Freedom Line Blog

When it comes to urban areas, things are not only bigger in Texas, they’re better.  Acclaimed demographer Joel Kotkin highlights the growth of Texas cities, especially Dallas and Houston.  Mixing effective local governments with job growth, these cities are growing at much faster clips than blue hued mega states like California and New York.  And it’s not just for the cheap(er) suburban housing.  Developments like The Trinity Project are attracting new residents while creating lush municipal parkland.

Dallas and other Texas cities substitute the narrow notion of “or”–that is cities can grow only if the suburbs are sufficiently strangled–with a more inclusive notion of “and.” A bigger, wealthier, more important region will have room for all sorts of grand projects that will provide more density and urban amenities.

This approach can be seen in remarkable plans for developing “an urban forest” along the Trinity River, which runs through much of Dallas. The extent of the project–which includes reforestation, white water rafting and restorations of large natural areas–would provide the Dallas region with 10,000 acres of parkland right in the heart of the region. In comparison, New York City’s Central Park, arguably the country’s most iconic urban reserve, covers some 800 acres.

So if you’re thinking about moving to either Texas or New York, would you prefer ten times the parkland, or ten times the budget deficit?

Apologies to Virginians, but the Commonwealth isn’t the first place most people think about when the issue of off-shore drilling comes to mind.  But President Barack Obama isn’t most people.  In a move that can only be understood as ploy to win back some of the support he lost with his cavalier attitude towards a state that helped give him the presidency, Obama is clearing the way for more oil platforms along the Atlantic seaboard.  Maybe this kind of targeted job creation will be enough to distract Virginians from the fact that their Attorney General is challenging Obamacare in the courts.

Curiously, there is at least one state that won’t benefit from the president’s newfound interest in domestic oil supplies: Alaska.  Probably just a coincidence.

If you are overjoyed to see the line item deductions from your paycheck flowing to the federal government, this blog post is not for you.  If you have the opposite reaction, get ready to pay an additional $150 – $240 per month so the feds can pay for long term care.  (Not yours directly, of course.  Contra Al Gore, there is no lockbox or personal account for your tax dollars.  Just an IOU written to your grandchildren.)

The reason?  Taking the money helps ease the burden on Medicaid for all those future bed-ridden citizens unable to care for themselves.  Perhaps the worst thing about this program isn’t the increase in taxes; it’s the replacing of family with government as the comfort care provider of last resort.  Not only will people be told to look to government for their pensions, but also for their end-of-life needs.  Under Obamacare, taxpayer dollars are going to fund abortions and end-of-life care.  Credit Democrats for this: in one bill they managed to extend government intrusion from the womb to the tomb.

The question whether President Barack Obama would make recess appointments over Republican objections has now been answered.

So, who needs Congress?  With President Obama issuing an executive order purporting to make law, and filling administrative vacancies through recess appointments, is there really a need for the legislative branch?  After a month where it became evident that the Obama Administration sees Congress as a bifurcated procedural process, it won’t be too surprising if after Republicans gain a majority the White House refuses to acknowledge the legislature’s presence.  If that happens, we may be headed for a government shut-down early next year when the GOP turns off the financial spigot.

Stay tuned.

Amid the MSM’s mischaracterization of all things Tea Party, this brief meditation on the true end of government is a welcome corrective.  A sampling:

There is a more fundamental reason why government policy ought not to be directed at happiness. There is more to life than that. There are many forms of life — monastic devotion, public service, freedom fighter — in which the pursuit of happiness is a subsidiary value, if it appears at all. The realms of art and literature would be hugely impoverished if nobody were ever miserable. “Happiness,” as Montherlant wrote, “writes white.”

Precisely because human life is prolifically diverse, the history of Utopian politics is littered with offences against freedom by people who thought they knew what the people really wanted. The economics of happiness invariably leads to the politics of paternalism. The happiness gurus would be better off starting with Aristotle’s generous account of flourishing, an idea that implies people choosing their own life course. If politicians need a single objective — and it is not obvious that they do — then setting the people free is a lot better than forcing them to be happy.

Democrats used to understand this.  Progressives don’t.  If the former ever extracts the latter from its ranks, the Tea Party won’t be necessary – and neither will most of the federal apparatus.

So says the Congressional Budget Office:

President Obama’s fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation’s economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday.

Ready to buy gold?

The White House is now 0-for-2 on nominees to head the Transportation Security Administration, the agency in charge of screening passengers and bags in airports, among other things.  The problem this time: the nominee’s defense contractor employer took more money than it was owed.  With the vacancy open for several months into the future, maybe Ponzi scheme artist Bernie Madoff will be out of prison in time to take the reins.

Growing up, my mother used to warn my brother and me about an impending stroke of discipline with the phrase, “You’re cruisin’ for a bruisin’.”  Most of the time, we got the hint.  Consequently, we did not grow up to be Democrats.

