Freedom Line Blog

I’ll add my voice of support to the chorus here, and say I think Paul Ryan is an inspired choice to be Mitt Romney’s running mate.  One of the benefits of selecting Ryan, is that Romney gives conservatives a chance to articulate the dramatically different trend lines between the parties when it comes to reforming Medicare.

Under ObamaCare, $700 million is ripped out of an already teetering Medicare system to pay for new entitlements.  By contrast, Ryan’s reform grandfathers current seniors while converting Medicare into a voucher program for younger Americans.  Whereas ObamaCare creates new spending commitments with the same pile of money – thus spiking deficits – Ryan’s reform (and by extension, Romney’s) caps Medicare’s subsidy at a level that makes federal spending more sustainable over the long haul.

The campaign just got serious.  I’m looking forward to the next 12 weeks.

God bless residents of the Pacific Northwest for casting rightful suspicion on ObamaCare’s state-based, federally-directed, health insurance exchanges:

Focus groups in Oregon expressed emotions about buying coverage that included “skepticism” and “frustration,” and some individuals and small businesses used “black hole” and other less-kind terms to refer to insurance, brand design firm Sandstrom Partners told the Oregon Health Insurance Exchange in a presentation made available by the exchange.

The word exchange “raises some suspicions of loopholes and fine print” and “implies current coverage may needed to be traded for something else,” wrote communications company GMMB in a presentation to the Washington State Health Benefit Exchange. Part of the problem, GMMB said, was that the word was “perceived as a verb and unfamiliar as a noun” and reminded people of the New York Stock Exchange or military exchange stores.

…

Washington state is leaning toward calling its program Washington HealthLink, as long as it doesn’t conflict with existing trademarks, and plans to use green and blue in its logo design because the colors are considered to be reassuring, said Michael Marchand, the state’s exchange director. The exchange’s board of directors will make the final decision on the name, he said.

Focus group participants had also been asked to consider HealthChoice but it “makes some wonder if Washington State is making the choice for them,” consultants and the exchange board concluded.

The Wall Street Journal article from which these excerpts are culled goes on to detail other stories of states trying to brand government-created “marketplaces” as something other than a first big step to government-run health care, but you get the point.

No matter what you call an ObamaCare exchange, it’s still an entry point for socialized medicine.

Politico reports that in a campaign speech in Colorado today President Barack Obama framed his Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare) this way:

“Let me tell you something, Denver, I don’t think your boss should get to control the health care that you get,” Obama told the crowd at a campaign stop in Colorado. “I don’t think insurance companies should control the care that you get. I don’t think politicians should control the care that you get. I think there’s one person to make these decisions on health care and that is you.”

What the President neglected to mention is that instead of employers, insurance companies, and politicians – and despite his comments about individuals – the constituency he really favors making health care decisions is the federal bureaucracy.

ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion is intended to capture millions of Americans newly eligible for government coverage that will be – at least initially – cheaper than their current private provider.  The state-based, but federally-directed, health care exchanges are really just Trojan horse structures allowing HHS to seize control of the states’ traditional role in regulating health insurance whenever a state defies a federal prerogative.

And let’s not forget that the Independent Payment Advisory Board is empowered to act as a backdoor ration board, setting price caps on medical reimbursements that will distort the market and cause shortages.  In socialized systems like Britain and Canada long waiting times are the norm, as are denials of procedures in favor of pain management.

All of these elements – Medicaid expansion, federally managed health exchanges, and IPAB – empower one group: unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.  To claim as the President does that private individuals will be the ones calling the shots on health care decisions is either foolish or deceptive, and I don’t think the man is lacking in smarts.

Besides her Sarah Palin-esque rise to prominence as South Carolina’s Governor – and the fear that she’s too green to be Romney’s vice president – there’s another, more salient reason Nikki Haley isn’t being talked about as Mitt’s running mate: she’s using Barack Obama’s stimulus formula and getting worse results.

According to The Daily Caller, since becoming governor in 2011, Haley has tried to dole out more than $70 million in tax incentives and grants to businesses as a way to create jobs in South Carolina.  Still, the state’s unemployment rate sits at 9.1 percent, much higher than the 8.3 percent national average.

