Freedom Line Blog

The 2010 Census is quickly turning into an extended metaphor for everything that’s wrong with big government. There was a $2.5 million Super Bowl ad buy, a huge spending spree on make-work employees (instead of employing technology that would have been cheaper AND more effective), and — my favorite — a letter letting us know that we’d be receiving a letter.

The Census Bureau’s current “March to the Mailbox” ad may the biggest offense yet. In the 30-second spot, a suburban schlub touts filling out the census as the cure to every policy ill, from education to health care to transportation.

If only.

The census serves a legitimate purpose, but its ad campaign is egregious — and its assertion that more money is all it takes to solve social problems is (a) patently false and (b) a wildly inappropriate use for taxpayer funds. The Census Bureau needs to stay in its lane and save the rest of us some money.

It is bad enough that President Obama has already been criticized by French President Nicolas Sarkozy for being insufficiently hawkish abroad (“weak, inexperienced, and badly briefed” was the New York Times’ memorable formulation of Sarko’s critique).

Now the president of the country that pioneered the 35-hour work week and eight weeks of annual vacation is giving Obama notes on the importance of economic freedom.

Asked about allegations that a contract for U.S. Air Force supply tankers was rigged to favor an American company, Sarkozy was characteristically direct:

“I did not appreciate this decision … This is not the right way to behave,” Sarkozy said.

“Such methods by the United States are not good for its European allies, and such methods are not good for the United States, a great, leading nation with which we are on close and friendly terms,” he said.

“If they want to be heard in the fight against protectionism, they should not set the example of protectionism.”

As I mention in my column this week, one of Obama’s biggest foreign policy mistakes has been undermining international trade while trying to rhetorically support it.

At this rate, France is going to be heroically saving the United States in World War III.

Sign #535 that health care reform efforts have dragged on for too long: the mainstream media, having exhausted its other options, is starting to make sense … and in the journalistic wasteland of weekly newsmagazines, no less.

Newsweek’s Howard Fineman turns this week to the hallmark of a liberal journalist afraid that he’s going to miss his deadline — making grand conclusions about policy based on a personal anecdote. After falling ill on a trip in Argentina, Fineman became convinced that the American healthcare reform debate hasn’t focused nearly enough on the cost to the consumer. To wit:

President Obama proclaims his plan (whatever it finally is) to be “reform.” But from what I can see, it would merely feed, at taxpayer expense, 30 million currently “uncovered” people into a wasteful system that doesn’t have either the price-signaling power of a marketplace or the sweeping overview and control of a state-run bureacracy.

Apart from his ambivalence between free-market health care and an authoritarian system, this is the sound of Howard Fineman making sense (this probably has something to do with the earth reversing its polarity).

But if Newsweek deserves accolades for groping towards insight, Time deserves a standing ovation for one of the most insightful pieces they’re published in years (of course, it was relegated to their “The Curious Capitalist” blog), courtesy of one Barbara Kiviat. In a piece titled “Could Price Tags Save American Health Care?”, Kiviat has a vivid dream of a more-market friendly healthcare sector:

I wish everyone in America could instantaneously have insurance set up this way [based on transparent price and quality]. I wish that every time any person went to the doctor, he asked: How much does this cost? How much does that cost? Is there a less-expensive way to do this? Naturally, people with high deductibles are already incentivized to do this. So are people without insurance.
But I want to go even further. I want everyone to have easy access to price information, even those people who don’t think—or want—to ask. When I go to a hotel, there is sign on the back of the door that tells me the most the room can cost. When I go to a car dealership, there are sticker prices on every windshield. When I go to Wal-Mart, there are price tags on the shelves.

Conservatives looking to shed the “Party of No” mantle should take note of these and other insights into the virtues of consumer-driven health care. The case is an easy one to make: if it works in every other sector of the economy, why not in the doctor’s office?

Hats off to the media for casting their glance to a deserving corner of Middle America. While we’re still about 10 months from the 2012 presidential sweepstakes starting in earnest, an amazing amount of journalistic attention has been directed towards Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels in recent days — this despite the fact that Daniels has probably been the most reticent of all potential GOP contenders.

