Freedom Line Blog

ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis debated Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA), one of the organization’s strongest congressional critics, this morning on Fox News Sunday.

Barack Obama isn’t going to “tax” Americans earning under $250,000 to help subsidize his healthcare overhaul – he’s merely going to “penalize” them, which is apparently something altogether different and palatable.

During this morning’s Obamapalooza tour of the Sunday talk shows (intentionally ostracizing Fox News Sunday, in a most un-Presidential fit of spite), a prevaricating Obama bizarrely insisted that his healthcare reform’s penalty provisions for those without insurance somehow do not amount to a “tax” on Americans earning under $250,000, but rather a justifiable “penalty.”  Throughout a large portion of his interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, the two battled over this topic, with a visibly frustrated Obama even reproaching Stephanopoulos for reading Merriam’s definition of “tax” – “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

Instead of honestly explaining why his plan doesn’t meet this simple definition, Obama descended into pettiness and replied, “George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition.”

The reason that Obama resorted to this contortion of logic is that he solemnly and repeatedly promised throughout his campaign that he wouldn’t raise taxes on Americans earning under $250,000 by a single dime.  Knowing that he cannot afford his own version of President George H. W. Bush’s “read my  lips – no new taxes” broken pledge, Obama will apparently stop at nothing in his Orwellian campaign of distortion.

Is he lying?  Or is he honestly confused?  Who knows anymore.  But uninsured Americans earning under $250,000 can rest assured that the money they’ll be forced to pay under ObamaCare isn’t a “tax,” it’s just a “penalty.”

I didn’t even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money.”   — President Barack Obama, September 20, 2009

According to The Washington Times, a series of “grass-roots demonstrations” set to take place Tuesday to promote ObamaCare are being planned as “tightly scripted events [featuring] an ‘escalation’ of efforts against ‘enemies’ of reform.

“…Health Care for America Now (HCAN), which is backed by a coalition of labor unions and liberal groups including ACORN and MoveOn.org, organized the protests to target insurance companies and drafted the plan, which describes the demonstrations as part of its ‘insurance enemies project.’

“The document, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times, details specific talking points, tactics, props and strategies to stage the protests.  It lists goals that include action that ‘mobilizes or base by animating existing anger about private insurers.'”

Surely, President Obama and Speaker Pelosi will speak out against “animating existing anger.”  Doesn’t “animating anger” lead to violence?  Since when is “animating anger” a legitimate policy goal?

We’re still trying to figure out how health insurance plans could be so greedy and evil when they pay medical providers 20% more than Medicare pays the same medical providers for the same services and manage to make only a 3% profit margin.  No one seems to want to answer that question.

The Senate Finance Committee has posted all 564 proposed amendments to Chairman Baucus and President Obama’s health care bill.

• Summary of 180 amendments concerning the delivery system for health care  — here.

                    Actual text of above amendments — here.

• Summary of the 284 amendments dealing with “exapanding coverage” — here.

                    Actual text of above amendments — here.

• Summary of the 100 amendments dealing with financing — here.

                    Actual text of above amendments — here. 

First paragraph of Associated Press Saturday story:  “Keep going.  You don’t have to fix it all now.  Just please don’t let it stall.  That’s the essence of the message that Senate Democratic leaders have for their Finance Committee senators, who plan to start voting Tuesday on a remake of the nation’s health care system.”

Translation:  If this fails, Pelosi won’t have anything to work over in conference to get her public option, so if you only fix it for the union guys to keep getting their Viagra, well that’s ObamaCare, and she’ll dump the heavy stuff in from her side, when opponents are just too tired to keep fighting this.

Also as of Saturday, more than 500 amendments to the Baucus version of the bill had been filed in the Finance Committee.  Bets on how many of those will get read?

In this week’s Freedom Minute, CFIF’s Renee Giachino reminds the politicians in Washington that America deserves the truth about health care reform legislation.

It appears that Obama’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is ready to formally commence its invasion of one of the few frontiers that it has not yet commandeered – the Internet.  After months of concerned anticipation and speculation, the Wall Street Journal reports that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski will officially propose codification of “Net Neutrality” rules that have heretofore remained unadopted.  He will rationalize his takeover initiative in a speech this coming Monday, according to the report.

