expelled, and will be between two men who had no involvement in the “coup.” The winner will become the new President, ending Zelaya's term. Democracy at work.

The current government in Honduras hopes that this election will make the Zelaya issue moot, and that the world will leave them alone thereafter. The international community, however, has loudly proclaimed that it will not recognize the results of that election unless Zelaya is first returned to power to serve out his term.

Except. . . Team Obama has now signaled (very quietly) that they will accept the election and move on. Gooooooooooooooooooooooooooaal!!!!!

Honduras wins! Honduras wins! Honduras wins! Honduras wins!

Oh, the humanity!!!

This represents a truly humiliating moment for Team Obama and for the internationalists. For years, the internationalists have told us that international pressure could solve any problem without the need for evil, dirty force. War was history, international law had killed it. Team Obama bought into that hook, line and sinker, and based their entire foreign policy on talk and hope. Now tiny Honduras, with its seven million people, has exposed that policy in all its gloriousless impotence.

** Update: Speak of the devil, this morning they announced a "deal" where Zelaya gets to appeal directly to Congress (which opposes him 5-1) to be restored. In exchange, we, the US, will recognize the election later this month. Annoyingly, but not unexpectedly, the AP is calling this total surrender an "Obama victory" even though it gives the Hondurans everything they wanted and Obama achieved none of his goals!

Here’s a little background on how this debacle developed. . .

From the outset, every single country in the world declared that they would do their able best to force little Honduras to accept the return of then-President Manuel Zelaya. They would (and did) blockade the country in violation of their treaties and their obligations under the World Trade Organization. They would stop sending aid and tourists. They warned that the coup leaders would be arrested. Chavez threatened to invade (he's a little sweet on Zelaya). All unless the evil coup plotters (leftists now described as “conservatives”) promised to immediately restore Zelaya to power and to submit to his terrible wrath.

And Honduras responded, “Bite me.”

Thus began an interesting series of negotiations between Micheletti, Zelaya and the International Community. (As an aside, as you read this, keep in mind the following quote from Zelaya about Micheletti: “I have no confidence in Micheletti. He changes his attitude from one minute to the next.”)

Micheletti’s Position

From the beginning, Micheletti took the position that Zelaya may not return to Honduras, unless he faces charges for what he’s done -- like stealing several million dollars from the Honduras Central Bank. Micheletti also declared that he will serve out the remainder of Zelaya’s term until the election scheduled for November 29.

On August 28, Micheletti changed his position slightly, saying that he would agree to allow Zelaya to return to Honduras under an amnesty if Zelaya renounced his claims to the presidency. Micheletti also offered to step down as President as part of the deal.

That’s it. Funny, I don’t see the attitude changing Zelaya does, perhaps I’m missing something? Let’s see how Zelaya did. . .

Zelaya’s Positions

Zelaya took the initial position that he needed to be restored immediately to serve out his full term and that the coup plotters had to face punishment for their crimes. He then went about making threats.

July 15: Zelaya asserts that “Hondurans have a right to insurrection.” Hey, who doesn’t?

July 18: Zelaya’s foreign minister, Patricia Rodas, says that Zelaya was returning to wage a “final battle” against those who ousted him. Let’s get ready to rumble!

July 21: Zelaya says that he would return soon and that “It is impossible to sustain a regime with bayonets. The world will not allow it, starting with the United States.” Oh oh, is that reliance on Obama I’m hearing?

July 23: Saying that United States sponsored talks have broken down, Zelaya declares that he will cross the border into Honduras. He dismisses concerns about the possibility of violence.

When the United States warns that it does not support this trip to the border (“Any step that would add to the risk of violence in Honduras or in the area, we think would be unwise.”) Zelaya responds: “Defending our rights is not an act of violence. . . we are going to seek dialogue.”

July 24: Zelaya bravely arrives at the border between Nicaragua and Honduras. . . on the Nicaraguan side. He stays only thirty minutes and only symbolically steps into Honduras. He explains: “I am not afraid, but I’m not crazy either. There could be violence and I don’t want to be the cause.” I guess encouraging an insurrection is not promoting violence?

He goes on to note that: “The best thing is to reach an understanding that respects the will of the people.” Though he also calls on the United States to not accept the results of the November 29 election unless he is restored to power first. So I guess “will of the people” doesn’t mean the Honduran people?

July 26: After Hillary “Yoda” Clinton calls his move “reeeeckless,” Zelaya responds that she should “stop avoiding the issue. Secretary Clinton should confront the dictatorship with force.” So much for not being the cause of violence.