Anyone who can generate plaudits from National Review’s Mona Charen, Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift, and the New York Times’ Ross Douthat in the course of a week deserves a serious look. It also helps if that same individual can make principled, fact-driven cases for market-based policies, come off as more decent than any other politician on the continent, and give the best political speech of the last decade.

Before Republicans begin their usual coronation of the next candidate in line, Mitch Daniels deserves consideration commensurate with his tremendous record as a public servant.

During today’s health care summit at Blair House, Wyoming Republican Senator John Barrasso (an orthopedic surgeon by trade) dropped the jaws of Democrats in attendance by declaring that individuals who only have “catastrophic care” health insurance (which Democrats had been spent all day citing as a moral failure) often make better medical decisions than people with more comprehensive plans. Barasso’s reason was simple — these consumers actually have to consider the cost of their treatments.

Though President Obama and Congressman Henry Waxman were quick to ridicule Barasso, he got to a truth that is at the very root of meaningful health care reform: the system can’t work as long as consumers are being insulated from costs.

Two economic maxims suffice to make the point: (1) “If you’re paying, I’ll have the steak” — There is no incentive to keep your spending under control when someone else is footing the bill (2) “No one washes a rental car” — Ownership is the best motivation for vigilance, because if something goes wrong, you’ll be the one eating the costs. Having someone else shield you from health care expenditures only weakens your incentive to be vigilant in regard to your own well-being

Earlier in the day’s proceedings, Obama and Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois rained on the tort reform parade by claiming that the $5 billion a year that could be saved by reforming the malpractice system would be a drop in the $2 trillion health care bucket (as an aside, I’ve always thought this is a bizarre rationale — how can anyone expect to realize large savings if they ignore all the incremental savings that will get them there?). Yet if tort reform was too picayune, why are Democrats ignoring Barrasso’s point, which got to the heart of what drives health care costs through the roof?

The problem with modern health care is that is built on a triangular model. In most cases, one person pays for the care (an employer), one person consumes the care (the patient) and one person provides the care (the doctor). This is a recipe for unhappiness and inflation, because the person who consumes is unaccountable to the person that pays, and the person that provides is unaccountable to the person they provide for (Harvard’s Regina Herzlinger has been invaluable on this point).

The Republican talking point is that health care needs to be reformed in small, incremental chunks. That may be a sound legislative strategy, but it’s not true as a matter of policy. The system needs to be fundamentally reformed and placed on a consumer-driven basis (and yes, conservatives, you can learn from Europe — Switzerland has a pretty good model. If you’re really in the mood for right-wing apostasy take a gander at Whole Foods’ ideas too). Subsidies are always going to be necessary for the indigent, but more far-reaching government control is not the answer. Comprehensive reform that makes health care market-driven is.

With five Republicans voting for cloture in the Senate– Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Kit Bond, George Voinovich, and (surprise!) Scott Brown — we should expect the Congress to pass its new “jobs bill” this week (in reality, this is like a 100-calorie pack version of the stimulus).

It’s not surprising that some Republicans are feeling the pressure to get behind this legislation. The perennial temptation in times of economic crisis is to get behind anything that seems like it could make a difference. This is not that piece of legislation.

Let’s start with the basics: At $15 billion, this package could be financed with what’s between the cushions of the sofas in the Oval Office. But that’s still $15 billion in new debt that can’t be justified without a commensurate kick to the economy. This package can’t deliver that kick.

The big hooks for Republicans are going to be the exemption from payroll taxes for new employees through the rest of the year and the $1,000 tax credit for new employees who are retained for a year. These provisions will have positive economic effects, but they will be very subtle. Because this bill only aims to jumpstart the employment side of the market without addressing broader economic conditions, it will make it slightly cheaper to hire new employees, but won’t create enough economic activity to justify employers adding many new hires to their payrolls. As with the similar plan that was tried during the Carter years, this most likely means that the majority of the benefits will go to hires that would have been made with or without the package. Given the limited time horizon of the bill, we should also expect its net effects to be similar to “Cash for Clunkers” — that is, just moving up hiring decisions instead of changing the fundamentals behind them.

