Freedom Line Blog

Although it is painful to criticize a fellow name-bearer (no relation), the selection of Britain’s Lady Ashton for European High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy – the second most important position in the European Union – is yet another indictment of consensus-driven politics. Who else but a collection of power-protecting politicians would select a person charged with being the international face of European diplomacy of whom this could be written:

Lady Ashton was so unprepared for her “promotion” that she had no speech prepared when she held a press conference with Mr. Van Rompuy (the new European president). She was telephoned to see if she would accept the job once Mr. Brown switched his allegiance to the only other Briton with a chance of capturing one of the prized jobs.

She has been a commissioner for 13 months, since Lord Mandelson was brought back to the Cabinet. She has been Leader of the House of Lords but has no experience as a foreign minister and has never been elected. Mr. Brown said the appointment showed Britain was “at the heart of the future of Europe” and was leading the way in extending women’s representation.

In the span of a month, Britain went from defending the candidacies of former Prime Minister Tony Blair and current Foreign Secretary David Miliband to promoting a Trade Commissioner who has never won a single vote.  Hey, at least the nation is leading the way in extending women’s representation!  Good grief.

Apologies for the misleading headline.  According to recent reports by climatologists, it’s actually been several years since the globe we call Earth ceased warming.  Although many global warming alarmists are at a loss to explain how a supposedly constant increase in global temperature could stop without warning (and just before a conference to fund its decrease), that doesn’t mean the cause for the sudden cessation is unknown.  In fact, the real head scratcher here is how the mainstream media missed the obvious reason for winning the war on climate change.

Since at least 1970, Ed Begley, Jr. has waged a one man war for the environment.  That year he bought his first electric car and celebrated the first Earth Day.  As detailed in an interview with the New York Times Magazine, Begley is SERIOUS about his eco-responsibilities.  He cooks food in a solar oven that “sits in the yard and gets up to about 375 degrees on a sunny day.”  When he dies he wants to put his 205 pounds of organic matter to good use.  “I want to be buried with a cardboard box and a sheet and put in the earth.”  After all, we come from the earth, and return to the earth, right?

But life for an eco-warrior and global warming stopper isn’t just about capping your cooking temperatures and trading in your coffin.  There are hassles too.  According to Begley, the worst thing about being green is “when you don’t have a recycling bin nearby and you have to carry garbage around in your car to get it home.”  That would be the two bedroom, one and a half bath home he shares with his wife and daughter.  It’s also the one he’s plowed steady sums of money into adding a bevy of cutting-edge technologies to reduce his carbon footprint.

So while the climatologists scramble to fix their computer models and the diplomats try to convince each other that spending for a warmer day is still needed (if not necessary), remember the man who through eco-mortification and carbon penance became the green hued saint that saved the planet.  (Until it starts warming again…)

An opportunity cost is a term used in economics to identify the next-best-option you didn’t choose. For example, if a person has $20 and buys a book instead of a CD, the opportunity cost is the foregone CD. Of course, in order to have an opportunity cost, you need an opportunity to choose. One of the arguments against enhancing an already heavy tax burden on high-end earners is that many of them will move to other, less oppressive countries. If regulations of Wall Street pile up too high, the best and brightest will go to London or Hong Kong. In that scenario, the opportunity cost would be choosing not to live in America.

But where economists see rational behavior enabled by choices, Democrats usually see greed propelled by self-interest. Thus, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is making it clear she intends to increase the costs of financial transactions by eliminating a financier’s opportunities to live and work in less taxed locales. How? By mandating a global tax that would remove any incentive for highly skilled workers to relocate overseas.

Any tax imposed on financial transactions would have to take effect internationally to prevent Wall Street jobs and related business moving overseas, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Thursday.

“It would have to be an international rule, not just a U.S. rule,” Pelosi said at a news conference. “We couldn’t do it alone, we’d have to do it as an international initiative.”

True, bringing all financial transactions under a universal system of regulation would take care of the “problem” of people trying to avoid confiscatory taxation. On the other hand, it also decreases the likelihood that highly motivated people will be able to create wealth through the financial system. Once again, with one notable exception, the modern Democratic Party is about as anti-choice as a collection of policy makers can be.