July 30: Man of peace Zelaya suggests that the Honduran military should rebel.

August 1: Zelaya vows to return to power through peaceful means and denies that he’s rallying groups of armed supporters. Assures Zelaya: “We do not use arms. I am not forming any armed military force, although I have the means to do it.”

August 5: Zelaya tells the Mexican Senate: “The United States is the one that really has the power to impose measures that go beyond diplomacy.” Which begs the question, what lies beyond diplomacy? The answer is usually war, isn’t it?

September 21: Zelaya bravely sneaks across the border in the trunk of a car and beats cheeks for the Brazilian Embassy.

September 27: Uber-Pacifist Zelaya, a virtual modern day Gandhi, declares over the radio: “I call on you to mobilize throughout Honduras, and that everyone who can come to Tegucigalpa to fight in the final offensive.” Thereafter, we get an answer to the old hippie refrain: “what if we had a war and nobody came?” Answer: Idiots end up living in other people’s embassies.

The International Community’s Incredible Shrinking Posture

Finally, we take a look at how the international community, led by Barack “The Second Coming” Obama demonstrated its impotence.

July 21: The United States gets off to a muscular start, declaring that it wants “the constitutional order” in Honduras “restored. . . now.” By this, they meant they wanted Zelaya returned to power immediately.

To make this happen, Obama cut $16.5 million in military aid to Honduras -- that will teach them. Obama also revoked the diplomatic visas of the four top members of Honduras’ government, preventing them from clubbing in Miami on weekends. The United States also sent President Oscar “The Grouch” Arias of Costa Rica to negotiate a resolution with both parties.

July 21: Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim adds to the pressure, warning that these talks are taking too long. Another Brazilian diplomat warned that “the negotiations must not reward a coup.”

July 22: The United States ups the ante by warning Honduras that it would impose tough sanction if Zelaya is not returned. Harrumph harrumph.

July 23: Then things start to go squishy. Upon learning that Zelaya was planning to return to Honduras from his luxury suite at the Venezuela Hilton, the United States suddenly announces that it doesn’t support this move: “we think [this move] would be unwise.”

Jose Miguel Insulza, secretary-general of the Organization of American States, added his voice of caution: “It’s important to make an effort to avoid a likely confrontation.” Cluck. . . cluck.

July 24: Hillary Clinton states that: “President Zelaya’s effort to reach the border is reckless.” Cluck. . . cluck. . . bwak!

August 5: The United States heroically softens its stance, stating that no further sanctions would be coming. Run away! Run away! Whimpers Richard “The Vermin” Verma, of the State Department, “we reject calls for crippling economic sanctions and made clear that all states should seek to facilitate a solution without calls for violence and with respect for the principle of nonintervention.” Nonintervention? Except of course, when it comes to deciding who should rule Honduras.

September 21: Zelaya sneaks across the border even after Team Obama specifically told him not to do this. The United States responds by warning all sides to exercise caution, but takes no action.

September 27: In response to claims that the dastardly Honduran military surrounded the Brazilian embassy and “blasted music” at the building (like the US did in Panama), the United Nations Security Council condemns the Honduran government, but takes no action.

And now, Team Obama decides to give in to the mean old Hondurans. So much for the magical power of dialogue.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Sound of Theme Music

Do you want to know why Obama hasn't done anything about Afghanistan? Well, we've uncovered the minutes of a secret meeting of Team Obama to discuss "Afghanistan." I warn you, this is distrubing.

(click to enlarge if you can't read the transcript)















[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Repealing Baucus

Having examined the Baucus bill and explained why it might not pass (and now seen the opposition grow), it’s time to talk about repealing this bill if it does pass. Can this bill be repealed. Yes. . . and I would think surprisingly easily. Here’s why.

From A Technical Standpoint, Repeal Would Be Easy

Technically speaking, repealing a law is simple: you just pass another law that repeals the first one. The government speaks through the United States Code. If you want it to shut it up, or change the way it speaks, you just pass a law that deletes or amends the relevant portion of the code.

Yet, this is often not as easy as it sounds. Some laws work their way into the system like weeds, intertwining themselves with dozens of others. This makes it difficult to repeal the law because of the disruption that would be caused the intertwined laws. Consider, for example, social security. Tax law, identification laws, disability law, employment law, medical record privacy laws, and many others rely on the Social Security Act to make their components work. If Social Security were to be repealed, each of those other laws would need to be amended as well.

The Baucus bill, however, is not like social security. The Baucus bill creates stand alone requirements that can easily be removed without causing significant disruption to any other laws or programs.