The other provisions are no more impressive. This package will subsidize further borrowing by local and state governments, which only continues the sugar-high spending that simply can’t be sustained even in the best of economic times. And while infrastructure spending is certainly a legitimate function of government, it’s hard to sell as a strategy for increasing employment. After all, the mark of good infrastructure development — quick, efficient construction — is fundamentally at odds with the idea of creating jobs that are meant to endure for the long-term.

This certainly isn’t the worst piece of legislation to come out of the Age of Obama, but it also isn’t much more than a placebo. Until Washington begins to focus on shrinking the size of government, however, we shouldn’t expect the prescription to change much.

Following up on Brother Ellis’s earlier CPAC post, the most notable fallout from the weekend confab may have been Mike Huckabee’s criticism of the conference for being “too libertarian.” Let’s call this what it is: a fig leaf.

After a dissapointing seventh place finish in CPAC’s presidential straw poll, Huckabee is looking for a way to write off the legitimacy of the whole endeavor (let’s not deny, however, that Ron Paul’s victory in the poll does look a bit … well, eccentric). But CPAC organizers are quick to point out that when Huckabee declined their offer to speak this year, he attributed it to a scheduling conflict, not any ideological differences. Thus, claiming that he stayed away from the festivities because they were a little too fervent for liberty rings hollow.

Huckabee has two positive traits to offer conservatives: a winning, optimistic personality and a consistent social conservatism (part of what puts him at odds with some libertarians).  What he doesn’t have, however, is damning enough to remove him from serious consideration as a future presidential nominee. Huckabee is a practitioner of the baser kind of economic “populism” — no one who calls the Club for Growth “the Club for Greed” has the dictional authority to be taken seriously as either a conservative or a theologian. He has also proved himself to be functionally illiterate on matters of foreign policy.

Huckabee, like every Republican candidate for the past three decades, claims to have been baptized in the River Reagan. But Ronaldus Magnus famously said “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.” Indeed, I don’t know how one indicts the GOP heresies of the past decade without faulting the party for losing touch with its libertarian roots. Huckabee is a terrific guy; but I think it’s time for the movement to acknowledge that he might be a Democrat if only that party was a little less secular.

With a growing lead in the polls and a rousing speech at CPAC now under his belt, former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio’s candidacy for the U.S. Senate is looking better by the day. And the surging would-be senator proved yesterday that he won’t shy away from taking the fight to his more liberal primary opponent, Florida Governor Charlie Crist. Consider this jab that did everything but cite Crist by name:

2010 will not be just a choice between Republicans or Democrats. It will not just be a simple choice between liberals and conservatives. It will be a referendum on our nation’s very identity.

People want leaders that will come here to Washington D.C. and stand up to this big government agenda, not be co-opted by it. The Senate already has one Arlen Specter too many. And America already has a Democrat party. It doesn’t need another Democrat party.

In the wake of that speech, Crist has now agreed to a nationally-televised debate with Rubio  on Fox News Sunday. That a primary contest is generating this kind of attention shows how important this race is going to be nationally … and how bright Marco Rubio’s future may turn out to be.

With news of the retirement of moderate Democratic Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana dominating electoral soothsaying this week, some other important numbers are getting lost in the shuffle.

At the same time as Bayh’s decision to pursue greener pastures leaves his seat ripe for Republican picking, two West Coast Democrats are finding themselves vulnerable in a way they never imagined.

California’s liberal firebrand Barbara Boxer — a woman too far to the left for even the Golden State — is holding on to very narrow leads in potential contests against moderates Tom Campell and Carly Fiorina or conservative Chuck Devore (what may be most notable is how little difference the Republican nominee makes to the numbers).

Meanwhile, up the coast in Washington, one of the few Democratic incumbents assumed safe this year has received an ominous warning sign. Senator Patty Murray boasts double-digit leads over every Republican that has actually declared against her, but Dino Rossi — the former state senator who has been the GOP’s gubernatorial nominee in the Evergreen State’s last two cycles — actually outpolls Murray by two points. Rossi is said to still be planning on sitting out the race, but in this atmosphere that’s a miscalculation for both his career and his party’s future. Any Republican who passes on a chance for a competitive seat in this year’s environment needs to seek a career in something other than professional politics.

