Freedom Line Blog

It occurred to us yesterday that we should request the names and affiliations of the 150 doctors in white coats (some hastily provided by the White House costume department) who appeared at President Obama’s latest ObamaCare infomercial.

Then, as if by providence, The New York Times provided us with one sentence that told us all we really need to know about these people who are going to fan out across the countryside to sell, sell, sell: 

Many are members of Doctors for America, a new grass-roots organization that has advocated a health care overhaul and is an outgrowth of Doctors for Obama, which worked to help elect the president.”

Since the President said nothing new yesterday, we must assume that they’re going to sell the same old “hope and change” they were peddling before the election.  That isn’t medicine, and it surely isn’t how to pay for it.

Rep. Steny Hoyer – House Schedule
WSJ – FCC Chairman to Explain Internet Policy
Washington Post – A Spark in Republican Recruiting
WSJ – Apple Leaves Chamber of Commerce

Political Wire – Corzine Leads in New Jersey
NY Times – Coverage v. Cost on Health Care
The Hill – House Republicans Call to Investigate ACORN
Politico – Newt Thinks Pawlenty Should Run

Federal Debt: $11.822 trillion

We at CFIF have noted before that death penalty opponents are unlikely to stop at the death penalty if their misplaced abolition movement succeeded.  Rather, we have long predicted that they would immediately move toward abolishing life imprisonment, using the same arguments that they use against the death penalty now.

Well, we didn’t have to wait long.  In two cases to be heard this term, the Supreme Court will determine whether life imprisonment for convicts under the age of 18 constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.

In one case, Joe Sullivan was sentenced to life in prison in 1989 after committing 17 prior offenses that included assault, burglary and even animal cruelty, even though he was only 13 at the time.  In the second case, 16-year-old Terrance Graham was sentenced to life in prison for armed robbery after a similarly extensive criminal record.  People of reasonable minds can disagree on whether they would have imposed the penalty of life imprisonment for someone of that age, but that isn’t the question.  Rather, the question is whether judges should be prohibited in every case from imposing a penalty that can protect society against the criminal menace presented by some incorrigible criminals.

If soft-on-crime activists succeed, what is next?

Medicare, the Patron Saint of all that is right with government health care, generally has a positive image.  Despite its massive pending fiscal fallout looming in 2017, seniors are mostly satisfied with the program.  However, tales of Medicare’s greatness are vastly exaggerated.

Michael Moore, for example, made millions (thanks capitalism!) depicting insurance companies as villains denying coverage to the poor and sick.  Government health care, we are told, cares only about compassion and serving those loyal taxpayers who have forked over 12.4% of their salary during their lives to a bankrupt federal program.

Well, according to the American Medical Association (p.2), Medicare actually has the highest percentage of claims denied.  Yes, even the benevolent government-run system that so many liberals in Congress seek to emulate loves denying coverage to taxpayers and patients.

Per the AMA 2008 Nationl Health Insurer Report Card:  Medicare denied 6.85% of claims, compared to a 2.9% denial rate by Humana and a 2.68% denial rate by United Health Care.

The next time you hear someone proclaim the virtues of a public option, remind them that if Medicare is any example, our health care system is in for even more trouble.

It’s Monday.  And, why not start the week off with another, check that, several new charges and allegations of fraud and corruption against everyone’s favorite community organizing group, ACORN.

For starters, Breitbart has this video of a Fox News interview with Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller (a Democrat), whose office uncovered a paper trail implicating ACORN, the organization, of voter fraud.   This is significant as most of the ACORN voter fraud investigations and prosecutions to date have focused solely on the group’s employees.  

Specifically, Ross’ office found evidence that ACORN illegally used prisoners to canvass for voters during the 2008 presidential election, among other things.  Read more on the story here.

Then yesterday, The Washington Examiner ran an editorial in which it highlights more ACORN shenanigans from Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas. 

In Louisiana, an investigation by the Pelican Institute revealed that a local ACORN Housing Corp. office received contracts worth $625,000, paid for by HUD Community Development Block Grants, to repair and develop low-income housing in New Orleans.   There’s only one problem:  According to the Examiner, the Pelican Institute “found that no work was actually performed to fulfill the contracts” and “the office address listed on the contracts for ACORN turned out to be a vacant lot.”