From A Political Standpoint, Repeal Should Be Easy As Well

As repeal is technically possible, we must next ask whether repeal will be politically possible. To determine that, one must examine who will fight to save the law and who will fight to repeal it, and then determine whether enough legislators will decide that repeal is in their best interests. In this case, few will defend the law and many (both interest groups and the public) will favor its repeal.

If we assume that Baucus passes largely along the lines of what has been proposed (instead of the harder left version proposed by the House), here are the likely consequences:

First, right out of the gates, the public is going to get rather angry because. . .

• Misled Supporters. This bill’s supporters have been misled. Most of the bill's supporters will be shocked to discover that almost none of them will qualify for free health care under the bill. In fact, if you make more than 133% of the poverty level, not only won’t you get coverage, but you will be forced to buy insurance or be fined. Some recent polls suggest that 60% of supporters expect to get free health care from this bill. In reality, less than 1% of the public will qualify for this. That's called disillusionment, a powerful force for killing support.

• All Pain, No Gain. Baucus has written this bill in a way that all of the “bads” (tax increases, cuts to Medicare) kick in right away, but the “goods” (subsidies, limits on insurers) don’t kick in for years. For three years, this bill be all pain and no gain to the public.

• Increased Costs for Everyone. The portion of the public that has private insurance, 60%, will find their insurance costs going up almost immediately. The insurers have estimated that the new requirements will increase the cost of a typical policy by $3,000 to $4,000 per year.

• Benefits Tax. Many members of the public will suddenly find their benefits being taxed at a 40% rate. This is the excise tax on so-called “Cadillac benefits” plans. This will apply to approximately 14% of families and 19% of singles in 2013 (despite indexing, this will increase to 31% and 34% by 2019).

• Doctor Shortage (Phase I). Seniors are going to find that the low rates paid under Medicare/Medicaid continue to force more and more doctors out of the system -- the rest will complain bitterly about cuts, as they do now. With further cuts of 21% and another 40% planned, this could drive out a great many more. Also, with the addition of several million freeloaders to the system, seniors will find the system suddenly becoming very crowded and grievance ridden.

Then, the law of unintended consequences is going to kick in as the plan’s elements slowly take effect. These will convert the public’s anger to rage:

• Failing Insurers. Profits in the insurance industry average about 6% a year, with last year’s profits being around 2%. Those margins are too low for small insurers to continue under the pricing limits imposed by Baucus. Thus, as Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) observed, most of the nation’s 1300 insurers will go out of business. So what you ask? Well, chances are that the insurance that you currently have -- the insurance the Democrats promised you could keep -- comes from one of these 1300 insurers. Whoops.

• Doctor Shortage (Phase II). Wherever the government becomes responsible for paying for health care, it will pay only the current Medicare rates, which are already causing a revolt among doctors. Expect that doctors will refuse to participate in such plans, causing a serious shortage of available doctors. Essentially, you will have a two tiered system -- one for the rich, with doctors, and one for the rest of us, without doctors.

• Doctor Shortage (Phase III). The more the government takes control of the medical profession, the fewer people will go to medical school. This will slowly lead to a doctor shortage, which might become apparent within a few years. Watch medical school entrance exam scores for a drop in quality of applicants.

• Hospital Bankruptcies. Hospitals have been going broke all over the country, in no small part because of Medicare/Medicaid rates. The government will now withhold another $155 billion from hospitals under those programs. It will also continue to refuse to provide full reimbursement for illegal aliens. Expect this to result in a significant increase in the number of hospital bankruptcies.

• Job Market Changes. As the employer mandates kick in, employers will switch to more temporary workers (in place of permanent workers) and will reduce part time workers’ hours to below 30 hours per week to avoid fines and the need to provide insurance.

Then, right when the effects of the bill are starting to become obvious, the new programs will break the Federal budget. While the Democrats claim the budget can absorb one trillion dollars over ten years, this bill far exceeds that.

Right now this bill extends insurance to 12 million more people -- five million of whom fall into the highest cost range (uninsurables). Applying the 2007 Medicare rates, this will cost at least $133.2 billion per year. It also provides subsidies to 67% of Americans. How much is not clear because the formula depends on the cost of the policies -- they’re capped at 10% of the cost of the policy. This could be as high as $2,000 per person, but realistically will be only a fraction of that. Let’s assume an average of $200 per eligible person, all 210 million of them. That works out to a yearly cost of $40.2 billion.

Even ignoring all other costs and the inevitable increase in costs that will arise from forcing another 25 million people into a system that has no capacity to take them, these two costs alone come to $173.2 billion per year, or $1.7 trillion over ten years -- double the Democratic estimates. That’s also more than the budget deficit in 2007 ($162 billion) for which Bush was so roundly (and rightfully) criticized.