With two of the West Coast’s liberal safe-havens suddenly looking vulnerable and Bayh’s seat seemingly vanishing into thin air, the question has to be asked: how many more surprises can Democrats take before the 2010 Senate elections begin to look entirely hopeless?

Over at the Weekly Standard, the Pacific Research Institute‘s Jeffrey Anderson has a very sharp piece on how President Obama’s self-designated role as philosopher king is (a) antithetical to the American system and (b) impeding his legislative agenda. A sample:

In a moment of candor, [Obama] essentially said [he embraced the philosopher-king role] to [CBS News’ Katie] Couric:

“Look, I would have loved nothing better than to simply come up with some very elegant, you know, academically approved approach to health care [that] didn’t have any kinds of legislative fingerprints on it, and just go ahead and have that passed. But that’s not how it works in our democracy. Unfortunately what we end up having to do is to do a lot of negotiations with a lot of different people.”

With the possible exception of Woodrow Wilson, can you imagine any of our prior presidents having said that?

Our democratic process, our separation of powers, and our federalist design frustrate Obama. But, far from being unfortunate, the negotiations and multiple levels of approval that they require, from a myriad of different citizens, is largely what secures our liberty—protecting it from those who would otherwise impose their own comprehensive goals from their lofty theoretical perches. The Founders were surely not Obama’s intellectual inferiors, but they were practical men. The Constitutional Convention was nothing if not high-level give-and-take, tinkering and refining. One imagines Obama showing up at Independence Hall with his own plan in hand (probably adapted from Rousseau’s in The Social Contract, with Obama cast in the role of the Legislator) and being surprised when the other delegates resisted his eloquence and, correspondingly, his proposal.

A great piece. Read the whole thing here.

Somewhere in the White House, there is a speechwriter who, if she has any sense, is perusing the classified section on Craigslist.

This would be the person responsible for First Lady Michelle Obama’s remarks yesterday about the threat of child obesity (a crusade I’ve previously chronicled here).

Having labored in a speechwriting shop or two in my day (including the one at the White House), I’m sympathetic to the plight of a writer who needs to get five pages out of a topic where one sentence would suffice (in this case, “step away from the eclair”). It usually involves a lot of excess verbiage and a few stretches of the imagination. But the First Lady’s invocation of obesity as a national security threat rivaled her husband’s propensity for audacity. To wit:

“A recent study put the health care cost of obesity-related diseases at $147 billion a year,” Mrs. Obama said. “This epidemic also impacts the nation’s security, as obesity is now one of the most common disqualifiers for military service.”

While advocating for everything from revamping the food pyramid (is there anything First Ladies aren’t responsible for?) to “help[ing] places like convenience stores carry healthier food options” (I have no idea what that means, but I’m sure it includes some subsidies), Mrs. Obama also waxed inspirational about the task ahead:

“This isn’t like a disease where we’re still waiting for a cure to be discovered – we know the cure for this,” Obama said. “This isn’t like putting a man on the moon or inventing the Internet. It doesn’t take some stroke of genius or feat of technology.

Hmmm. But it does take a major program run by the federal government, huh? You’ve got to love liberals. If you’re below a certain rung on the socio-economic ladder, they want to give you everything for free. If you’re above it, however, they want to pry the money right out of your pocket — and now the cheddar bacon potato skins right out of your mouth.

Think of it as the “demon sheep” ad of the Super Bowl (though with much better production values).

During last night’s NFL championship– an event that has become an annual testimony to the incompetence of Madison Avenue ad firms — German automaker Audi aired a commercial intended to showcase that their A3 model is both stylish and green. Boy, did it backfire.

Rather than talking about the closing seconds of the ad, where the A3 breaks out of gridlock to show off its moves, the public focused more on the first 90 percent of the ad — which showed a world dominated by “green police” monitoring the public’s every environmental trespass. It took some pretty tin-eared writing to pitch a green car with the right’ s narrative of environmental statism. It doesn’t work as advertising — but it was a delightful change of pace for those of us who are sick of the MSM hawking global warming ad nauseam.

As the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter memorably put it, the free market is about “creative destruction” —  rank, privilege, and status mean nothing if you can’t compete in the marketplace. Bad companies and products wilt under competition from more capable rivals.