In Oklahoma City, documents from a vacant ACORN office included a memo detailing the organizations “five-year plan” to elect progressive legislators.  Those documents, many of which are now in the possession of OklahomaWatchdog.org, also revealed information about an ACORN project in Houston for “hiring Outreach Workers to remind people to get out and vote for Barack Obama in the upcoming election.”   As the Examiner noted:

As a tax-exempt nonprofit, ACORN is barred from participating in partisan election activities, and its national spokesmen have insisted throughout the 2008 presidential race that their organization was not working to elect Obama.”

With the mountain of evidence suggesting widespread fraud and other illegal activities growing by the day, to steal from the title of the Examiner editorial, “Now will Congress investigate ACORN?”

Last week, CFIF ran a commentary piece discussing the budget-busting effects that an expansion of Medicaid, as called for in the health care reform bills making their way through Congress, will have on state budgets.

With many state budgets deep in the red and governors scrambling to find more places to cut due to the economic downturn, we warned:

The principal (but far from only) problem for the states [with health care reform] is forced expansion of Medicaid, a shared expense with the federal government, but already coming apart at the seams in many states, which must, on average, pay about 43 percent of Medicaid costs.”

Shailagh Murray of The Washington Post has a piece today with the sub-title “Governors Fear For Their Budgets” that addresses the issue, and which reads in part:

Whether Medicaid can absorb a huge influx of beneficiaries is a matter of grave concern to many governors, who have cut low-income health benefits — along with school funding, prison construction, state jobs and just about everything else — to cope with the most severe economic downturn in decades.”

The issue is getting some attention in Congress, particularly by Majority Leader Harry Reid who cut a sweetheart deal with Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus to, as Murray notes, “ensure that the federal government would pay the full cost of expanding Medicaid in Reid’s state, Nevada.” 

Some governors, notably Rick Perry (R-TX), Phil Bredesen (D-TN) and Mitch Daniels (R-IN), are already speaking out on this issue.  Is yours?

Over the weekend, I had the misfortune of shopping in the same grocery store with the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus.  Senator Baucus is currently front-and-center in the debate over health care reform, and the bill that passes through his committee could be the final version that the President signs.

This was regrettably my second encounter with the senior Senator from Montana.  The first was on a flight out of Minneapolis.  The Senator, not surprisingly, was seated in first class.

During the Senator’s shopping experience I passed him in the wine section.  Chairman Baucus, like many shoppers, was in the French wine section of the store.  As capitalists, we can all appreciate the value of choice.  Senator Baucus believes that French wine is the best value for the price and no one should stop him from making that choice.  “Buy American” means little to Senator Baucus, even though his voting record might indicate otherwise.

For example, even though the Senator prefers choice in his wine purchasing, last week he denied Senator Ron Wyden’s health care free choice amendment from coming up for a vote in committee.  Senator Wyden’s amendment would have allowed consumers to shop across state lines for cheaper insurance.  For Senator Baucus, “choice for wine: yes; choice for health care: no, unless you’re paying me to vote otherwise.”

In addition, although Senator Baucus prefers foreign wine, he evidently doesn’t like foreign sugar.  In 2005, Senator Baucus voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).  CAFTA would have normalized trade relations with the Dominican Republic and other Central American countries, driving down prices for American consumers.  Yet, Senator Baucus chose to vote with the sugar industry in his home state of Montana (sugar beets) and deny consumers a chance to purchase lower-priced foreign imports.

So, when it comes to choice and competition, Senator Baucus enjoys the freedom of the market in his personal life, but he’ll do his best in Congress to ensure that you don’t have it in your life.  That’s hypocrisy, pure and simple.

Political Wire – Moderate Dems Fall in Line
Cato Institute – How Government Really Works
Club for Growth – A New “Public Option”
WSJ – Biden Continues to Tout Stimulus

The Hill – Reid, Baucus Split Over Public Option
Politico – Skepticism over Second/Third Stimulus
Washington Post – Is Conservatism Brain-Dead?
New York Times – Supreme Court to Hear Business Regulation Cases

Federal Debt: $11.819 trillion

There’s a fair bit of schadenfreude going around the conservative blogosphere over the International Olympic Committee’s decision to deny the 2016 summer games to Chicago despite a personal trip by President Obama and the First Lady to Copenhagen to lobby for the Windy City’s cause.