Some Palmetto State conservatives have had enough, including Harry Kibler, a Tea Party member and founder of RINO [Republican In Name Only] Hunt:

“She basically is running all over the state trying to make sweetheart deals with corporations to entice them to move to South Carolina and start business here,” said Harry Kibler, a tea party activist and founder of the conservative group RINO Hunt.

“I have a heartfelt philosophy that if we get government intrusion out of the business culture in South Carolina, that business will move here on its own,” Kibler told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

…

“The governor seems to think that the only people in South Carolina that create jobs is the state legislature and the government,” RINO Hunt’s Kibler countered. “Make South Carolina the freest state or the cheapest state to do business — for all business — and business will naturally be attracted to South Carolina.”

Don’t expect Mitt Romney to invite that kind of criticism from the Right by picking Nikki Haley as his vice president.

Check out a fascinating new public school in Salt Lake City called Innovations High School.  A first-of-its-kind program, Innovations allows public school students to sample every type of educational model currently available.  According to a story in the Salt Lake Tribune, kids in grades 9 – 12 can blend online and in-classroom learning, choosing courses in traditional subjects as well as technical programs from community colleges.

The purpose of Innovations is to give students and their parents more flexibility when it comes to progressing through coursework.  The personalized nature of the Innovations experience also lets kids get exposure to well-paying career options they might otherwise miss in a more structured high school program.

I apologize if my summary sounds like a paid advertisement –it isn’t – but the flexibility seemingly provided by an Innovations education makes too much sense to be ignored.  Too many kids aren’t allowed to fit their education around their interests and abilities.  The result is often a one-size-fits-all widget system that pumps out graduates who know a little (or in many cases very little) about many things, but have no depth or experience in anything.

It should be noted that Innovations is not a charter school.  Rather, it’s a project by school administrators to use the changes wrought on education by technology to create new opportunities for local students currently in public, private, and home school situations.  If quality and flexibility are the norm, then Innovations might represent one area where traditional public schools can entice high-performing students back onto campus.

H/T: Governing.com

The Washington Times quotes some GOP operatives as saying the culturally conservative Virginia governor could provide the link to the conservative base Romney needs while not upstaging the presidential candidate on the stump (an apparent consideration given the rhetorical abilities of other possibilities Chris Christie and Marco Rubio).

I don’t know much about McDonnell’s tenure as governor or his political chops, and the Times article may just be a puff piece doing McDonnell a favor by keeping his name in the mix and on Drudge Report where I first saw the article.

But since Quin has weighed in on McDonnell as a possible vice presidential candidate – sort of – I wonder what he thinks about the potential for a Romney-McDonnell ticket.

Quin, thoughts?

Last week my column discussed the disastrous legal consequences likely to emerge from the ongoing negotiations to create the Arms Transfer Treaty at the United Nations.

Fox News reports that with the conference coming to a close, a draft text has been released that has everyone not working for a dictatorial regime hopping mad:

While critics say U.S. gun owners and interests would be left exposed by the draft, it has drawn criticism on other fronts. Activists on the political left say it is a gift to illicit gunrunners around the world, and the only group that seems to like it is the rogue states leading talks, say critics.

“The talks … are now being dominated by skeptical governments including Iran, Syria and Cuba, intent on having a weak treaty, or no treaty at all,” Control Arms, a global movement that says illicit gunrunning is fueling conflict, poverty and serious human rights violations worldwide, said in a statement. Other activists named North Korea, Egypt and Algeria as additional spoilers of the UN’s stated aims for the treaty: to keep conventional weapons out of the hands of rogue regimes, terrorists and criminals.

Heritage expert Ted Bromund says it’s no surprise why the draft text of the ATT treaty is benefiting bad actors while stymieing liberals’ good intentions:

Any conceivable ATT, simply because it is being negotiated through the U.N., will be based on recognizing that all members of the U.N. are equal and sovereign states and thus have equal rights. The inevitable result of this, in the context of the ATT, will be a treaty stating that Iran and Venezuela have the same rights to buy, sell, and transfer weapons as do the U.S. and Japan. The U.N. already contains far too many dictatorships; negotiating a treaty that enshrines their equality of status in the realm of arms transfers is inherently a bad and dangerous idea.