Applying these kinds of first principles to policy debates can be unwieldy at times, however, if they don’t exactly square with your political coalition. Republicans have been wed to the business establishment for decades on the notion that those who philosophically support the free market and those who actually grind the gears of commerce on a daily basis are natural allies. Not necessarily, says Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan in an interview with RealClearPolitics. When asked about the current state of the economy:

Republicans messed this up too. We have to remember that we’re also to blame for having practiced crony capitalism. But where we are right now — it’s a systematic expansion of this doctrine. For us, it’s easier to fix because we just have to rededicate ourselves to our principles. For Democrats, they would have to repudiate theirs, because crony capitalism sits nicely with their philosophy. You can sort of see an alignment here where big business and big government find a common agreement and that is a very big danger to our free market system. So we need to go back to being pro-market, instead of just pro-business. And there is a difference.

Ryan is one of the brightest members of Congress around (his comprehensive plan for restoring America’s economic health is referenced extensively in the interview and can be found here) and it’s nice to see an elected official finally making this too-oft ignored distinction.

…so go aslyums masquerading as state governments throughout the nation. Despite the fact that the Golden State is staring a $20 billion budget deficit in the face (and facing the prospect of cutting off much of the revenue they’ll need to get out of the hole thanks to a Byzantine global warming law), policy entreprenuership is alive and well in Sacramento. The latest big idea:

California is going to be first state in the nation to monitor cow gas emission. The state plans to install a network of computerized devices to measure methane gas emissions in places where there are lots of dairy ranches and landfills.

Sounds like the state’s bureaucrats are competing with the bovines to see who can produce the most … waste.

… is that nothing’s ever that satisfying. In the D.C. Examiner, the always lucid Byron York asks the compelling question: “Has Obama Become Bored Being President?”

From the piece:

He’s in his second year as president, and he’s discovered that even with all the powers of office, he can’t do everything he wants to do, like remake America. Doing stuff is hard. In the past, prosaic work has held little appeal for Obama, and it’s prompted him to think about moving on.

A little later:

What drove Obama was not just ambition, although he is certainly ambitious. As he became frustrated in each job, Obama concluded that the problem was not having the power to do the things he wanted to do. So he sought a more powerful position.

Today he is in the most powerful position in the world. Yet he has spent a year struggling, and failing, to enact far-reaching makeovers of the American economy. So now, even in the Oval Office, there are signs that the old dissatisfaction is creeping back in.

Thought for the day: what does it say about someone’s temperament if being President of the United States isn’t enough to satisfy him?

My answer: that he should probably be teaching existentialist philosophy at a community college somewhere.

If George Will and Charles Krauthammer are the brains of the conservative movement in print, then Peggy Noonan probably has a good claim to be the heart. While you rarely see her dissect policy minutiae, nobody does an ethereal meditation on exactly where America is at in any given moment quite as well.

Noonan’s reaction piece to the State of the Union in today’s Wall Street Journal is characteristically strong, but one passage jumped out at me:

They’ve chosen a phrase for the president’s program. They call it the “New Foundation.” They sneaked it in rather tentatively, probably not sure it would take off. It won’t. Such labels work when they clearly capture something that is already clear. “The New Deal” captured FDR’s historic shift to an increased governmental presence in individual American lives. It was a new deal. “The New Frontier”—we are a young and vibrant nation still, and adventures await us in space and elsewhere. It was a mood, not a program, but a mood well captured.

“The New Foundation” is solid and workmanlike, but it attempts to put form and order to a governing philosophy that is still too herky-jerky to be summed up.

Not only is the phrase a bit too pedestrian … it’s also a retread from the Carter Administration.  Readers of Robert Schlesinger’s excellent book “White House Ghosts: Presidents and their Speechwriters” may remember that “The New Foundation” was actually the title that President Carter chose for the agenda he presented in his 1979 State of the Union. Both the policies and the tag line failed spectacularly.

As the Obama Administration starts contemplating staff shakeups, someone in personel might want to start asking around about which White House staffers think that plagiarism is (a) necessary and (b) best accomplished by borrowing from the work that came out of dying days of the Carter Administration.