And now a word from Big Sister. With comprehensive climate change legislation tabled until next year and comprehensive health care reform on life support in the Senate, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says the current immigration system is “unacceptable.” Translation? It’s time to pursue comprehensive immigration reform. (By the way, is there any issue area that doesn’t require a “comprehensive” solution? Whatever happened to incrementalism?)

Characteristically, the Obama Administration will not be advocating a fix that speaks to the fundamental issue in the debate. The primary criticism of the current system is that it attracts and rewards low-skilled workers living at the margins of mainstream American society. Compounding matters is the current system’s focus on “re-uniting” families; which over time has been expanded to mean any tangentially related family member overseas gets bumped to the front of the visa line.

Steven Malanga of the Manhattan Institute thinks this is a problem.

The more people who came and established residence here, the longer the so-called ‘family re-unification’ list of visa applicants grew as newcomers placed their own relatives on it. That put pressure on Congress to continually expand the family-visa category until it came to dominate our immigration system. It also sparked more illegal immigration because Congress could never enlarge the number of immigration slots fast enough to reduce wait lists for family members, which meant many people just came without permanent visas to join relatives and then hoped for the best.”

As Malanga advocates, a more far more sensible solution would be to follow the lead of countries like Australia, Ireland, and Canada who “tilted their policies towards focusing on those with skills and talents most likely to succeed in and contribute to a late 20th century developed economy.”

Instead, all indications are that Secretary Napolitano will claim that a year’s worth of border enforcement is not enough. She’ll then declare a need to “comprehensively” reform the system and the people who brought you nearly $2 trillion of stimulus and health reform will conjure up ways to sell amnesty as the only moral decision possible. Get ready for a spirited Spring congressional session!

It may be that Barack Obama’s time in office serves to enhance Bill Clinton’s (personal) legacy among Democratic operatives.  For all his faults, The Man from Hope at least made many people he spoke to and worked with feel better about themselves.  Obama is a different cat.  During his campaign for president, several reporters who had worked around both men remarked that Clinton sees a person the way that person wants to be seen; Obama sees a person the way that person is.

And when it comes to working in the Obama White House, loyalty runs in only one direction.  The curious case of soon-to-be-former White House Counsel Gregory Craig is the most recent example.  Last Friday, the early supporter (and bridge builder to the Kennedy family) was forced to resign because of his apparent inability to close down immediately the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center.  You know, the same site filled with terrorists no other country wants, including America?

Maybe the only thing different if this had occurred in the Clinton White House would be the inclusion of a teary-eyed hug on the way out the door.  Now that Craig is moving back to his white shoe D.C. law firm, maybe he’d appreciate knowing the president he helped elect still thinks he’s an effective lawyer.  While Craig separates his aspiration from his reality, he’s got plenty of company among those listing the ending date of Obama-related work on their resumes.

Okay, so maybe the cost-control bureaucrats under ObamaCare wouldn’t directly kill people forced into a national health plan. However, a sobering article in today’s Wall Street Journal shows how a key element of every health reform bill now in Congress could cause death(s) by a thousand denials.

As envisioned by the Senate Finance Committee, the commission—all 15 members appointed by the President—would have to meet certain budget targets each year. Starting in 2015, Medicare could not grow more rapidly on a per capita basis than by a measure of inflation. After 2019, it could only grow at the same rate as GDP, plus one percentage point.

The theory is to let technocrats set Medicare payments free from political pressure, as with the military base closing commissions. But that process presented recommendations to Congress for an up-or-down vote. Here, the commission’s decisions would go into effect automatically if Congress couldn’t agree within six months on different cuts that met the same target. The board’s decisions would not be subject to ordinary notice-and-comment rule-making, or even judicial review.”

So, absent a congressional override, there is no appeal for a denial of care made in the name of cost-benefit analysis. Of course, the “costs” and “benefits” will be considered as collective values interpreted by government administrators – not individual patients and taxpayers.

The State of Washington already has a similarly functioning “independent commission” that is actively denying care like the types mentioned above. While the consequences could be deadly, the creation of prolonged pain in the interim borders on unconscionable. Such decisions will become a reality when the public “option” becomes a public “mandate” forcing all but the wealthiest to suffer under a rationed health care system. Let’s hope there is enough push-back from Congress and the country to guarantee similar types of “pain panels” don’t take up residence in the nation’s capitol.