As I noted in my column, the push for the ATT at the UN arose because gun control groups could not get legislation they favored passed in the United States Congress.  But instead of getting the hint that the political marketplace was unreceptive to their ideas, gun controllers threw in their lot with a body that treats every government the same, even those willing to turn a gun control treaty into a mechanism that oppresses citizens at home and abroad.

It will be a form of perverse justice that when the ATT becomes an international law protecting Iran and Venezuela’s ability to kill their own people and arm other dictatorships like Syria that the constituency most responsible for enshrining those rights will be gun control groups.

The important reform bill, the Regulations of the Executive In Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act, is getting new champion with the retirement of Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY).

From an emailed press release announcing the change:

“Todd Young is one of the hardest-working and most diligent new members of Congress.  He has enthusiastically championed the REINS Act at home and in Washington,” said Congressman Davis.  “Congress has excessively delegated its constitutional responsibility for making the law of the land to unelected bureaucrats for too long.  The REINS Act is one of the most important structural reforms to restore this accountability.  I am confident that Congressman Young will be a tireless champion for the REINS Act going forward.”

Calling Young “tireless” is a good word choice.  According to the Congressman’s official bio, he put himself through night school to get an MBA from the University of Chicago and a law degree from the University of Indiana.  Prior to that, he enlisted in the Navy en route to securing an appointment to that branch’s academy.

Young will need that doggedness to pass the REINS ACT into law.

Currently, there is no congressional oversight of bureaucratic “major rules” costing the economy $100 million a year or more in compliance costs.  The REINS Act would change that by requiring administrative agencies to submit proposed major rules to Congress for an up-or-down vote in both chambers before becoming law.  The aim is to stop rogue agencies like EPA or HHS from legislating through rulemaking what they can’t get Congress to pass through the normal lawmaking process.

What are Young’s prospects?  This year, Rep. Davis convinced the GOP-dominated House to pass the bill, but like every House reform, the REINS Act died from inaction in the Democratic Senate.  But if after the November elections the GOP can hold the House and gain the Senate with conservative reformers – or Republican incumbents scared straight by conservative primary challengers – then expect to see the REINS Act make great strides towards passage.

Our constitutional system needs Congress to get back in the game on regulation, if for no other reason than to reestablish accountability between the laws that govern us and the people we elect to pass them.

Good on Davis for picking Young to succeed him.  Now voters in the several states need to send another crop of conservative reformers to the Senate to help him out.

Victor Davis Hanson makes a modest proposal:

So how much do we wish to detour from the issues to know about the background of either candidate Romney or incumbent Obama? Some sort of compromise seems in order. If transparency is really what the public demands, and if these issues distract attention from a necessary debate over the economy, then in bipartisan fashion let us now demand full disclosure from both candidates: ten years of income tax returns from each, full and complete access for journalists to all known medical records of each, and complete release of all undergraduate and graduate grades, test scores, and other records.

Romney may not wish to release a decade’s worth of careful tax planning and investment that might reveal him to be more concerned about making money and keeping most of it than about outsourcing or foreign bank accounts. Obama may likewise be embarrassed over a prior undisclosed ailment, or a relatively unimpressive Occidental or Columbia record that would belie his media reputation as the “smartest” man ever to serve as president in the nation’s history. Perhaps for much of August we might hear that Romney had a gargantuan Swiss bank account, or more bankers in the Caribbean than we had surmised. Maybe Obama smoked more marijuana than he has admitted to or received lots of Cs and even some Ds in International Relations — grades that would make it almost impossible for most students to get into Harvard Law School.

I predict that if they do release their records, each man reinforces the central objection to his candidacy: Mitt gets hit for his money; Obama for his record.

In my column this week I explain the threat the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty poses to every Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

So, what’s the Obama Administration’s official position?

On the surface, the State Department has issued a series of “redlines” that claim to protect American Second Amendment rights to individual gun ownership, including the claim that “There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.”

There are at least three reasons to suspect the Obama Administration’s motives.

