For all who are contemplating not answering, or alternatively providing “creative” answers, to Census questions, former Justice Department lawyer Hans A. von Spakovsky provides a words-to-the-wise basic primer on the legal ramifications of those actions.
Read his brief National Review Online analysis here.
Perhaps the most delicious recent indictment of the arrogance and hypocrisy of “Climate Change Cassandras” comes courtesy of Mary Kissel’s commentary in today’s Wall Street Journal regarding Indian Environment and Forests Minister Jairam Ramesh.
What seems to rankle Mr. Ramesh the most about these kinds of demands is the idea that India should sign themselves on to the rich world’s environmental fads at the expense of its own poor people. Many Indians have long understood that the kind of climate interventions pushed by the likes of Mr. Gore – binding emissions targets, carbon taxes, cap-and-trade schemes and so on – all amount to giving up on cheap energy sources in exchange for sharply higher costs and economically unproven technologies. In India, that means consigning legions of the poor, many of whom don’t even yet have electricity or gas, to perpetual life in the slums.
It’s easy for Al Gore or Leo DiCaprio to feel as though they’re “sacrificing” to save Mother Earth by separating glass from plastic in kitchens larger than most Indians’ entire houses. It’s also easy for such sanctimonious activists to command others to primitive lifestyles while they hypocritically consume tons of jet fuel gallivanting to the latest film festival.
But if such airheaded celebrities can’t even reduce their carbon footprints to the size of the average American’s, how can they in good conscience expect developing populations to consign themselves to poverty on behalf of “the rich world’s environmental fads?”
Regarding all the back room deals and horse trading taking place on ObamaCare, we thought the American people had seen it all. Apparently not.
President Obama, in his effort to sway key Members of Congress to vote “yes” on reform, invited Rep. Bart Stupak to the Russian opera last week. As reported by John McCormack of the Weekly Standard:
Asked if he was a big fan of the opera, Stupak, who represents a district encompassing the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, laughed and said: ‘No, I’m not a fan of opera, especially not Russian opera because I wouldn’t understand a thing.’ …
“‘The point I was trying to make’ by relaying the opera story, Stupak said, ‘is that the White House is pulling out all of the stops trying to get members to commit to voting for health care.’”
Gee. It took approximately $300 million to buy off Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA). Hundreds of millions more to bribe Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Bill Nelson (D-FL). All they could offer Stupak, who assures everyone that he has 12 solid pro-life House Democrats who voted “yes” in November but who are now committed to voting “no,” was a ticket to the Russian opera?
Ironically, what the president refuses to realize is that we are all waiting for the fat lady to sing.
Say what you will about the 43rd president’s public speaking skills, machismo, or ideology, but what George W. Bush lacked in “nuance” and “polish” he compensated for richly with a statesman’s adherence to protocol. Even though the Supreme Court repeatedly invalidated carefully crafted terrorism legislation that enjoyed broad majorities in Congress, Bush never took the low and easy road of public scolding. Nor did he allow his subordinates.
Not so with his “post-partisan” successor. In a sophomoric move that may permanently affect the public relationship between the president and members of the Supreme Court, President Barack Obama castigated a ruling extending free speech rights to associations like labor unions and corporations. Not only did Associate Justice Samuel Alito react at the time, now Chief Justice John Roberts is speculating that perhaps justices shouldn’t attend future joint sessions of Congress. If that happens, it will be one more example of Obama vulgarizing our politics. (Another is his refusal to call members of Congress by their title of Representative or Senator knowing that they will still honor the tradition of calling him “Mr. President.”)
Maybe Bush 43 played up everyman pastimes like cutting mesquite trees and exercising too much for some people’s tastes. But when you compare his quiet class both during and after his presidency to the current occupant’s constant whining and unceremonious behavior, it’s easy to see which person is a fully formed man.
Reports are surfacing that Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Chairwoman of the House Rules Committee is preparing a rule to accompany the Senate’s version of health care “reform” when it comes to the House for approval. Already, Democratic leaders are planning to use the budget reconciliation process to bypass a Republican filibuster threat. But first the House must pass the Senate’s bill before reconciliation can be used. Enter the “Slaughter Solution.”