Uninhibited by the mounting debt being incurred through present and future spending, the White House is pressuring Congress to raise the legal cap on the country’s debt limit.  Rebecca Christie of Bloomberg reports:

The Obama administration is confident Congress will raise the country’s debt limit by year end to avert a showdown similar to the one that shuttered parts of the government in 1995, administration officials said.

The White House wants an increase of at least $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion, according to a person familiar with the deliberations between lawmakers and the administration. Record budget deficits are pushing the national debt closer to the $12.1 trillion statutory limit.”

One would think a debt ceiling of $12.1 trillion would be a high enough threshold that – if reached – would prompt lawmakers to question the necessity (and sanity) of going over it.  One would be wrong.  What’s more, the Obama Administration is signaling that it doesn’t really care how Congress gets around to extending the nation’s credit line, as long as it does so before anyone has to choose between less spending or less work for federal employees.

The administration officials said the White House is open to any legislative vehicle that will raise the debt limit, by any amount.”

While touring Asia, President Barack Obama continued his recent backhanding of the international community. Last week it was failing to attend the 20th anniversary of the Berlin Wall falling. Today, it’s telling Asian markets to perish the thought of relying on future American spending.

President Barack Obama has come halfway around the world to personally deliver the message to East Asia that the global economy can no longer count on the U.S. consumer to keep it afloat.

In what White House aides call a “major address” here on Friday, and in planned comments in Singapore and China next week, Mr. Obama will press his push to “rebalance” the world’s economy, urging China to adjust its economic policy to spur domestic consumption as the U.S. encourages less consumption, more savings and more exports.”

But perhaps the news isn’t all bad for Asian exporters.  With the increasing purchasing power of the federal government under Obama’s rapacious domestic agenda, Asian businesses will soon be able to find a new buyer for their goods: the all-encompassing federal bureaucracy!

Apparently, former president George W. Bush “went against (his) free-market instincts” when he approved the Wall Street bailout towards the end of his administration.  Better late than never I suppose.

After issuing his mea culpa, “W” had some words of wisdom for his successor:

And without mentioning President Obama by name the former President did have some rather pointed comments for the current Administration claiming that generally “history shows that the greater threat to prosperity is not too little government involvement, but too much.”

Bush, who as President also signed off on massive aid to the auto industry, warned against a government takeover of the economy fearing it would eliminate free-market enterprise.  “As the world recovers, we are going to face the temptation to replace the risk and reward model of the private sector with the blunt instruments of government spending and control.”

Do as I say…

In one of the best critiques of action without regard to consequences, celebrated chaos theoretician Ian Malcolm said about overzealous experts that they were “so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

From bio-ethics to evidence-based public policy, it is astounding that the 220 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and at least a score of senators who support the Obama Administration’s health care “reform” plan cannot answer the following question:

It’s one of the most basic, kitchen-table questions of the entire reform debate: Would the sweeping $900 billion overhaul actually lower spiraling insurance premiums for everyone?

No one really knows.”

And it’s not just that people haven’t read the bill, or studies analyzing its impact on the cost of health care. It’s that the data doesn’t exist.

At a recent Senate health committee hearing, two health care rivals – Douglas Holtz-Eakin, an economic adviser to Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign, and Jonathan Gruber, an economics professor whose work is cited often by the White House – agreed comprehensive, objective evidence wasn’t available for small and large businesses.

“It’s insane,” Holtz-Eakin said.

Agreed. Thankfully, at least one Democratic Senator thinks information – not just assurances – is needed before committing American taxpayers to a trillion dollar decision.

The lack of data prompted Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) to request a broad analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on premiums, which he said was “a basic, bottom-line question that we have to have answered before we can decide if this is an intelligent thing to do.”

Now we see why Senator Bayh didn’t make the cut to be Vice President. He likes to consult factually-based, non-partisan research before voting in favor of the largest expansion of federal social services in 40 years.

Characteristically, top Obama advisors have a different view – one that chooses the devil we don’t know instead of the devil we do.

