Freedom Line Blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

H/T: Fox News Forum

Below is one of the latest cartoons from Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez.

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

Didn’t Barack Obama promise to magically bring an era of post-partisanship and moral relativism after eight years of supposed moral chauvinism under President Bush?

Apparently, that promise was every bit as ephemeral as his promises to scour the federal budget “line-by-line,” to televise healthcare negotiations on C-Span, to close Gitmo and to abide by public campaign finance rules.  Welcome to the era of Obama as moral arbiter.  Speaking in Strongsville, Ohio to promote ObamaCare for the 6,294th time yesterday, Obama made a statement that would have triggered hysterical shrieks from leftists had President Bush said the same thing:

As long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership.  I don’t know about the politics.  But I know what’s right.”

Never mind that the American public is so broadly and steadfastly opposed to ObamaCare that he managed to get a Republican elected to the Senate…  from Massachusetts.  Never mind that despite possessing overwhelming – albeit temporary, in all likelihood – Democrat majorities in both the House and Senate, he’s had to resort to unconstitutional non-vote “vote” proposals to pass his takeover scheme.

No, Obama “knows what’s right,” so just shut up and bend over, America.

As if Congress needed any more reasons to defeat ObamaCare…

CNSNews.com reports:

Nearly one-third of all practicing physicians may leave the medical profession if President Obama signs current versions of health-care reform legislation into law, according to a survey published in the latest issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The survey, which was conducted by the Medicus Firm, a leading physician search and consulting firm based in Atlanta and Dallas, found that a majority of physicians said health-care reform would cause the quality of American medical care to ‘deteriorate’ and it could be the ‘final straw’ that sends a sizeable number of doctors out of medicine.

“More than 29 percent (29.2) percent of the nearly 1,200 doctors who responded to the survey said they would quit the profession or retire early if health reform legislation becomes law. If a public option were included in the legislation, as several liberal Senators have indicated they would like, the number would jump to 45.7 percent. “

So much for reducing the nation’s health care costs.

Fewer doctors, greater demand and inferior health care for all.  Is that the “change” you believe in?

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

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

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

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

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

The Obama Administration continues its bizarre behavior in selecting targets for its wrath.

For reasons unknown, the Administration has ostentatiously and histrionically escalated its condemnation of Israel, our most loyal Middle East ally.  Why?  Merely because Israel announced preliminary approval (the fourth stage of a seven-stage bureaucratic planning process) to build housing units within its own municipal boundaries in Jerusalem.  Meanwhile, as The Wall Street Journal reminds us, the Obama Administration continues to treat such anti-American rogues as Libya, Iran, Venezuela and Syria with kid gloves.

Then yesterday, chief White House heavy David Axelrod characterized our First Amendment free speech and petition rights as “a threat to our democracy.” The First Amendment explicitly states that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech … or of the right of the people … to petition the Government for redress of grievances.”  Despite those protections, federal laws like McCain/Feingold literally prohibited, under penalty of imprisonment, political speech within 30 and 60 days of an election.  Fortunately, the United States Supreme Court struck a blow for First Amendment rights in January by overturning some of those restrictions in Citizens United v. FEC.

The Founding Fathers would not have taken kindly to McCain/Feingold’s unconstitutional restrictions on free speech and the right to petition Congress.  To them, abridgment of free speech was a threat to democracy.  In contrast, that towering intellectual and philosophical sage David Axelrod considers free speech itself “a threat to our democracy.”

Below is one of the latest cartoons from Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez.

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

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

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

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

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

Credit erstwhile presidential campaign failure Bob Shrum for extolling some counter-intuitive thinking in his column today.  In it, he praises President Obama for outthinking everyone inside and outside the Beltway on the economy, health care, and the Machiavellian intrigue surrounding his inner circle.

To pluck but one morsel from his witch’s brew of analysis, Shrum claims that Obama has been the tortoise to the media’s hare – patiently biding his time until history was ripe for a final push towards victory:

Obama’s strategy, partly shaped by events, also reflects the combination of qualities that brought him to the Oval Office—and makes it more than likely that he will reach the goal that has eluded the nation since Theodore Roosevelt first proposed national health care in 1912. Obama has been “a steel fist in a velvet glove”—Carl Standburg’s description of Lincoln. The president who doesn’t panic, didn’t.

There we have it.  Obama isn’t aloof, or out of his depth.  Instead, he’s a one-gloved Lincoln.  Maybe Bob can get an early start on running Obama’s reelection campaign into the ground.  Shrum in 2012!

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.

Google stands as one of the leading cheerleaders of so-called “Net Neutrality,” that benign-sounding movement to expand government’s regulatory reach over the Internet.