And so I marvel at the continued tone-deafness of Democratic leaders, who are now circulating talking point packets to congressional members heading home for the Easter break.  Apparently, the town hall meetings went so well last year, that more face-to-face discussions about health care are suggested.  Hard to be believe, but these people are both cynical and crazy.  How long will it be before a Democratic congressman’s constituents tar and feather the poor bird?

Isn’t comprehensive legislation wonderful?  With the stroke of several pens this week, 30 million Americans now have health care!  Right now.  Check out liberals’ columnist of record, Thomas Friedman, who exhilaratingly proclaims that “covering so many uninsured Americans is a historic achievement.”  All that’s missing is a “Mission Accomplished” banner draped across the Mayo Clinic.

Except that none of the 30 million under-insured Americans has Obamacare health insurance today.  Those on the left love to distort the 2003 “Mission Accomplished” banner on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, which celebrated its crew’s successful deployment, as some sort of premature statement by President Bush that the Iraq campaign was concluded.  In this instance, however, Friedman may truly be celebrating a “mission accomplished” before his professed objective was, well, accomplished.  So-called “progressives” may be celebrating, but not for anything more than making a law.  That’s a result, not an achievement.

Probably not even the Speaker herself.  But that doesn’t change the fact that her managing of Obamacare mirrors the characteristics of effective leaders Drucker identifies in his classic, The Effective Executive.  There are eight points Drucker sees in every effective executive.

(1)    They asked, “What needs to be done?”

(2)    They asked, “What is right for the enterprise?”

(3)    They developed action plans.

(4)    They took responsibility for decisions.

(5)    They took responsibility for communicating.

(6)    They were focused on opportunities rather than problems.

(7)    They ran productive meetings.

(8)    They thought and said “we” rather than “I.”

I think most observers would agree that Pelosi nailed numbers 3-8, and number 1; especially with her members in Congress.  Was anyone certain she wouldn’t pass the bill?  If I had to pick a flaw it would be failure to comply with number 2, the only normative criteria on the list.  It isn’t right for the American enterprise and its constitutional structure to ram a bill through Congress by using tricks and gimmicks because doing so destroys people’s confidence that we are a nation of rules, not (wo)men.  But as we see with Democrats like Pelosi, the only thing that matters is “winning” – even if it means corrupting government in the process.

For that, Dr. Drucker would no doubt be appalled.

Apparently, if it’s good for Obamacare, “deem and pass” might become the magic maneuver that saves every controversial bill bereft of a majority.  I mean, if voters will give members of Congress a pass on a monstrously unpopular health care bill, why not on immigration?  But if Democrats in Congress never vote on any major “reform” bill, then why, pray tell, do any of them need to be reelected?

Another week, and now there are two articles dissecting Eric Holder’s tumultuous ride as United States Attorney General.  In one, Michael Gerson lists five consequential mistakes, any one of which would be enough to spur the Democratic blogosphere into a feeding frenzy had Alberto Gonzalez been the culprit.  Among his transgressions are incoherently keeping some Bush era terrorism policies while changing others.  The effect is creating a man without a constituency.  Then, there are the quickly reversed decisions to try certain terrorists in civilian court, close down the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, and give Miranda warnings to the undie-bomber.

Almost forgot; Holder’s planned indictments of John Yoo and Jay Bybee fizzled after being dismissed by the Justice Department’s top career attorney.

Not to be outdone, Massimo Calabresi attempts to explain away any threat to Holder’s job security as the product of partisan Republicans.  However, he doesn’t give one example of a major Holder decision carrying the day.

The overriding prominence of Obamacare is certainly benefiting Holder because it is shielding him from a much-deserved performance review.   Sacking him now would only add to the perception that the Obama Cabinet is staffed by people who couldn’t manage themselves out of a paper bag.

Unlike the specter of Kathleen Sebelius, Eric Holder has made his presence felt in this administration.  If President Obama ever gets a string of wins, don’t be surprised to see Holder announcing his intention to return to the private sector.

Here’s yet another reason to flay Andy Stern’s leadership of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).  One of the biggest motivators behind the union’s support for Obamacare is the belief that requiring an individual mandate to buy insurance will create more health care jobs ripe for unionization.  Just in time, too, because SEIU is apparently incapable of adequately funding its own pension plans.

What’s the connection? The SEIU needs more new dues-paying members to pay for the retirement of current members if it is to rescue its pension plans from subpar performance. It’s a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud. With many of its members employed in health care, the union believes – not illogically – that if more Americans have health insurance, the demand for health care will expand and so will employment in the health sector.

Who says the Democrats aren’t focusing on job creation?

Conservative radio talk show host and former Reagan Justice Department Chief of Staff, Marc Levin, is planning to challenge via lawsuit Speaker Pelosi’s use of the “Slaughter Solution” to “deem” the Senate health care bill passed.  Pelosi’s maneuver would pass the bill by voting to approve a rule that introduces it.  A draft of the lawsuit can be read here (pdf).  Though it’s likely the federal courts would refuse to hear the case under the political question doctrine, it would seem to be a bedrock constitutional issue whether “deeming” a bill passed is the same as actually voting on it.  Hopefully, we won’t have to find out.