“I think you could always use more data,” (White House Health Czar Nancy-Ann) DeParle said, but added that “we have plenty of data on where things are and where things are headed without reform.”

Did you catch the barely concealed contempt for “business as usual” and the stifled urge to blame the previous administration?

All this would be comical if there weren’t a $787 billion stimulus package in circulation, the consequences of which still defy an ability to be measured or predicted. To their credit, some Democratic caucus members are joining Senator Bayh’s (belated) rush to judge the health care “reform” bill on its merits.

Lawmakers say they are hungry for data that assures them they are not voting for a bill that does the opposite what they have intended.

“I want to see an objective, third-party analysis from people who don’t have a conflict of interest,” said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). “I like evidence.”

Good. So do the people being asked to finance health care “reform” unto the nth generation.

You can read the entire article from Politico here.

Over on National Review, Stephen Spruiell gives an in-depth look at how the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is helping President Barack Obama remake America into a much more liberal place, one piece of legislation at a time. The excerpts below offer a powerful wake-up call to anyone thinking that the stimulus bill, health care reform, and card-check are anything other than massive redistributions of wealth.

On getting a union-friendly stimulus bill:

The stimulus bill was a top priority for SEIU because it contained massive bailouts for state governments and Medicaid. As mentioned above, states such as California, New York, and New Jersey have expanded their social-welfare systems beyond what they can afford, in response to pressures from SEIU and other public-sector unions. At the same time, their progressive income-tax structures have made them especially vulnerable to boom-and-bust cycles. When the credit bubble burst, these states were looking at massive deficits, layoffs, furloughs, and budget cuts. The stimulus bill included a $50 billion slush fund for state governments and $90 billion in Medicaid expansions, helping the states avoid a necessary round of belt-tightening and tax reform.”

A bit surprisingly, California came in for particularly rough treatment:

The most illustrative example of SEIU’s clout during this process came when the Obama administration threatened to withhold stimulus funds from the state of California if it went ahead with a planned reduction in payments to home health-care workers. The administration set up a conference call with state officials to discuss whether the cuts violated the terms of the stimulus, and state officials were surprised to learn that the administration had invited SEIU representatives to join the call. “This was really atypical and outside any norm I am familiar with,” California secretary of health and human services Kim Belshe told the Los Angeles Times. The administration backed down from the threat, but only after the story had leaked and caused significant blowback.”

On getting a union-friendly health care reform bill:

SEIU has poured millions into a group called Health Care for America Now, which has dispatched envoys to deliver portable pavilions, professionally printed placards, and uniform attire at almost every major health-care protest this year. Dennis Rivera sent hundreds of union activists to meetings this summer in an attempt to counteract opposition to the Democrats’ bill. “We’re running this campaign like this was a presidential campaign, and our candidate is health-care reform,” Rivera told the New York Times. Why does SEIU care so much about health-care reform? The subsidies and mandates in Democrats’ legislation would drive up demand for health-care services, meaning more revenue for hospitals, more health-care workers, and more members for SEIU.

The creation of a government-run insurance plan is an especially important priority for the SEIU. “The nexus between government and private industry would give SEIU a toehold to organize more workers,” explains J. Justin Wilson, managing director of the Center for Union Facts. Once the public option is in place, SEIU can pressure the bureaucracy to implement union-friendly policies. For example, the public option “might only reimburse hospitals that are unionized or have a neutrality position toward unions,” Wilson says.

And finally, supporting card-check legislation:

As important as the Democrats’ health-care plan is to SEIU, the union’s top priority remains the Employee Free Choice Act, otherwise known as the card-check bill. Under SEIU’s preferred version of the bill, employers would have to recognize a union once a majority of its employees had signed petition cards. This process would allow union organizers to identify holdouts and pressure them into signing up. The bill would also require business owners to allow union organizers to hold meetings with employees on the business’s property, while forbidding the owners to hold mandatory meetings to discuss unionization.

Finally, the bill includes a binding-arbitration provision that would allow the NLRB to impose a union contract on a business if negotiations with its union broke down. SEIU loves this provision, because Obama just named one of its lawyers, Craig Becker, to the NLRB. Businesses negotiating with the SEIU would have two choices: accept SEIU’s demands voluntarily or have the SEIU-friendly NLRB accept them for you.”