“Net Neutrality” is a bureaucratic “solution” in search of a non-existent Internet problem, and it would stifle incentives for Internet service providers to innovate and expand networks.  Currently, Internet service providers invest $60 billion or more annually toward network buildout and advancement, which is critical in this age of ever-expanding web traffic.  Without that enormous service network investment and expansion, Internet bottlenecks will increase and technological evolution will slow.

But why should Google or other Net regulation proponents worry about its negative impact on consumers, Internet service providers and network expansion?  It’s much easier to remain a free rider on networks that other people have built, and sanctimoniously advocate federal regulations for others.

But a funny thing happened to Google when it attempted to test the waters itself in providing high-speed Internet service.  In a piece this week entitled “Tough Road for Google’s Network,” The Wall Street Journal reports how Google quickly discovered that building Internet service infrastructure isn’t quite as easy as it looks.  Last month, Google announced that it would build high-speed Internet connections for up to 500,000 people in America.  Just one month later, however, Google realizes that “building such a network is a giant construction problem, with the cost potentially surpassing $1 billion.”

According to Jim Baller, an attorney providing consulting services to Google, the experience has been sobering:

Beyond the cost issues and economic challenges in terms of what it takes to develop the infrastructure, to me one of the most significant barriers is that we don’t have a vision of what [ultra-high-speed Internet connections] will enable us to do.”

A Google spokesperson added:

We know that other companies have been in this business a long time.  We’re not pretending to have all the answers.”

Actually, Google did pretend to “have the answers” insofar as it advocated “Net Neutrality” regulations that would do to the Internet what the “Fairness Doctrine” would do to free speech.  Google quickly discovered how difficult life as an Internet service provider can be, and it needs to realize that “Net Neutrality” would only make it tougher.

Hopefully, Google’s experience will encourage it to reconsider its destructive position on “Net Neutrality.”  American consumers, tech sector employers and even Google itself will be better off for it.

The first time I read Frederic Bastiat’s The Law (pdf), I thought the Frenchman was a bit over the top when he described taxation as legalized plunder.  After all, the only things certain in life are death and taxes, right?  Then again, at the time I was in school and not responsible for my income.  Drawing a paycheck changes a man’s perspective.  So too will being denied a tax refund from a government that plunder’s a paycheck.

My mind turned to Bastiat’s classic when I read USA Today’s report that several states are considering delaying tax refunds to citizens who are owed the money because the government just can’t spare the coins.  Apparently, no one asked if taxpayers were in better shape than their governments.  Unlike laws allowing a state to tax income, in most cases there is no legal ability for states to withhold money to which they are not entitled.  They just do it.  Perhaps the Tea Party movement will adopt the slogan “Victims of Lawful Plunder” at an upcoming rally.  It sure would help frame the issue.

In these week’s Freedom Minute, CFIF’s Renee Giachino and Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) explain why ObamaCare is an assault on individual freedom.

This week’s edition of the Liberty Update, CFIF’s weekly e-newsletter, is out.  For those readers who don’t receive it in their e-mail inboxes or if you haven’t had a chance to read it yet, below is a summary of its contents:

Ellis:  SEIU’s Andy Stern: A Budget Vulture Feasting on the Public’s Nest Eggs
Lee:  President Bush Inherited His Share of “Messes,” Too
CFIF Staff:  ObamaCare: The Public Will Be Damned Only if We Allow it
Senik:  Obama’s 10 Biggest Foreign Policy Blunders

Freedom Minute Video:  Give Me Liberty (Not ObamaCare)
Podcast:  Obama’s Latest Healthcare Proposal Another Broken Promise for Change
Jester’s Courtroom:  Deal Ends 13-Year Suit Lawsuit

Editorial Cartoons:  Latest Cartoons of Michael Ramirez
Quiz:  Question of the Week
Notable Quotes:  Quotes of the Week

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

How much longer will Obama’s escalating deficits still be blamed on Bush?

This week, the Treasury Department reported a $221 billion monthly deficit for February 2010, the largest ever.  This compares to a $194 billion deficit for February 2009, and the year-to-date 2010 deficit has now reached $652 billion, also an all-time high.  Consequently, the projected 2010 annual deficit now appears likely to exceed last year’s $1.4 trillion dollar record.

Obama continues to blame his budgetary irresponsibility on Bush, but at least when Bush was President we counted the deficit in billions, not trillions.  Further, the Treasury Department data points to the true culprit:  spending for February 2010 increased some 17% over February 2009 spending, to $328 billion.  That’s certainly not Bush’s spending.

To paraphrase the increasingly-popular bumper sticker, please don’t tell Obama what comes after “trillion.”

Below is one of the latest cartoons from Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez.

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