So what is wrong with “Net Neutrality?”  Very simply, it isn’t “neutrality” at all.  Rather, it means that the federal government will impose its corrosive presence into the Internet, which has remained the most vibrant and innovative sphere of contemporary American life precisely because the federal government has kept out.  “Net Neutrality” will reverse that.  In this age, continued Internet innovation demands flexibility and freedom on the part of Internet service providers to experiment with different delivery and pricing models to prevent increasing gridlock and maintain consumer quality.  By imposing a one-size-fits-all business model upon private entities, however, federal bureaucrats will stifle that flexibility and freedom to operate and experiment with different models.  Ultimately, continued Internet innovation and consumer quality will be the casualty.

After all, what sectors has the federal government improved after imposing its heavy hand?

Perhaps the best manner of illustrating “Net Neutrality” is that it is the Fairness Doctrine of the Internet.

We don’t need the federal government controlling our healthcare, we don’t need it controlling our airwaves and we certainly don’t need it controlling the Internet.

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, who has chosen not to run for a third term, may or may not decide to run for President.  While articulate and attractive, Pawlenty needs what all politicians need who have not long lived on the national political stage – name identification and recognition in his own party.

So what do those geniuses at the Democratic National Committee do?   Well, they’ve got this new “Call ’em Out” program, the purpose of which seems to be to attack people who have criticized ObamaCare.  Their first target?  Tim Pawlenty.

Hey, Maude, the Dems are attacking someone named Tim Pawlenty.

Yeah, Harvey, Tim Pawlenty opposes ObamaCare.

Well, don’t we oppose ObamaCare, Maude?

Of course we do, Harvey.  Most Americans do.

Well, that Pawlenty fellow seems okay by me.  Maybe we could have him over here for one of those coffees, introduce him to the neighbors, give him some money or something.  Good to know he’s one of us.

Actually, yesterday was Constitution Day but given the current environment in Washington, every day should be Constitution Day.

Here is the Constitution in a neat toy, Wordle.  It is a bit surprising that the word “President” is so prominently mentioned since Article II is considerably shorter than Article I.  Since the founders were especially suspicious of a strong executive, one would think our commander-in-chief would not be so frequently mentioned.

But, amendments 12 (amending electoral college), 20 (shortening lame duck period), 22 (limiting office-holder to two terms), 23 (residents in D.C. can cast presidential ballot) and 25 (presidential succession) all deal with the President.

The word “thereof” also seems frequent, likely a relic of 18th Century rhetoric.

Washington Examiner – Democrats Abandon ACORN
Washington Post – Republicans Denounce Pelosi
The Hill – FCC Chief Gets Net Neutrality Support
CBO – Economic Effects of Greenhouse Gas Legislation

Political Wire – McDonnell Leads Deeds
WSJ – Stimulus: Round 2
Chris Cillizza – A Resurgent Republican Party?
Arnold Kling – Biggest Health Care Reform Lie
Politico – Left and Right Plot on Baucus Bill

Federal Debt: $11.823 trillion

Today’s revelation that the Obama Administration is pulling missile defense out of Poland and the Czech Republic reflects a complete ignorance of (or apathy towards) the point that I made in yesterday’s post — that the Western commitment to collective security in Eastern Europe has made the continent (and the world) a safer and freer place.

It also reflects a total strategic miscalculation. The oldest con in international diplomacy is to get an adversary to give up something tangible today for an abstract promise tomorrow (see “Land for Peace”). The notion that Russia will be of more assistance in sanctioning the Iranians (and the broader idea that sanctions will have any serious effect) ignores a question that the self-proclaimed realists in the Obama Administration have somehow overlooked. Why is it in Russia’s interest to play ball when they’re currently getting major concessions from the U.S. at no cost?

Though it’s been overshadowed by the healthcare debate, the last month or so of the Obama Administration has been its absolute worst for foreign policy. We’ve agreed to one-on-one talks with North Korea (with the laughable goal of getting back to the six party talks — you know, the ones we had before we agreed to one-on-one talks?), decided to pursue prosecutions of CIA interrogators, announced that Iran likely already has the ability to build nuclear weapons, seen the White House put political pressure on General McChrystal to keep from requesting more troops in Afghanistan, and imposed a foolish tire tariff that’s threatening a trade war with China.

The President can get away with Jimmy Carteresque policies for a lot longer than Jimmy Carter ever could because Obama has considerably more political gifts. But in the end, politics (particularly the presidency) is always about performance. This will not end well for Obama or the country.