First, the Obama Administration fought tooth-and-nail against interpreting the Second Amendment to guarantee the right of an individual to own a gun.  Only by a 5-4 decision from the United States Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago did the justices uphold the traditional understanding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, and not a collective right to self-defense provided by the government.

The gun control groups pushing the ATT side with the Obama Administration in seeing the right to self-defense as a collective rather than as an individual right.  After fighting a losing battle for years in Congress, gun controllers opted in 2001 to make their cause global and found willing partners in dictatorial regimes like Syria, Iran and Russia looking for any way to disarm dissident groups while preserving their right to buy and sell guns for national security (i.e. repressing dissidents).

Second, the Fast and Furious scandal where federal agents allowed 2,000 guns to “walk” into the hands of Mexican drug cartels – without the Mexican government’s knowledge – raises a serious question about the Obama Administration’s credibility on gun rights.  Already, one Department of Justice official has been caught in an email speculating how to use F&F as evidence to argue for stronger gun control laws.  Common sense says he wasn’t the only one.

Finally, there’s the Obama Administration’s presence at the ATT convention.

During the George W. Bush years the United States refused to participate in any discussions about an international arms treaty for fear it would lead to a step-by-step move to gut Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

In 2009, the Obama Administration reversed course and announced its support for the ATT.  That buy-in caused negotiations at the UN to accelerate, culminating in the month-long convention in New York this month.

Observers of the ATT convention expect the treaty’s final text to be filled with vague assertions and unattainable aspirations.  But as I point out in my column, the very existence of the ATT poses a serious long-term threat to Americans’ Second Amendment rights because future interpretations of its text can be molded to fit the gun controllers’ policy outcomes.

I suspect the Obama Administration knows this, and is aiding and abetting that very outcome by participating in the negotiations.

Following on Troy’s post earlier, it looks like the Israel-Palestine peace process is still DOA.

Two weeks ago, foreign policy expert Ted R. Bromund of the Heritage Foundation blogged about a controversial decision by the United Nations to allow Palestine a seat at the table during the ongoing Arms Trade Treaty (more on that in my column this week).  The move was brokered by Egypt’s new government, and had the unfortunate – and no doubt intended – effect of belittling the Vatican in the process.

Here’s Bromund’s take:

With much shuffling of place cards, all the national delegations moved over two places, and—accompanied by huge knot of delegates and much picture taking—the delegations from the Holy See and Palestine moved from the back of the room (where, as observers of different types, they normally sit behind the alphabetically arranged national member-state dlegations) to the front, ahead of the A-nations like Afghanistan and Albania.

…

…the outlines of the deal became clear: Both the Holy See and the Palestinians had gotten better seats, but neither of them was going to be recognized as full conference participants. The difference was that the Palestinians had evidently agreed to keep quiet and treat this as a victory, whereas the Holy See had not.

Its delegate made an angry speech, arguing that it had expected to participate as a full member in the conference, that it was not being allowed to do so, that this was an “egregious” failure that had seriously damaged its intention to become a state party to the ATT, and that it demanded to be a full participant in future conferences, where its participation as a mere observer at the ATT conference would not be a precedent.

…

Placing the Holy See and the Palestinians on the same level at the conference is a coup for the Palestinians.  Currently the UN recognizes the Holy See is a “non-member state” observer, while the Palestinians are an observer “entity.” The critical difference is that the Holy See is a recognized sovereign state even though it is not a UN member state, while the Palestinians are not. The Palestinians have hinted that, should their bid for full UN member state status fail, they would seek non-member state observer status. While this change would be mostly symbolic in terms of the privileges the Palestinians enjoy in Turtle Bay, it would undeniably represent General Assembly recognition of their claims of statehood and make it far easier for the Palestinians to gain membership in the UN specialized agencies.

For its part, the U.S. delegation chose not to walk out of the conference so it could retain maximum leverage over what promises to be a very bad treaty for citizens oppressed by dictatorial governments around the world.

Still, success at the United Nations depends on playing the long game; inching towards a resolution with half-measures like symbolically getting a seat at the table, even when it’s a seat that can’t vote.

With their symbolic move to the head of the table, right now, the Palestinians are winning.