To offset this, the Democrats have proposed a $12.1 billion per year tax on drug makers, device makers, and insurers. However, most of that will be passed right back to the government in increased costs. Beyond this, the Democrats are still looking for ways to pay for this.

If you want proof of the likelihood of budget disaster, look at the experience of various states that have tried to do what the Democrats are doing now. Hawaii, Oregon, Massachusetts, Tennessee and Maine have all created some version of government-run health care, and all are a mess. Hawaii’s Prepaid Healthcare Act resulted in higher costs, fewer insurers, and doubled the number of uninsureds. Moreover, the program was so expensive, it had to be discontinued for children.

Maine’s six year old “Dirigo Health” plan has managed to cover only 18,800 of the state’s 130,000 uninsured, has cost many people their private insurance, and has run away premium costs.

After three years, Massachusetts’ “universal coverage plan” caused costs to explode, resulted in waiting lists, and still left thousands uninsured. Tennessee’s plan for low-income people, caused insurers and doctors to leave the state and has repeatedly flirted with insolvency. Oregon creates an annual list, based on budget constraints, that identifies which treatments it will cover and which it won’t.

What Should The Republicans Do

Based on all of the above, the public should be quite happy to see this plan repealed. Moreover, there is no constituency to lobby to keep this thing alive. Indeed, the biggest mistake the Democrats made was not merging Medicare into this new program. Thus, opponents cannot be charged with trying to destroy Medicare by trying to destroy Obama/PelosiCare.

But this alone is unlikely to lead to a repeal, the Republicans will need to generate sufficient pressure that even Democrats support repeal. Here’s how to do that:

1. Set up the criticism now. Tell people what is going to happen so that they know where to lay the blame when their health care costs go up, their taxes go up, they lose their insurance because their insurer goes broke, their doctor refuses to take their new insurance, they are told their jobs will be made temporary positions, their part time hours are cut, the budget deficit skyrockets, and they experience massive delays and incompetence in their dealings with the health care system. Pointing this out now, lets people attribute a cause, which focuses anger and will go a long way to selling the arguments to be made later.

2. Don’t talk about repeal, talk about replacement. Come up with a real plan, not the usual Republican garbage about giving more subsidies to insurance providers, and tell people that you intend to replace Obama/PelosiCare with a plan that will work. Start talking about this now, so that Republicans can claim they tried to change this horrid system before it took effect, and keep talking about it.

3. Generate the proof. Don’t rely on the media to investigate the effects of Obama/PelosiCare or on people to come to their own conclusions. Work with the interest groups to do the studies that back up what is happening and attribute it to Obama/PelosiCare. Do studies pointing out how health care costs go up. Point out permanent jobs lost, reductions in the number of doctors or hospitals or nurses or numbers of insurers. And most importantly, keep pounding away at how many people remain without insurance so that people understand that this was all done for nothing. Indeed, point out that Obama/PelosiCare is spending $1.7 trillion to cover 12 million people, whereas we could have bought them all private insurance for $54 billion a year without destroying every else’s health care.

4. Sell the problem. Finally, Republicans need a unified, continuous attack on the program. They need to run on a visible platform of replacing Obama/PelosiCare. And they need to focus on the key themes:

• Obama/PelosiCare is all pain, no gain. Are you better off? Is your health care better or cheaper?

• Obama/PelosiCare was futile: 30+ million people remain unemployed.

• Obama/PelosiCare was an incredible waste of money. Rather than spending $1.7 trillion to cover 12 million people, we could have bought them all private insurance for $54 billion a year.

• Obama/PelosiCare is bankrupting Medicare.

• Obama/PelosiCare is bankrupting the country. Every other government function is being squeezed or ignored to pay for this turkey. And we’re going deeper and deeper into debt every day because of this plan.

With no one supporting this bill, an angry public, and active interest group opposition, Obama/PelosiCare will become an albatross that hangs around every Democratic neck -- particularly if Obama loses in 2012. This will guarantee ever increasing Republican majorities until they either have the numbers to repeal the bill or the Democrats decide to stop standing in the way. Using the “replace not repeal” plan should hasten their abandonment of Obama/PelosiCare.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Harry Reid’s Mistake On The Public Option

Not a full post tonight, but I wanted to update everyone on Harry Reid’s public option mistake and on who is important in the Senate right now (** cough cough call them cough **). As you know, I wrote the other day that I thought they would have a problem passing the Baucus bill. One of the reasons listed was the public option debate. Guess what. . .