Since Speaker Pelosi doesn’t yet have the votes to pass the Senate plan, Slaughter would present a rule “deeming” the bill passed so long as a majority of House members vote for the rule. Got that? The geniuses on Capitol Hill are telling themselves that members up for reelection can convince voters that voting for the rule is different than voting for the bill itself, even though voting for the rule passes the bill.
No wonder D.C. is so screwed up. If the Democratic leadership manages to nationalize one-sixth of the economy by unconstitutionally refusing to have the same bill pass both chambers before sending it to the president, then there will be hell to pay in November.
Another consequence will be an unprecedented opening for a presidential candidate to run as the wise old man of Washington in 2012. In fact, one of his campaign commercials could feature the School House Rocks version of “How a Bill Becomes a Law.” Along with the Tea Party movement, millions more Americans would no doubt appreciate a major politician who actually reads and understands the constitutional procedure for making binding federal law. Heaven knows, the Democrats in Congress and the White House certainly don’t.
One thing about Lyndon Johnson – as Senate Majority Leader and as President. If he made a deal, he was more than likely to honor it.
Not this new crowd. President Obama wasn’t in the Senate long enough to make any deals, and Harry Reid has made some of the worst, most odorous in recorded history.
Now, it seems, in his desperation to pass ObamaCare (which only passed the Senate based on the deals Reid made the first time through), President Obama wants to get rid of some of the smelliest, according to politico.com.
Imagine that you are Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson or Florida Senator Bill Nelson.
Old Ben cut the “Cornhuster Kickback” for his “yes” vote, only to pretty much guarantee the loss of his political future with Nebraska voters, who don’t like the bill and don’t like things done that way. Will he switch to “no” in an effort to at least salvage his dignity?
Old Bill cut “Gator-aid,” which would protect some Florida seniors from having their Medicare Advantage ripped away. That one never got the attention it should have, because it was wrapped in some complicated, deceptive language meant to hide the fact that it was only going to really apply in three heavily Democratic Florida counties that are the mainstay of Old Bill’s votes and fund raising. What’s he going to do when those voters find that he can’t keep the deal?
Strangely, the mother of all the deals, Mary Landrieu’s upwards-of-$300 million “Lousiana Purchase” still seems safe, under the rubric that “it would apply to any state in which all the counties have been declared a disaster zone.” Even the genius of Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour is unlikely to pry any loose change out of that bayou babe.
So what does Landrieu have that no one else does?
Someone should ask the President. Someone should also ask him what new deals he’s going to cut to get through the next round of votes, because he doesn’t have the votes without them, and, as they say on the Hill, “the candy store is open.”
Somewhere up there, Lyndon is laughing at the amateurs.
While most Americans are distracted by the major statist initiatives of the Obama administration, there seem to be a school of more insidious ones swimming dangerously close to your bass bait.
Ever hear of “marine spatial planning?” Well, we hadn’t either, until ESPNOutdoors.com brought the concept to our attention. It seems there is this thing called the “Ocean Policy Task Force.” That esteemed body wants to “zone” fishing waters. Fears that this will lead to fishing bans may be premature, but the anti-fishing activism of environmental groups, and their influence, coupled with a shutdown of public input on the issue have recreational anglers groups on edge.
Here’s Chris Horton, national conservation director for BASS: “With what’s being created, the same principles could apply inland as apply to the oceans. Under the guise of ‘marine spatial planning’ entire watersheds could be shut down, even 2,000 miles up a river drainage from the ocean. Every angler needs to be aware because if it’s not happening in your backyard today or tomorrow, it will be eventually.”
Read the entire ESPN article here.
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.
As desperation to pass ObamaCare grows, so do the number of peripheral schemes.
Today’s, according to the AP, is an Obama plan to hire bounty hunters, “in this case…private auditors armed with sophisticated computer programs to scan Medicare and Medicaid billing data for patterns of bogus claims. The auditors would get to keep part of any funds they recover. The White House said a Medicare pilot program recouped $900 million for taxpayers from 2005-2008.”
Well, we have questions: Wasn’t 2005-2008 during the Bush administration? Where’s Obama’s union scam for this one? Can you picture “Dog” wearing a green eye shade running his “sophisticated computer program?”