In a typically insightful column, Byron York says there are at least five reasons why Mitt Romney’s campaign seems to be flailing.  Two jumped out at me:

Romney’s business history and taxes are two issues left unresolved from the primary campaign.  During the primaries, Republicans didn’t want to hear fellow Republicans criticizing Romney’s record at Bain Capital.  Some characterized attacks on Romney’s Bain history as attacks on capitalism itself.  Democrats and many independents don’t feel the same way, and Obama and his SuperPAC allies are relentlessly slamming Romney’s business history both nationally and in key states around the country.

…

Newt Gingrich complained loudly — some called it whining — when Romney first hit him with a negative ad barrage in Iowa.  Then, when Romney attacked on a far bigger scale in Florida, Gingrich reacted badly again.  Privately, the Romney campaign, which at times seemed to delight at kicking the hell out of a Republican opponent, had no respect for Gingrich’s tendency to complain when attacked.  Just take it and hit back harder — that was the way they saw it.  Now, however, Romney is complaining about Obama’s attacks.  Romney is far more self-controlled than Gingrich, but the effect is the same; he’s whining about the other guy treating him badly.  It’s the same thing that happened in the primary campaign, only with Romney on the hurting end.

The good news for Romney is that these are correctable problems.

There is an excellent defense to the “vulture capitalism” charge the Obama Administration is recycling from the GOP primaries – Troy wrote it back in January.

As for hitting back, one of the factors York mentioned but I didn’t excerpt was that GOP SuperPACs aren’t landing as many punches on Obama as Democratic SuperPACs are landing on Romney.  The latter is drowning in negative ads in swing states.

Of course, legally, SuperPACs can’t coordinate with presidential campaigns.  But York’s reporting implies that those running GOP SuperPACs aren’t sure how hard to hit Obama and on what issues.  My guess is that Romney doesn’t know himself, and is communicating that with his defensive rhetoric.

Of course, that’s not how the Obama campaign operates.  Like Romney in the primaries, they’re in the general to win.

Unsurprisingly, the Democratic SuperPACs aren’t suffering from the confusion plaguing Romney and his SuperPACs; probably because they know President Obama will “just take (whatever Romney throws)” and want his supporters them to “hit back harder.”

Like I said above, these are correctable problems, if Romney is willing to make the changes necessary to sharpen his rhetoric and toughen up his persona.

So far, that’s a BIG if…

In my column last week, I outlined how ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion is a way to sneak in socialized medicine by making it cheaper to accept government health insurance instead of paying for it (directly) oneself.

But the Medicaid expansion is only half of ObamaCare’s formula for moving most of America onto a federally-run health system.

The other half is made up of the so-called state-based health insurance exchanges that are subsidized (and regulated) by the federal government.  With the individual mandate in place, people that fail to qualify for Medicaid will most likely be forced into the exchanges.  (ObamaCare purposefully makes it cheaper for employers to pay a fine rather than cover employees.)

Writing in the New York Times on Saturday, Tyler Cowen, an economics professor at George Mason University, explains how to make the best of the very bad possibility that President Barack Obama is reelected and ObamaCare continues to be implemented, albeit with the inevitable cost overruns.

There is one way this might work: by limiting the subsidies for insurance. Note that the law itself mandates cuts if those subsidies exceed a certain percentage of gross domestic product by 2018. Most likely, the reform could not stop there, because the insurance cost burden for many Americans would feel intolerably high without the subsidies.

The next step, therefore, would lower costs by limiting the mandate to covering catastrophic conditions. Yet a further step would remove the mandate for noncatastrophic coverage, thus giving people more control over how much they want to spend on health care versus other priorities.

We would then have government-subsidized and mandated catastrophic insurance, and a freer market for other health care expenditures. We might even return to a health savings account approach on the noncatastrophic side.

That’s far from a perfect outcome, but it’s probably the most positive path that can be achieved.

Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.

The Heritage Foundation picked up on a little noticed administrative policy change announced yesterday by the Department of Health and Human Services that removes the work requirements in the landmark 1996 welfare reform legislation.