I’m not quite as triumphant as many on the right. The reality is that an American city still missed out on the games. That in and of itself shouldn’t be a cause of celebration for anyone who wants to see their country honored.

That being said, the moment is an instructive metaphor for the Administration’s broader foreign policy. As late as last night, the speculation was that there was no way the First Family would make the trip without knowing for certain that Chicago would emerge the victor. Now we know that obviously wasn’t true.

So what we have is proof that the Administration believed that the force of Obama’s personality alone would be enough to woo the IOC members. In light of the outcome, I wonder how anyone can still take seriously the notion that the same strategy will somehow work in situations where there are legitimate national security interests at stake.

President Obama has frequently cited the Mayo Clinic as an example of excellent health care at affordable prices.  In July, Mayo criticized part of House “health care reform” plans.  Now, Mayo’s CEO, Dr. Denis A. Cortese, tells The New York Times that “he is disgusted with the way Washington is approaching an overhaul of the nation’s health care system.”

In an interview with Reed Abelson, Cortese said, “Look at all the time we’re wasting.  It’s pretty heartbreaking to watch.”

Abelson: 

Citing Medicare’s track record, Dr. Cortese said he would urge Congress to create a national package of health insurance options modeled after the Federal Employees Health Benefits plan.

“That program allows civil servants to choose from a wide range of insurance offerings, with dozens of health insurers participating.  If people want more generous coverage, they have to pay more.  The plans are vetted by the government, which also restricts the amount of profit the insurers can make on the basic policies.”

To read the brief article online, which is slightly different from the print version, go here.

CFIF has commented extensively on the imprudent push by Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) Chairman Julius Genachowski and others in the Obama Administration to impose “Net Neutrality” regulations on Internet network providers.  We’ve discussed how Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem that will stifle private investment in high speed networks and work counter to the President’s goal of universal broadband access.

But in addition to the policy arguments against Net Neutrality, the question remains whether the FCC even possesses the statutory authority to impose such regulations without Congress’ consent.

Barbara Esbin, Senior Fellow & Director of the Center for Communications and Competition Policy at The Progress & Freedom Foundation, analyzes that question in a recent paper titled, “The Audacity to Hope Regulatory Restraint Will Prevail.”  Her conclusion: “[N]o, it does not, at least not for the reasons the agency has advanced to date.”

Esbin writes:

The question of regulatory jurisdiction is not so directly implicated when the FCC propounds broad, but unenforceable, policy principles, as it did with its 2005 Internet Policy Statement. But legally binding ‘rules of the road,’ such as those envisioned by the agency’s Chairman, must rest on a convincing factual predicate and must come within the scope of the regulatory powers delegated to the FCC by Congress. And it is the latter that is called into question by the FCC’s reliance on the doctrine of ‘ancillary jurisdiction’ in its Comcast P2P Order, currently on review before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, a court not especially hospitable to such claims. If the FCC’s jurisdictional theory falls before the D.C. Circuit, the most it may be able to achieve with its new rulemaking is an expanded set of policy principles. Well, one can hope.

Read the full paper here (.pdf).

From Gerald P. O’Driscoll at the Cato Institute:

The loss of 263,000 nonfarm jobs is another depressing economic statistic reinforcing the prospects of a jobless and joyless economic recovery. Job losses were widespread, but concentrated in construction, manufacturing, retail trade and government. Employers want to fire, not hire.  The reasons for this lie in Washington, where lawmakers are busy piling on spending, taxes, and mandates.  From an employer’s perspective, each new hire is a liability.  The Obama administration’s economic recovery plan, which was centered on job creation, is now a manifest failure. The stimulus brew it concocted has proven to be an economic depressant.”