Andrew Breitbart’s BIGGOVERNMENT.COM, which first aired the undercover ACORN videos, just reported that the U.S. House of Representatives has voted to discontinue all federal funding to ACORN.  The vote was 345 to 75.

Now, where are the Governors?  So far, only Pawlenty and Schwarzenegger have done the right thing.

Kudos to James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles, who made the videos (with still more to come, apparently) and to Breitbart for demonstrating that we don’t need no stinking mainstream media no more.

We went up the mountain, actually a small hill, to see the Political Guru.   He said:  “Politicians who can’t – or won’t – see the forests for the racists had better move to the desert.”   We came down the mountain, more enlightened than most politicians.

Remember when you were told that Iran was two, five, ten years away from being able to make nukes?

Well, here’s the lead from an Associated Press story filed only an hour or so ago: 

Experts at the world’s top atomic watchdog are in agreement that Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is on the way to developing a missile system able to carry an atomic warhead, according to a secret report seen by The Associated Press.”

Remember when President Obama canceled our Eastern European-based Missile Defense Shield Program?  That would have been earlier this morning.

I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw…I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco.  This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and…I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made.” — U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, September 17, 2009 (Real Clear Politics Video)

Hey lady, has it occurred to you to curb your enthusiasm for legislation that many Americans believe curtails their freedom, is spending them and their children into bankruptcy and diminishes the national security of the country?  Oh, and by the way, should we review some of your language of the past months?  No, we think most people remember.

Professor Greg Mankiw on the CBO’s “neutral” cost estimate for the Senate’s new health care bill:

In other words, the plan would reduce the deficit if it were carried out as written, but there is good reason based on historical experience to be skeptical that it would be.

Let me try to put CBO’s point in a more familiar setting: Your friend Joe, who says he wants to lose weight, asks you for an extra slice of pie after dinner. Naturally, you are doubtful about the wisdom of the request.

“Ahem, Joe,” you whisper, “Aren’t there a lot of calories in that?”

“Yes,” he says, “but the pie is part of a larger plan. I am committed not only to eating that slice of pie but also to going to the gym every day for the next week and spending at least half a hour on the treadmill. The exercise will more than work off those extra calories.”

“But that’s what you said last week, when you asked for an extra piece of cake. And you never made it to the gym.”

“Yes, I know,” Joe replies ruefully, “but this time I really mean it….Can you please pass the pie?”

WSJ – U.S. Shelves Missile Shield
Political Wire – Presidential Jinx in VA?
Boston Globe – Senator Dukakis?
Cato Institute – More Evidence of U.S. Socialism

Washington Post – ACORN and Democrats
Rep. Latta – ObamaCare is “Big Government”
WSJ – Tea Parties Continue to Protest … Metro
Steny Hoyer – House Schedule

Federal Debt: $11.819 trillion

A reader sent me a link to this confused piece by Andrew Sullivan over at his Daily Dish blog on the Atlantic.

Sullivan — whose career in recent years has consisted of trying to find the most erudite style in which to whine — fixates on the revelation that Margaret Thatcher feared the implications of a reunified Germany and a disbanded Warsaw Pact in the wake of the Cold War’s end.

As Sullivan rightly notes, this was a rare example of the Iron Lady embracing foreign policy “realism”: the notion that states act only in a narrowly-defined sense of self-interest that is true regardless of regime type and ideology. And — though I rarely have cause to say it — Thatcher was wrong about this one. After two decades of peaceful German reunification, we have empirical proof that the catalyst for German expansionism was the nature of the regime and not the fact of German nationhood. While the former Warsaw Pact countries have been decidedly less stable, there is no question that the spread of liberal democracy throughout Eastern Europe and the Caucasus (along with the expansion of NATO) has made the world a freer, safer place in the years since the Berlin Wall came down.

What’s so peculiar about Sullivan’s take is his snide conclusion: “… what’s interesting is to see Thatcher, a neocon idol, acting in such brutally realist fashion. Toryism, even Thatcherism, is not neoconservatism, is it?” Well, in this instance, no, they’re clearly at loggerheads. But Sullivan, who seems to think he can win arguments these days simply by invoking “neoconservatism” as a pejorative, seems blithely unaware of the implications of his argument.

If neoconservatism stands athwart Sullivan’s lionized realism, does that mean he longs for a still-partitioned Germany and an expanded Soviet orbit? And if so, isn’t that a bit of a jog to go on just because you hate neoconservatives?