Here’s how Heritage characterizes the Obama HHS’s new policy:

[On Thursday, July 13, 2012] the Obama Administration issued a new directive stating that the traditional TANF work requirements can be waived or overridden by a legal device called the section 1115 waiver authority under the Social Security law (42 U.S.C. 1315).

Section 1115 states that “the Secretary may waive compliance with any of the requirements” of specified parts of various laws. But this is not an open-ended authority: Any provision of law that can be waived under section 1115 must be listed in section 1115 itself. The work provisions of the TANF program are contained in section 407 (entitled, appropriately, “mandatory work requirements”). Critically, this section, as well as most other TANF requirements, are deliberately not listed in section 1115; they are not waiveable.

In establishing TANF, Congress deliberately exempted or shielded nearly all of the TANF program from the section 1115 waiver authority. They did not want the law to be rewritten at the whim of Health and Human Services (HHS) bureaucrats. Of the roughly 35 sections of the TANF law, only one is listed as waiveable under section 1115. This is section 402.

Section 402 describes state plans—reports that state governments must file to HHS describing the actions they will undertake to comply with the many requirements established in the other sections of the TANF law. The authority to waive section 402 provides the option to waive state reporting requirements only, not to overturn the core requirements of the TANF program contained in the other sections of the TANF law.

The new Obama dictate asserts that because the work requirements, established in section 407, are mentioned as an item that state governments must report about in section 402, all the work requirements can be waived. This removes the core of the TANF program; TANF becomes a blank slate that HHS bureaucrats and liberal state bureaucrats can rewrite at will.

This newly created waiver authority builds on the unprecedented work of the Education Department waiving No Child Left Behind requirements, and HHS’s previous ObamaCare waivers.

It also reaffirms the Obama Administration’s commitment to its “We Can’t Wait” vision of governance, which says that if Congress won’t cooperate in passing liberal policies, then the President and his bureaucratic administrators will rewrite the law without them.

The administrative state remains constitutionally suspect because the Supreme Court has never explained how bureaucracies that exercise quasi-judicial, executive and legislative powers align with the separation-of-powers principle enshrined in our Constitution.  (Hint: They don’t.)

But because the Supreme Court has chosen to allow an unconstitutional barnacle to be grafted onto our ship of state, we now have liberal policy wonks passing, enforcing, and adjudicating laws through waiver requirements that are completely beyond the reach of democratic accountability.  (Sound familiar?)

The Obama Administration’s use of waivers to replace existing law with its own policies is bringing us to a tipping point.  If taken to its logical conclusion, Congress need not pass another law so long as the Executive can waive-and-replace its contents at will.

Like so many other issues this election cycle, Mitt Romney and others need to stress the importance of the Obama Administration’s lawless disregard for our constitutional system.  Administrative fiat cannot be accepted as a valid substitute for legislative deliberation.  If it is, then America will in every sense be a nation of men and not laws.

From the Washington Post:

In the first case of its kind, the American Civil Liberties Union is charging that the state of Michigan and a Detroit area school district have failed to adequately educate children, violating their “right to learn to read” under an obscure state law.

The ACLU class-action lawsuit, to be filed Thursday, says hundreds of students in the Highland Park School District are functionally illiterate.

“None of those adults charged with the care of these children . . . have done their jobs,” said Kary L. Moss, executive director of the ACLU of Michigan. “The Highland Park School District is among the lowest-performing districts in the nation, graduating class after class of children who are not literate. Our lawsuit . . . says that if education is to mean anything, it means that children have a right to learn to read.”

Setting aside the questionable and problematic assertion that people “have a right to learn to read” – it will be interesting to see how a court tries to enforce this – the ACLU’s frustration with underperforming public schools is shared by many.  What’s missing from its complaint, however, is any mention of how teacher union policies contribute to the problem.

Later on in the article a teacher of readers below grade level is identified as “not provid[ing] instruction while students read books on their own, or in groups, or completed self-directed work on the computer…”  Is it impossible to surmise that such behavior is protected from censure by her employment contract, the one negotiated by her union?

So far, the ACLU is suing the school district and the state, but logic demands that if you’re going to allege that “none of those adults charged with the care of these children… have done their jobs,” then someone from the Michigan Education Association needs to be included in the lawsuit’s defendant caption.