You may have heard that yesterday, Harry Reid announced that the Baucus bill would include a public option. In fact, he selected a public option that states could “opt out of”, and that was that -- the end. At the time, the left declared this a victory and their friends in the media trumpeted the coming of ObamaCare.

But as I watched Harry give his press conference, it was clear that he was nervous. Sure, he was angry -- lashing out at Republicans, and he was smug, but he refused to answer whether he was sure that he had the 60 votes he needs for cloture, i.e. to prevent a filibuster. He had clearly gambled.

Not more than five minutes after his lips stopped flapping, CNBC announced that Olympia Snowe was very upset by this. And while she did not say that she would not vote closure, she indicated that she could not support a bill with an “opt out” or “opt in” provision. Whoops. (FYI, Reid then attacked her, commenting that she has been “frightened” into dropping her support. Sounds sexist to me.)

This morning, Joe Lieberman, who is fast becoming my favorite Democrat, announced that he would not support this bill. But even more so, he noted that he would filibuster the bill if it continues to include a public option:

“I’ve told Sen. Reid that if the bill stays as it is now, I will vote against cloture. I can’t see a way in which I could vote for cloture on any bill that contained a creation of a government-operated-run insurance company. It’s just asking for trouble – in the end, the taxpayers are going to pay and probably all people will have health insurance are going to see their premiums go up because there’s going to be cost shifting as there has been for Medicare and Medicaid.”

Honestly, Lieberman’s opposition was unexpected. Don’t get me wrong, I’m thrilled. I just didn’t think he would stand in the way of this.

With Lieberman and Snowe bolting, Reid cannot bring the bill for a vote because he’s only got 59 votes. Even worse for Reid, Lieberman and Snowe’s defections are now encouraging others to start wavering. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb) and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La) both had already voiced reservations and have now confirmed their reservations (though they have stopped short of saying they won’t vote for the bill). But now, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del) says that he is unhappy with the bill and will seek to make changes on the Senate floor. Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind) also has voiced concerns over the bill and now will not say which way he will vote on cloture (Bayh is upset about $40 billion in taxes imposed on medical equipment providers).

So while this battle is far from over, it looks like Harry’s declaration proved to be a total disaster. And I suspect that the longer this goes without resolution, the greater the chance that more Democrats will revolt -- not to mention that they still need to merge this with a House bill that is entirely unpalatable to most of the Senate.

If you feel like calling or writing anyone in Congress, these would be the people. Tell them that you see a vote for closure as a vote for the public option. . . and you don’t want a public option.

In the meantime, get some popcorn, kick back, and watch the fall out from Harry’s bomb.

** UPDATE: Olympia Snowe has now said that she will vote against cloture. Thus, Reid does not have the sixty votes he needs.


(FYI, I will put up an article outlining why the Baucus bill can be repealed tomorrow night. Thanks for your patience.)


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Problem Of College Costs

The American college system is the best in the world. Eight of the top ten, nineteen of the top twenty-five and thirty-eight of the top fifty universities are in the United States. But there is a problem: college costs too much. And guess whose fault that is. . .

As a people, we want to encourage our fellow citizens to go to college. Not only do we need more doctors and engineers, but study after study shows that people who go to college contribute more to our economy than those who don’t. The greater the level of education, the lower the likelihood of unemployment and the greater the income. (See chart below).



In fact, studies show that people who complete college are likely to earn as much as $800,000 more in their lifetimes than those who don’t go to college. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) claims that even after considering tuition fees, lost earning during college and increased taxation on future income, college graduates are still as much as $82,000 better off in net present value terms than people who only obtain a high school diploma. That means completing college is like having your bills paid for, receiving an amount equal to what the high school grad has earned while you were in college and still being handed $82,000 today.

So far so good. But there is a problem. This value keeps dropping because the cost of college is spiraling out of control in the United States.

Since 1985, the average cost of college tuition has risen 412%. At the same time, the consumer price index (a gauge of inflation that actually overstates the inflation rate) rose only 100%. In other words, while that cheeseburger or stereo or car that you bought in 1985 would cost you twice as much today as it did in 1985, college would cost you four times as much. Take a look at the graph on the right to see how college costs have far outstripped inflation.

College tuition, at a four year public school, will average $7,020 this fall. That’s $31,000 in four years once you factor in the continuing effects of price inflation. Average tuition at private colleges is $26,273 a year. This works out to more than $110,000 after four year. (And none of this includes room and board.)

This is a problem.