The Cato Institute’s Michael F. Cannon engages in some crisp health care “reform” myth-busting for AOL News today.  My favorite is his succinct evisceration of the claim that the Senate bill isn’t a government takeover of health care.

This legislation would force all Americans to purchase health insurance coverage. Government would control what kind of insurance you purchase, where you purchase it, how much you pay and what kind of medical care you receive. Our health care sector would be “private” in name only.

Once government controls those decisions, there will be nothing left to socialize. Make no mistake — this is a vote on socialized medicine.

Here’s proof that Jeff’s earlier post about 1/3 of current doctors leaving the profession if Obamacare passes may be just what Democratic leaders’ ordered.  According to an op-ed by two medical students, Progressives are skewing the curriculum towards promoting government-run health care.

Medical school curricula should include material on delivery of health care and provide honest viewpoints from both sides using the best data available. I can count numerous examples of the school providing a liberal perspective, but cannot cite one single example where a more conservative position was offered. This steady drumbeat of the progressive worldview is reshaping the minds of America’s future physicians. Ironically, as medical students, we are taught to hold the patient’s best interest in the highest regard. Yet, at the same time, we are taught that more government intervention between the physician and the patient is desirable. Unfortunately, history teaches us the two are often incompatible.

The assault on the time honored patient-physician relationship is happening on many fronts. But the unseen battle within the medical school classroom might be the most important of them all. Will the physicians of tomorrow even recognize the Hippocratic Oath and continue to serve the well-being of the individual patient? Or will our healers become pawns of a government-run health care system and ultimately become servants of the State?

Nationalized health care has long been the Holy Grail for the secular progressive. To reach this end, the left is now doing a textbook end-around of the American voter to achieve this prize. What is happening in the medical school classroom might render what happens in Washington meaningless, no matter how We the People vote.

H/T: Fox News Forum

It is argued that passing Obamacare with zero support from the opposing party will make Washington, D.C. a more partisan place.  Probably so.  But the real, lasting problem with the Democratic strategy of process-be-damned lawmaking is that it flips our national government’s legislative default rule on its head.

As President Obama has lamented, the US Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, which means that most of the language in the document is devoted to restraining the government to ensure the people’s freedom.  Though many hate the filibuster, it’s use relates back to fundamental premises like the separation of powers, and checks and balances.  All led to the conclusion that it should be very difficult for government to act.

Contrast that with the means used to propel Obamacare through Congress, like budget reconciliation and the “Slaughter Solution.”  There is no support  – either historically or constitutionally – for using these measures to grease the skids for substantive policy reform.  The legislative process as laid out in the Constitution is unrecognizable when it comes to Obamacare.  The Democrats who succumb to the temptation of voting for this bill, using these maneuvers, are doing much more than engaging in sharp legislative dealing.  They are irrevocably changing the rules of the game from one governed by laws, to one abused by politicians.

Today’s Washington Post carries an op-ed from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), dissecting this afternoon’s farcical “mark-up” session in the House Budget Committee.  On display will be Obamacare in the form of a “Reconciliation” vehicle.  Like all other stops on the health care “reform” debate, there is almost no chance of Republicans getting in a word, much less an amendment.

No matter.  Ryan is still promoting both his Roadmap for America’s Future and one of many pieces of targeted legislation Republicans have introduced to address the cost and quality of healthcare.  Here is a link to the Patients Choice Act, a document that simply and clearly explains the concept of health care exchanges.  The time it takes to read this brisk 13 pages will be better spent than all the detail-less drivel from breathless reporters repeating rumors of congressional whip counts.

Today, congressional Republicans put up their six members to sit on President Barack Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.  They are Representatives Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, Jeb Hensarling of Texas, and Dave Camp of Michigan, along with Senators Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, and Mike Crapo of Idaho.  Hopefully, their combined focus on cutting spending will off-set fellow panelist and SEIU chief Andy Stern’s insatiable appetite for more tax dollars funneled to public employee unions.  Bring on C-SPAN!

Though I don’t subscribe to the idea that public officials should be hounded out of office over policy differences, I do think there comes a time when a person becomes such a distraction that an Administration is probably better off asking for a resignation.  That time is fast approaching for Attorney General Eric Holder.  By all accounts, he is a decent man with establishment credentials.  He may even be a good attorney.  But he is not an effective Attorney General.

To date, Holder’s most consequential decision as AG was moving Guantanamo Bay detainees from a military court system to a New York federal criminal court.  Though the decision was apparently fought by the White House, President Barack Obama let Holder make the call.  After protests from everybody except the Justice Department, the decision is in the process of being reversed.

Now, it is revealed that he failed to provide the Senate with seven briefs he signed prior to his nomination as AG.  Republicans claim these are material omissions that could have derailed his nomination.  Probably not.  But all of these are self-inflicted wounds that give the president’s opponents something to crow about.  As of today, Holder is a third strike away from being the first Obama Cabinet member to be asked to call it quits.