You can read the entire article here.

…turn a taxpayer-funded federal website into a self-serving online petition! That’s exactly what Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has done with the front page of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Between links to FLU.gov and another to Stop Medicare Fraud, there is an icon under HealthReform.Gov where a visitor can “State Your Support” for health reform this year.

According to Connie Hair at Human Events, HHS’s solicitation of support for Democratic health reform is likely in violation of federal law because it spends money for a purpose other than what Congress intended. In a legal opinion requested by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and written by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), CRS points out that:

Under the United States Constitution, no funds may be expended by federal agencies, or their officers or employees in the executive branch, except by way of an appropriation made by an act of Congress. The “Appropriations Clause” of the Constitution is not only an express assignment of appropriations authority to the Congress, but has also, as explained by a unanimous Supreme Court, been long understood “as a restriction upon the disbursing authority of the Executive department…”

Hair reports further that:

Congress has made it clear that federal agencies are not to use public funds to finance campaign tactics and grassroots propaganda. By law, official HHS funds cannot be used “for publicity or propaganda purposes … designed to support or defeat legislation pending before the Congress … ,” according to and Section 503(a) of Division F and Section 717 of Division D of the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act or for “printed or written matter, or other device, intended or designed to influence in any manner … an official of any government, to favor, adopt, or oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation, law, ratification, policy … ,” according to 18 U.S.C. § 1913.”

In other words, HHS can’t spend taxpayer money to solicit support for partisan legislation. Although there’s little chance of mounting a successful lawsuit against the “State Your Support” link, signers of the petition should be aware that they are doing much more than giving their name. They’re also permitting the Obama Administration to retain their email and postal addresses for future contacts and solicitations, perhaps even for financial contributions. Of course, we can be sure that none of the names and numbers given will be misused or passed along to third parties, right?

What a difference an election cycle makes. Today, the Club for Growth (CFG), a pro-free-market political action committee, endorsed Marco Rubio for the open Florida Senate seat. Somewhat surprisingly, Charlie Crist, the other contender for the Republican nomination, sidestepped lashing out at CFG. Instead, his campaign played the part of misunderstood statesman, vowing cooperation even though he didn’t get CFG’s support.

While Marco Rubio has a record of raising taxes and spending exorbitantly, Charlie Crist is a true fiscal conservative and looks forward to working with the Club for Growth on their shared goals as Florida’s next US Senator.”

Two years ago, presidential candidate Mike Huckabee also failed to get CFG’s endorsement. His reaction wasn’t as conciliatory. Here’s a link to Huckabee defending his views on the “Club for Greed.”

Unlike Huckabee, Crist can’t rely on a background as a preacher with a conservative social agenda to compensate for his fiscal management as governor. As the movement for lower taxes and smaller government picks up momentum going into next year’s mid-term elections, the rhetoric of Republican campaigns will be decidedly more cautious in dismissing fiscal conservatives.

Some people have a knack for recognizing a decisive moment before it occurs. Even fewer have the insight to choose (or guess) which way is best when it happens. Count Martin Heinrich, freshman Democrat from New Mexico, as one of the folks who didn’t migrate from column A to column B. When discussing his support for comprehensive health care “reform” over the weekend, Congressman Heinrich said:

This is an opportunity to do something as big Social Security,” he added. “And me, personally, I don’t want to be on the wrong side of history.”

Regrettably, far too many liberal politicians think being first (or biggest) is the same as being right. With this in mind, replicating the biggest social welfare boondoggle in American history becomes not only historic, but right, and voting for it ensures supporters of their implied inclusion in whatever laudatory blurb finds its way into next decade’s high school civics books.

However, there is another way to interpret the “historic” moment facing the nation and the Democratic Party. In the aftermath of World War II, England voted for a weaker presence abroad, and a much enhanced social safety net at home. The plan came to be known as the “post war consensus” and can be characterized as:

…a belief in Keynesian economics, a mixed economy with the nationalization of major industries, the establishment of the National Health Service and the creation of the modern welfare state in Britain. The policies were instituted by all governments (both Labour and Conservative) during the post-war period.” (Emphasis added)

Sound familiar? Much like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the leader of the consensus, Clement Attlee, was an unremarkable politician except for the fact he helped create the National Health Service. This put Britain on the path of unsustainable spending and deficits all in the name of a health program that expands coverage while castrating care.