As college becomes less valuable, fewer people will attend. That means fewer doctors, fewer lawyers, fewer engineers. It means that jobs need to be sent overseas (or overseas workers brought here). That means fewer support jobs, a smaller economy, and less tax revenue. It means our economy will become more dependent on foreign countries and that the things that give us an advantage (particularly technology) will soon be lost with the advantage being shifted overseas.

So what is causing this? The government.

In 2009, $180 billion will be spent on college tuition in the United States. Sixty-five percent of that, $117 billion, comes from the federal government via grants and loans. And if you look at college tuition over time, you will see an amazing correlation between the amount of aid made available by the federal government and the price of tuition. Look at the chart on the left. Compare the rise in financial aid with the rise in college tuition costs -- it’s absolutely correlated. Now it’s true that correlation does not mean causation, but there are no other realistic factors to explain this correlation. The truth is that colleges have simply raised their fees to eat up the available aid.

Interestingly, if you eliminated federal aid, the amount spent on college tuition today would be roughly 200% the amount spent in 1985. In other words, college tuition would be at the same level as the inflation index for other consumer products and services if you excluded the federal government’s involvement.

What does this tell us? It tells us that all of the financial “aid” that the federal government has given is a chimera. It’s a trap. Every penny of financial aid given to help students afford college gets eaten up by higher tuition costs the moment it is given!!

Basically, while the feds claim to be helping people afford college, they are in fact subsidizing colleges with loans that work like a long term tax on students. Consider it a “professional tax.”

Think of it this way. Imagine that you could buy a cheeseburger in 1985 for $1. But in 1985, the federal government decided that it would start “helping you” to afford that cheeseburger. Thus, the government loaned you money to buy the cheeseburger. But each year, the burger joint raised the price of the burger dollar for dollar with the amount the feds made available for loans. Today, the burger costs $11. The feds will loan you $10 to “help you.” But is that really help? You are still paying the original $1 yourself, only now you are being saddled with a $10 loan just so that you can buy the same burger.

So it will come as no surprise that Obama is proposing to increase the amount of federal aid available again. Liberals will congratulate themselves for helping people go to college. Colleges will rejoice that their subsidies will continue. And college grads will find themselves under an ever increasingly, crushing debt load. College grads are already leaving college with an average debt load of $20,000, with grad students (lawyers and doctors in particular) averaging $91,700 last year. (And don’t forget that with interest, students will pay back far more than the amount of the loan.)

In fact, most of what the government does to help you is counter-productive. Have you ever heard of these programs where you put money into an account now so that your kids can go to college in the future? These are called 529 Prepaid Tuition Plans. If you’re thinking about one, look into it carefully. These accounts can have various traps -- from the funds being lost if not used for college to requiring that the recipient go to school in a particular state. More interestingly, while this sounds like a great way to save for college because these plans are usually tax free, you may actually not be better off. Depending on the school and how the fund is set up, any amount in the fund may end up merely offsetting need-based grants. Thus, you will turn over that money, but your kids will still end up with the same amount of loans. (Public schools may not do this, but private schools can.)

Every time the federal government ups the financial aid limits, all we do is put students further in debt. It strikes me that it’s time to cut off the federal spigot for a while and see if that brings the cost of this cheeseburger back in line.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Why The Baucus Bill Probably Won't Pass

For some time now, I have doubted that Obama would get ObamaCare. I did think, however, that he would get some face-saving version. The Baucus bill is that face saving version. But now I’m not so sure even that will pass. And even if it does, a Republican majority should be able to repeal it fairly easily. Let’s take this in two parts. Today is part one: why the Baucus bill might not pass.

There are five primary reasons that the Democrats might not be able to garner the support they need to pass this bill: (1) the lack of a natural constituency supporting the bill, (2) the cost, (3) disputes over how to pay for the bill, (4) disputes over the public option and (5) abortion.

1. The Lack Of A Natural Constituency Supporting The Bill

Before we delve too deeply into the Democrats’ errors, it is important to point out that legislation does not pass on its merits. Legislation passes when enough Congressmen/Senators think it is in their interests to support it.

It is difficult to support a bill that the public hates, and the public hates the Baucus bill: only 42% support the bill. Yet, widespread public opposition can usually be overcome in the legislative process by a motivated constituency. The Baucus bill, however, has no such constituency. Indeed, each of the attempts to create a constituency have failed:

(1) The Public. From the beginning, the Democrats promised to subsidize the cost of health care for nearly everyone in the country. They intended to undercut the public’s fears that this legislation would increase the cost of their health care. But they made two mistakes. First, while the Baucus bill promises subsidies to approximately 67% of Americans, individuals won’t see that money -- it will go directly to the insurers. That makes this a meaningless bribe because the public doesn’t know they will be getting it.