I’m sure there’s plenty of blame to go around.  The ACLU should make sure that the relevant teachers union gets its fair share.

Thanks, Quin, for the “clarification” on your vice presidential pick(s).  So far, I count four possible outcomes allowing you to claim Nostradamus status at the next company picnic.

Putting your competing theories and rationalizations aside for a moment, however, let me ask this: Who do you want right now?

My head tells me Romney should pick Paul Ryan because the two seem very comfortable with each other (one report says Ryan can finish Romney’s sentences and make him laugh) and because Ryan gives Mitt the disciplined, wonkish Washington veteran Romney seems to like (see Rob Portman) as well as the likeable guy-next-door demeanor Mitt needs (see Tim Pawlenty).

I also think Ryan would be a great number two to Romney without being such a second fiddle as to obscure his future presidential ambitions.  Paul Ryan: dutiful and dynamic.

But that’s my head.  My heart wants Chris Christie.  Why?  Because I want someone to articulate the anger I have for the wasted time, money, and opportunities squandered by the Obama Administration over the last three years.  America has more debt, less prestige, and bleaker prospects for the future than at any other time in the last forty years.

That’s more than a “kick in the gut”; it’s an affront to our patriotism.

I want someone who not only articulates the problems with Obamaism, I want a person who can point to the way out.  But right now, I also want someone who does this with an edge.  Not necessarily going off on a heckler while eating an ice cream cone edge, but with something more than charts, statistics, and phrases about getting hit.

I’d like someone in the Romney camp who knows how to hit back.

Strategically, my head is telling me Romney should pick Ryan, but tactically, I want Christie out there getting daily news coverage rhetorically perp-walking Obama’s bad policies out of Washington.

How about you, Quin?  Who do you want as Romney’s VP right now.  You can keep your other prognostications for future reference.  All I’m asking is for an undisputed, single name occupying your Veep choice today.

Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner posted an interesting chart showing the timing of vice presidential picks from 1980 to 2008.  Notice a trend?

Except for John Kerry’s selection of John Edwards nearly three weeks before the 2004 Democratic Convention, all the others picks occurred within a week of or at the respective party’s convention.

As Klein notes, as of today we’re 7 weeks / 49 days away from the Republican Convention in Tampa, so it’s probably waaaaaay too early to expect Quin (Bobby Jindal) or Troy (Jon Kyl) to collect the CFIF office pool money.

For what it’s worth, I’d like a Romney-Christie ticket just to see Chris Christie go after Joe Biden during their debate, play the attack dog on the campaign trail, and land the rhetorical blows on the Obama Administration that Mitt Romney can’t seem to muster.

Of course, those reasons – coupled with Christie’s propensity to be baited into a confrontation – are probably the same reasons Romney won’t pick him.

But if history is any guide, there’s still time for Mitt to get warm to the idea.

Last Friday, the Obama Administration announced that Wisconsin and Washington joined 24 other states as recipients of No Child Left Behind waivers.

The Department of Education claims that Congress’ repeated failure to reauthorize NCLB since it became due in 2007 empowers it to exempt petitioning states from certain requirements in exchange for accepting new rules and policies dictated by the White House.

This links to a chart from Governing.com identifying each state’s waiver status.

Writing in an email commentary about the waivers, Lindsey Burke of the Heritage Foundation summarizes President Barack Obama’s justification of the waiver system as “necessary to provide relief to states that fear drowning in a cascade of sanctions that are forthcoming in 2014,” such as 100 percent of students being proficient in reading and math.

While I agree with Burke that states “should demand genuine relief from NCLB through congressionally approved options that fundamentally reduce federal intervention in education,” her summary of Obama’s justification for waivers got me thinking.

If Mitt Romney gets elected president with less than full (or consistent) control of Congress and can’t repeal ObamaCare, would he resort to granting waivers from its penalties “to provide relief to” individuals “that fear drowning in a cascade of sanctions”?

I certainly hope so.

David Harsanyi points out:

According to the Congressional Budget Office—which can only calculate the narrow data it’s given—the non-tax penalty on Obamacare’s non-mandate will affect 4 million people by the year 2016. Of those paying this ‘untax,’ 75 percent will make less than $120,000—breaking the president’s promise that those making under $250,000 would not have to pay a “penny” more in taxes, which, presumably, includes “shared responsibility payments.”