Welcome to infamy, Rep. Heinrich. Here you’ll find no end to self-indulgent paternalism and the undying belief that free people need “free” services from government.

There’s a fascinating article in today’s Wall Street Journal discussing the best way for government to help spur job creation.

Unfortunately, in troubled economic times the language of recovery is too often tilted toward large, established companies or to “small businesses,” a broad term that traditionally applies to businesses with fewer than 500 employees. The conventional wisdom is that such businesses account for half of the labor force and are therefore the engine of future job creation.

That’s not quite the case. The more precise factor is not the size of businesses, but rather their age. According to the Census Bureau, nearly all net job creation in the U.S. since 1980 occurred in firms less than five years old. A Kauffman Foundation report released yesterday shows that as recently as 2007, two-thirds of the jobs created were in such firms. Put more starkly, without new businesses, job creation in the American economy would have been negative for many years.”

The article by three experts at the Kauffman Foundation targets four measures needed to “create incentives to foster the creation and growth of new businesses.”

• First, welcome immigrants seeking scientific training at American universities by creating a “job creator’s” visa for immigrants who have founded a company in America and demonstrated they have at least one employee.

• Second, unleash America’s academic entrepreneurs by allowing university professors to commercialize ideas outside of their home university’s technology licensing office.

• Third, provide easier access to capital so that more flexible standards would allow prudent lending, when it is sorely needed by many firms to remain alive or meet demand when it begins to grow.

• Finally, make it easier for companies seeking capital to go public by allowing shareholders benefited by Sarbanes-Oxley to vote on whether or not they want to comply with all of the law’s (costly) requirements.

You can read the entire article here.

In a sign that trying to scare or shame people into supporting “climate change” regulation isn’t working, some Environmental groups are emphasizing the positive aspects of legislating in the Earth’s name. A sample:

Now, some groups have muted their alarms about wildfires, shrinking glaciers and rising seas. Not because they’ve stopped caring about them — but because they’re trying to win over people who might care more about a climate bill’s non-environmental side benefits, such as ‘green’ jobs and reduced oil imports.”

Perhaps the best evidence that the Environmental Left is learning the popularity of arguing for American held jobs and reducing our dependence on foreign oil is the opening statement by an activist to a group of college students in Kansas:

Take climate change off the table, okay?” Jackson said, after reciting evidence that the climate really is changing. “You don’t have to buy it for everything I’m about to say, because everything we do [to combat climate change] is a good idea for at least three other reasons.”

Not all Environmental groups agree with this new wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing approach.  Their intent to keep focusing on alarming the public about impending doom makes it difficult to know who to root for.  On the one hand, it’s nice to know at least some people on the Left want to maintain truth in advertising.  On the other, it’s a compliment of sorts to have the opposition parroting conservative arguments because they’re persuasive to neutral audiences.  Either way, the discord won’t  help pass climate change legislation.  Thank goodness.

What if suddenly, after eight years of a “cowboy presidency” and the election of a worldly, foreign policy-hesitant President, America’s biggest nemesis voluntarily offered to deescalate tensions? As the Obama Administration waits for such a breakthrough moment with North Korea, Iran, Hamas, Sudan, Venezuela, and others, a new article in Foreign Policy by David E. Hoffman analyzes the actions of a different man in a similar moment.

Hoffman’s primary criticism of President George H. W. Bush during the tumultuous year of 1989 is that he failed to appreciate the scale and speed of change inside the Soviet Union. On more than one occasion, Bush took a cautious, wait-and-see approach when evaluating Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev’s liberalization programs of perestroika and glasnost. It literally took the Berlin Wall falling down before Bush convinced himself that Gorbachev was serious about implementing fundamental changes both inside and outside Russia.