Secondly, the public does not believe this will help. They believe the subsidy (likely less than $200 a year) will not offset the increase in insurance cost (several thousand dollars a year). In fact, they don’t believe any part of the bill will be good for them.

If you examine the chart below, from Gallup, you will see that only 19% of the public believes this bill will improve the quality of the health care they receive, whereas 39% think it will make it worse. Only 22% think it will control the health care costs they pay, whereas 49% think it will make them worse. And only 20% think it will improve their coverage.

Even the bill’s supporters don’t think it will work:

Those numbers are guaranteed to scare every Democrat who faces reelection in the next cycle -- most of whom are already skittish.

(2) The Insurance Lobby. The Democrats blamed the insurance lobby for killing HillaryCare in 1992. So this time, they set out to make the insurance lobby an ally by promising insurers they would get to write policies for another 46 million Americans. This worked at first, until it became clear that the Democrats intended to create a public option or health care co-ops. This would be a disaster for most insurers.

Indeed, according to Republican Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), who gave an impressive interview about this bill, this bill is likely to lead to the collapse of all but the largest insurers. He notes that the Baucus plan prevents insurers from using underwriting techniques to set rates (e.g. they can’t adjust policies to account for certain conditions). Because insurers need that flexibility to account for different expected costs, he reasons that most of the nation’s 1,300 insurers will be unable to issue profitable policies. Thus, they will be forced out of the business, leaving only a handful of large insurers to occupy the field.

Because of this potential disaster, the insurance industry has now abandoned their support and turned against the plan. Consequently, the Democrats are now threatening to attack the insurers with anti-trust laws, thereby guaranteeing the vehemence of the insurers’ opposition.

(3) Hospitals. The Democrats wanted to get hospitals on board (i) by increasing federal reimbursement for the “unreimbursed expenses” hospitals incur in treating the poor and illegal aliens and (ii) by cutting hospitals’ medical malpractice costs.

In 2008, hospitals provided $35 billion worth of uncompensated care (for the uninsured); 80% of this was reimbursed by the government. Most of this went to cover illegal aliens. But illegal aliens won’t be covered by Baucus, thus nothing will change for the hospitals. What’s worse, in July 2009, the White House announced (supposedly after reaching an agreement with hospitals) that it would be cutting the amount it reimburses hospitals under Medicare/Medicaid by $155 billion, to pay for ObamaCare. That’s a $190 billion loss from what hospitals had expected.

Moreover, while the GAO now confirms that medical malpractice reform could save $54 billion over 10 years, and while hospital groups including the American Hospital Association have been shopping malpractice reform plans, the Democrats have offered nothing more than a minor “demonstration project” to study the issue.

(4) Doctors. Democrats hoped to get doctors on board by promising increased reimbursements. But that has turned into a disaster. Here’s why. Medicare/Medicaid do not pay doctors enough to make it worth their time to treat those patients. Indeed, there are thousands of stories of doctors literally going broke trying to treat Medicare/Medicaid patients, and many now refuse to take such patients. In 2003, Congress tried to fix this by providing a temporary boost in the payment amounts until the system could be reworked. That boost runs out next year. If nothing is done, doctors (who already can’t afford to take such payments) will have their reimbursements cut by 21%, with a 40% cut following the year after. To prevent this happening, i.e. not fixing the problem but merely keeping the current reimbursement scheme, Congress must spend another $247 billion over the next 10 years.

However, if that amount is added to the bill, the budget promises made by the Democrats will collapse. So the Democratic leadership tried to sneak this change through as a separate bill. But that was voted down last week. It is not clear whether or not the Democrats will be willing to include these amounts in the current bill. Either choice could kill the bill.

(5) Old People. The Democrats proposed increasing the prescription drug benefit in Medicare to win over seniors. But they ended up scaring the heck out of seniors instead. And things are only going to get worse. Obama and Baucus have proposed cutting Medicare Advantage to save $10 billion. But this would cut the benefits of nine million seniors. Moreover, to pay for this bill, the Democrats are proposing an estimated $250 billion in Medicare/Medicaid cuts, which threatens the existence of both programs. Seniors remain very angry. . . and they vote.

(6) Big Business. The Democrats wooed employers, particularly big business and their union friends, by promising that the cost of employee health care would suddenly be covered by the government and that their smaller, more nimble competitors would be required to pay for benefits. None of that happens in the bill. At best, this bill will be neutral for employers.