Bad news for political junkies — what could have been the title fight of the 2010 midterm elections in the U.S. Senate has been called off.

RedState reported this morning that conservative Indiana Congressman Mike Pence has decided against challenging moderate Democratic Senator Evan Bayh for his seat this year.

No doubt that it would have been an uphill fight. Bayh comes from an extremely popular political family in the Hoosier State, and his own career as a centrist governor-cum-senator has endeared him to his electorate. He’s also towards the bottom of the list of Democrats in the Senate who are threatening to conservative principles (and one of the few who sees the folly in the liberal thrust of the current Democratic leadership).

Yet the fact of the matter was that Pence was outpolling Bayh (albeit narrowly) without so much as announcing. Pence’s victory could have gone a long way towards driving a total electoral scramble in November.

Hopefully, the talented, able, articulate Pence goes back to the grindstone in the House. If he’s passing up the Senate race to take a crack at the White House (as RedState suggests he may be), he’s trading the improbable for the virtually impossible. Only one sitting U.S. Representative has ever been elected to the presidency — and Washington isn’t exactly brimming with people looking to replicate James Garfield’s legacy.

I may not win any points for originality for calling attention to the imbecility of Time Magazine’s Joe Klein, but his latest rhetorical moonshot has to be read to be believed.

Harnessing the liberal tendency to blame their failures on the stupidity of the country, Klein reacts to a new CNN/Opinion Research poll that shows nearly three quarters of the country considers the stimulus package wasteful by indicting the cognitive capacities of the nation (in a post titled “Too Dumb to Thrive”, no less). To wit:

Two thoughts:

1. The Obama Administration has done a terrible job explaining the stimulus package to the American people…especially since there have been very few documented cases of waste so far.

2. This is yet further evidence that Americans are flagrantly ill-informed…and, for those watching Fox News, misinformed.

It is very difficult to have a democracy without citizens. It is impossible to be a citizen if you don’t make an effort to understand the most basic activities of your government. It is very difficult to thrive in an increasingly competitive world if you’re a nation of dodos.

Strip away the ad hominem and here’s what you have:

1. We’re not communicating well enough (the oldest — and most impotent — political excuse in the book)

2. There’s been no waste (Klein seems to be missing that Americans aren’t reacting to abuse in the program … they think the above-the-board spending is pointless)

3. This is the American people’s fault for being thick-browed knuckle-draggers (someone might want to point out to the intellectual vanguard over at Time that the health of the economy and the intelligence of the electorate are what are called independent variables. The economy isn’t still faltering because Americans think the stimulus is pointless. Americans think the stimulus is pointless because the economy is still faltering).

In a sparkling column today, Jonah Goldberg does a rigorous job of deconstructing the Obama machine’s narrative that every single act in American political life — even the election of a Republican senator in Massachusetts — is proof of the president’s virtues.

My favorite section:

In an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, the president offered his nuanced analysis of the Bay State Götterdämmerung and his first year in office.

In short: “I did nothing wrong.”

Well, with one caveat: “One thing I regret this year is that we were so busy just getting stuff done . . . that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people. . . . I think the assumption was, if I just focus on policy, if I just focus on the, you know, this provision, or that law, or are we making a good, rational decision here, that people will get it.”

Is the President beginning to remind anyone else of the guy who, when asked about his worst quality during his job interview, says “I care too much”?

One only has to go back to the first of the year to find conservatives distraught by the leftward lurch of Washington (if not the country).

What a difference the last week has made. A relatively conservative Republican won the Massachusetts U.S. Senate seat previously held by Ted Kennedy, the health care bill seems to be dying, the Supreme Court struck a stirring blow for free speech by eviscerating much of McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, and now comes word that Ben Bernanke may not have the votes to be confirmed for another term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Conservatives shouldn’t expect this good luck streak to continue unabated. The next year will be filled with contentious battles. Even a big Republican win in this year’s midterm elections won’t inexorably alter political reality. As the sudden reversal of fortune for Democrats show, big wins can be squandered quickly. Republicans will have to develop a positive alternative to the Obama Administration and the Democrats in Congress if they plan to consolidate their gains and be competitive in the 2012 presidential election.

There’s still much work to be done. But this week has been a good start.