This week’s installment of the Liberty Update, CFIF’s weekly e-newsletter, is out.  For those readers who haven’t had a chance to read it, below is a summary of its contents:

Senik:  Iran, Infelicitously
Lee:  Barack Obama – the Rooster Who Claimed Credit for the Economic Sunrise
CFIF Staff Commentary:  It’s 10 p.m. Do You Know Where Your Governor Is?
Batkins:  Gun Rights on Trial

Freedom Minute Video:  The Staying Alive Tax
Podcast:  The Real Threat of Iran’s Nuclear and Ballistic Missile Activity– Interview with The Heritage Foundation’s Ted Bromund

Jester’s Courtroom:  “Hot Dogs,” Get Your Lawsuit
Editorial Cartoons:  Latest Cartoons of Michael Ramirez
Notable Quotes:  Quotes of the Week 

If you are not already signed up to receive CFIF’s Liberty Update by e-mail, sign up here.

The New York Times reports:

COPENHAGEN — The International Olympic Committee delivered a stunning blow to Chicago’s bid for the 2016 Olympics, knocking it out of the voting in the first round Friday, leaving Rio de Janeiro and Madrid waiting for the announcement which city will host the Games. Tokyo was eliminated in the second round.

I.O.C. president Jacques Rogge made the announcement as the first round concluded, a surprisingly early exit, especially because of President Barack Obama’s whirlwind trip to boost the bid of his adopted city. Mr. Obama was the first American president to make an in-person appeal for a bid city and first lady Michelle Obama had also come earlier this week to lobby I.O.C. members for votes. Chicago’s bid leaders had worked for nearly four years and spent close to $50 million to bring the Olympics to the United States for the first time in 20 years. Chicago had been considered among Olympic insiders as a favorite to win the Games, along with Rio.

Meanwhile, U.S. troops in Afghanistan are still waiting on Obama to make a decision on whether he will send reinforcements, Iran has nuclear weapons, U.S. unemployment hit 9.8% today, the stimulus isn’t working, deficit spending is through the roof, your neighbor just lost his job… do we really need to keep going?

This video on school choice is courtesy of ReasonTV.

Political Wire – Sen. Harkin Says No Republicans at the Table
Rep. Smith – Trial Bar v. Tort Reform
Politico – Corzine and Christie Trade Shots
National Review – Reid’s Tactical Error

LA Times – Bernanke Heads to the Hill
The Hill – Finance Committee to Vote Next Week
Washington Post – Unemployment Rate Climbs to 9.8%
NY Times – Michael Moore Should Change his Script

Federal Debt: $11.807 trillion

It did not come to our attention until yesterday that it is compulsory for every writer and commentator in America – regardless of more pressing concerns such as the bankruptcy or national security of said country – to publicly express an opinion on Roman Polanski, non-compliance punishable by loss of writing or commentating license, or both.

But what if one’s opinion is unprintable, and one’s solution, involving 13 mastiffs, is unacceptable to contemporary society?

Such a one is left with but a single line:  “Forget it, Jake.  It’s Chinatown.”

Esquire carries a piece by nationally-recognized strategist Thomas P.M. Barnett entitled “10 Reasons Why Sanctions on Iran Won’t Work”.  After my column earlier this week, it probably goes without saying that I agree with Barnett’s conclusion.

On top of being morally problematic (almost always doing more damage to a nation’s population as a whole than to the government), sanctions rarely achieve anything. The one exception I can think of in recent history was South Africa under apartheid, but that was essentially a western democracy with some illiberal policies — an atmosphere that is going to be more sensitive to economic downturns. Countries like North Korea and Iran don’t have the sense of economic entitlement that makes sanctions so painful in the West, and their undemocratic governments mean that there are only meaningful consequences to the government if the population is roused to revolt.

That being said, however, Barnett misses some key points. He compares Iran to 1970s China and notes that Obama doesn’t have Nixon’s ability to forge a diplomatic breakthrough (Michael Tomasky also entertains this notion in the UK Guardian today). But China was (and is) a conventional great power playing realpolitik games. Their interest was primarily strengthening their place in the international balance of power. But as I mentioned in my piece earlier this week, you can’t understand the regime in Iran without understanding their ideological motivations — something Barnett and Tomasky don’t factor in. That makes the regime in Tehran both more dangerous and less likely to soften than Mao’s China was.

Below is the latest from Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Michael Ramirez.

View more of Ramirez’s cartoons on CFIF’s website.