(7) Illegal Aliens. This group was treated like a punching bag by the Democrats and gets nothing out of the bill. They are annoyed.

(8) The Hard Left. The hard left has been agitating for the Democrats to socialize medicine since forever. This bill doesn’t even come close to making them happy. In fact, this bill isn’t even a down payment on that. They are very upset.

(9) The Winners. There are only two groups that win under this legislation. The first group are people in the income range between 100% and 133% of the poverty level. They will now be eligible for Medicaid. This is approximately seven million people. The other group are the nation’s five million uninsurable persons. However, these groups lack financial muscle and already are loyal Democratic voters. Thus, their support is not comforting to the Democrats -- it’s like having your mom tell you that she likes your bill.

With no real constituency to support this bill, it will be difficult to pull together the votes needed to pass it.

2. The Cost

In addition to a lack of support among the rank and file, the bill is hemorrhaging support in Congress. The first cause of this falling support is the cost of the bill.

To get political cover, the Democrats have been working to convince everyone that the bill will cost less than one trillion dollars. Obama even set that limit in his daffy health care speech. But the Democrats now admit privately that the bill is understated by at least $150 billion. Moreover, the bill includes assumptions about cost cuts that won’t occur -- particularly the $247 billion in cuts to reimbursements to doctors under Medicare/Medicaid mentioned above. If these things are added back in, the bill will cost $1.268 trillion.

Going above the $1 trillion figure will lose the Snowe Rino and may lose many of the Blue Dogs.

More importantly, the bill was priced using the new (post-$247 billion cut) Medicare/Medicaid rates. Factoring those back out will cause the price tag to creep toward $2 trillion as the Republicans have been claiming. That would be a public relations nightmare, as it would have been cheaper just to buy everyone in the country private health care.

3. Disputes Over How To Pay For The Bill

In addition to the problem with the bill’s cost, there is a serious dispute among Democrats over how to pay for the bill. There is a currently a $200 billion shortfall, even in the fantasy numbers. To cover this, the House wants an income tax surcharge on the rich. The Senate, on the other hand, wants an excise tax on “Cadillac” benefits. And according to Paul Ryan, this could be the biggest problem for the bill because the surcharge “cannot” pass the Senate and the excise tax “cannot” pass the House.

Moreover, neither of these plans has strong support. In the House, the Democrats kept having to cut the rates to keep nervous Democrats in line. In the Senate, Baucus had to carve out exceptions to the excise tax for coal miners to get the support of Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-Deliverance), unions to get the support of Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-UAW) and John Kerry (D-Masshole), and for people in certain “hard hit states” to get the support of Sen. Chucky Schumer (D-Wall Street), Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Forrest Industry), and Harry Reid (D-SEIU), with others now demanding their own exemptions.

This could become the greatest challenge.

4. Disputes Over The Public Option

The most public dispute between the Democrats is whether or not (and to what extent) to include a public option. The Democrats furthest left have stated that they will not vote for a bill that does not include a public option. The Snowe Rino will not support a full public option, but will support a triggered public option. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb) strongly opposes the public option. A few others have refused to commit.

This issue is significant because of the 100% (minus 1) Republican opposition, which means that Democrats will need Snowe and 59 of 60 Democratic Senators to pass this thing. It is unclear whether the current proposed solution of a public option that states could opt-out-of will satisfy enough Democrats to get that. I suspect it ultimately will, but it will be close.

5. Abortion

The Democrats also need 217 of the 256 Democrats in the House to support this bill. That’s where abortion comes in. Apparently, House Democrats have hit a wall on the issue of abortion. Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.) claims that he has organized a group of “about 40 likeminded Democrats” who will vote to kill the health-care bill over the issue of abortion. He says that the bill’s language that specifies that someone obtaining an abortion must use their own money, not money from federal subsidies, does not go far enough because it is impossible to segregate funds in that way. He wants to bar federal money from going to insurers who cover abortion. But other Democrats say they will not compromise any further on this issue. This standoff could kill this bill.


CONCLUSION

This bill faces widespread opposition in the public. There is no interest group left that supports this bill, most now angrily oppose the bill. The bill costs more than the magic number stupidly established by Obama, and the Democrats can’t agree on how to tax us to pay for it. All of this may make this bill impossible to pass. Add in the dispute over the public option and the abortion standoff, and this bill is rife for a surprise failure. The only question is, will the Democrats be more afraid of not passing this bill than they will be of passing it? Right now, I suspect they gut it deeply before passing it, i.e. they will pass a face saver version of the face saver bill.

Next time, why this bill can be repealed.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...