Anticipating Romney’s inauguration, I’ll go ahead and get in line to ask, “Mr. President, can I have a lifetime waiver from my ‘shared responsibility payment?’”

I think there’s a precedent…

Wesley J. Smith reminds us why with ObamaCare’s individual mandate safe for now, conservative litigators should focus on striking down the Independent Payment Advisory Board, the unelected, unaccountable group of “experts” charged with controlling costs under ObamaCare.

There’s not much time left:

According to the terms of the Affordable Care Act, IPAB must submit its first draft recommendations to the health and human services secretary by September 1, 2013. Its first Medicare cost-cutting goals must become law by August 15, 2014.

Why did I write “must” become law” instead of “may”? IPAB’s unique “fast track” authority divests Congress of discretion regarding the amount of money to be cut from Medicare once IPAB has submitted its “advice.” Get a load of these legislative handcuffs:

• By January 15, 2014, IPAB must submit a proposal to Congress and the president for reaching Medicare savings targets in the coming year.

• The majority leaders in the House and Senate must introduce bills incorporating the board’s proposal the day they receive it.

• Congress cannot “consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report … that would repeal or otherwise change the recommendations of the board” if such changes fail to meet the board’s budgetary target.

• By April 1, all legislative committees must complete their evaluation. Any committee that fails to meet the deadline is barred from further consideration of the bill.

• If Congress does not pass the proposal or a substitute plan meeting the IPAB’s financial target before August 15, or if the president vetoes the proposal passed by Congress, the original Independent Payment Advisory Board recommendations automatically take effect.

Not only that, but Congress cannot consider any bill or amendment that would repeal or change this fast-track congressional consideration process without a three-fifths vote in the Senate. And to put the icing on the autocratic cake, implementation of the board’s policy is exempted from administrative or judicial review.

Unlike the rest of ObamaCare, IPAB cannot be repealed easily because its enabling statute “entrenches” it from being altered by later Congresses.  Thus, banking on a President Romney and a Republican Congress to get rid of it won’t work.

I’ve written before about the federal case in Arizona challenging IPAB.  It was on hold awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision on the individual mandate.  With the mandate redefined as a tax, the IPAB litigation will proceed, perhaps with a Supreme Court hearing as early as spring 2013.

Keep an eye on this one.  It’s easy to see how an unaccountable board of bureaucrats empowered to control costs could morph into a health care rationing board.

John Fund tossed in this nugget when comparing America’s scandal-plagued voting system with other countries:

Mexico — which just last week carried off a national election with a universal photo-ID requirement for voting — spends roughly 10 times more per capita on elections than the U.S. and has virtually eliminated charges of voter fraud or incompetence. We can vastly improve our system with much smaller investments. (Emphasis added)

I wonder how U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder would react if he knew this.

At CFIF, we’ve hammered Holder for equating photo-ID for voting with racism.

With his blessing, the Department of Justice denied photo-ID requirements passed in South Carolina and Texas on the grounds that they violate the 1965 Voting Rights Act, an Act ensuring minorities of their right to vote.  By refusing to sign-off on the South Carolina and Texas laws, Holder’s DOJ is saying the photo-ID laws are racist.

The fact that photo-ID laws have been supported by Jimmy Carter and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court as “unquestionably relevant to the State’s interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process” are of no importance to Holder & Co.

America is a nation of “cowards” and racists, says the AG, so requiring photo-ID must be just another name for Jim Crow.

And yet here we have Mexico, a country familiar with historic racial tension amongst descendents of the Aztecs, Spanish settlers, and their offspring, conducting a free and fair election that peacefully transitioned power between political rivals.

Could it be that Mexico’s photo-ID requirement – like South Carolina and Texas – had a purpose other than disenfranchising a racial minority?

Maybe the next time Holder gets blasted by the Mexican government for not informing them of Fast and Furious he can change the subject with some pointed questions about Mexico’s racist photo-ID laws.  I’m sure he’d get a fair hearing…