The title of the article, “1989: The Lost Year,” reflects the missed opportunities that, if realized and acted on, could have led to a much smoother Soviet transition from orthodox communism. Would President Obama be able to distinguish real reforms from empty platitudes, or would he make the same mistakes as Bush Senior? For all of the current president’s stubbornness in ramming through his domestic agenda, he’s shown a conspicuous lack of clarity when it comes to foreign affairs. From urging restraint during the Russian invasion of Georgia to dithering on Afghanistan troop levels, Obama shows signs of being caught off guard in the unlikely event his overtures to America’s enemies actually work.

With all the focus this week on off-year elections and the impending House healthcare vote this Saturday, it would be easy to miss the steady progress of two “climate change” proposals. The first is a bill approved today by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. If signed into law it would require industry to cut emissions of greenhouse gases by 20 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels. As usual, the committee’s Chairwoman, Barbara Boxer (D-CA), thinks “this is a great signal for Copenhagen that there’s a will to do what it takes to advance this issue.”

Why does Senator Boxer care about Copenhagen? Because that’s the next destination on the U.N.’s perpetual climate change treaty writing circuit. For months, supporters of creating an internationally binding treaty to enforce hard caps on emissions and “carbon reparations” payments from rich to poor countries have seen the December meeting in Copenhagen as the moment when the Al Gore-negotiated Kyoto Protocol could become global. Boxer, with the help of the Obama Administration, is ready to put taxpayer money where the Environmental Left’s mouth is.

One snag though. Apparently, the global economic recession is putting the brakes on countries’ ability to raise taxes without creating jobs or improving infrastructure. How odd. Now the treaty’s negotiators are talking as if it may take another year to get an agreement signed. Thankfully, such a timetable puts any ratification decision by the U.S. Senate after next year’s mid-term elections. As the 2010 campaign issues continue to pile up, people looking to rebuke Obama & Co. for healthcare reform can also send a message that higher taxes, greater wealth redistribution, and lower productivity are as unpopular when imposed by foreign powers as they are when mandated domestically.

It looks like retired seniors aren’t the only New York-area residents making an impact in Florida this time of year. After upstate New Yorkers nearly pushed Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman over the finish line last night, Republican leaders are taking note. One Miami New Times blogger suggests that conservative insurgent Marco Rubio may have a new hurdle to overcome in his quest for establishment credibility and access to GOP moneymen. The argument goes that party big-wigs are likely to be even stingier with their support after watching a red district go blue.

On the other hand, ABC News’ Rick Klein reports that the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) will not be giving money to any candidate in an open, contested primary. Sorry, Charlie (Crist)! NRSC Chairman John Cornyn (R-TX) notes that in the aftermath of NY-23, “[t]here’s no incentive for us to weigh in.”

This is huge. Now there’s every incentive for the conservative grassroots to promote and resource Marco Rubio’s campaign, without the fear of being outspent and undercut by the national party. The big guys are saying ‘may the best man win’ in the Florida GOP primary. Game on!

What to do if you’re a California politician holding statewide office, but not enough money or name recognition to make it to the governor’s mansion? Win a Sacramento-area congressional election and head to Washington! With John Garamendi’s win last night in the other congressional special election (CA-10), the soon-to-be former Lieutenant Governor will join former state Attorney General and 1998 Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Lungren (CA-3) in the House of Representatives. Although he never achieved statewide office, perennial Republican candidate Tom McClintock (CA-4) certainly tried. Eventually, McClintock – like Lungren and now Garamendi – discovered that the best way to escape the horns of the dilemma of one who is termed out of office, but can’t open the door to the next, is to pour a lifetime’s worth of money and connections into an entry-level race for federal office.

While it’s good to see that career politicians can find work even in a recession with 10% unemployment, one wonders how many perpetual office seekers pause to consider the example of Rome’s greatest – and perhaps only – citizen-statesman. Though Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus had some aristocratic prejudices (such as opposing equally applicable laws to plebeians and patricians), his chief virtue was that he voluntarily surrendered absolute power as soon as it was feasible; a trait revered and emulated by George Washington.

Perhaps these three Californians serving in the people’s chamber will have a chance to make a lasting contribution to their country, and then quietly go away. Until such a time, there’s still room at the table with the shades of Cincinnatus and Washington.