And he didn’t do much better with viewers either. After building up the drama for former Congressman Eric Massa’s (D-NY) appearance on his television show, Glenn Beck ended his program with an apology to those who watched ‘til the bitter end. “This (information shared by Massa) didn’t affect you (the American people).”
Blame Massa for blowing a golden opportunity to give dates, times, and names of specific instances where politicos crossed the line into illegal or unethical behavior. Instead, he gave bland jeremiads about the corrupting influence of money in politics, and flipped the narrative on who’s responsible for him stepping down. Initially, it was the White House and Democratic House Leadership who “forced” his resignation. Now, he “owns his mistakes” and accepts full responsibility for his resignation. Huh? The only reason this is a story is because people were led to believe a member of Congress was ousted to ease passage of health care “reform.” Now, it is just a story of a seemingly decent guy unable to cope with the insane demands of national politics.
But blame Beck too for not getting at least one specific instance of a date, time, and name before going on the air to ensure the hour wasn’t a waste. He won’t forget that lesson next time. For now, it looks like the Obama Administration – and Rahm Emanuel in particular – dodged a potentially catastrophic revelation about the practice of Big Boy politics. Like the Rod Blagojevich smoking gun that never fired, Eric Massa had his chance to establish his credibility with specifics. His failure to do so means that his critics will be the ones taking up the lion’s share of his fifteen minutes in the spotlight. Too bad.
Maybe it is 100 years of Progressive institution building that obscures the lessons of history, but the writers of Slate are kidding themselves if they think that just because there are no formal legal structures to handle California and Greece’s looming bankruptcies, then it must also be true that they cannot declare bankruptcy. That view betrays the positivist’s creed that if a problem isn’t addressed in law, then it cannot be resolved by government. More likely, private creditors will get soaked while the larger governments negotiate a separate peace.
History teaches that the inability or refusal to pay sovereign debt (whether loans or tribute) typically leads to the expansion of government power. Since both California and Greece are de facto sub-agencies of the US and EU, respectively, here’s betting that on net, the federal governments of the United States and European Union will emerge with even more power than before.
The Hill newspaper recently surveyed key House Democrats on where they stand on ObamaCare.
Twelve representatives who voted yes on the House-passed health care bill in November are “Undecided.” Among others who voted yes in November, Rep. Michael Arcuri (NY) is “Leaning No” and Representatives Russ Carnahan (MO) and Jim Oberstar (MN) are “Leaning Yes.” Eleven House Members who voted for the Stupak Amendment in November are in the “Firm No” category.
View the full list here.
Steven F. Hayward’s Weekly Standard Cover Story, “In Denial, the meltdown of the climate campaign,” is a must read for all who have been dismissed as flat earthers (or worse) for skepticism over global warming alarmism.
The accompanying Al Gore caricature is, as they say, “priceless.”
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.
Presumptive British Tory Prime Minister, David Cameron and French “conservative” President Nicholas Sarkozy are scheduled to meet when the latter comes to London. Both are cut from the John McCain (R-AZ) “progressive” cloth when it comes to climate change, taxes, and civil liberties. If the GOP wants to make good on its promising electoral campaigns this year, it should steer clear of Cameron and Sarkozy versions of conservatives and go for the real thing: substantive limits on spending and taxing, coupled with the comprehensive deregulation of government’s intrusion into civil society. Like Ronald Reagan once said, we need bold colors, not pale pastels.
Anyone watching the British Parliament’s “Question Time” over the years knows that the one issue that will be discussed no matter which party is in power: the National Health Service. The NHS is adept at socializing medicine but precious little else. To hear both Tories and Labour MPs tell it, the service is chronically underfunded, and hopelessly incapable of reducing waiting times for patients to see doctors. It is precisely the kind of rationed health care that American conservatives are warning will be inflicted on United States citizens if Obamacare is passed into law.
But battling Leviathan isn’t the only consequence of nationalizing the health industry. As the prominence of NHS during “Question Time” shows, nationalization moves a nation’s political center irrevocably to the Left. Why? Because putting everyone involved with medicine on a government payroll eliminates private choices for almost all voters, and with it, the ability of markets to provide competition and choices. Thus, like roads, utilities, and garbage collection, delays in service and controlling costs become problems for politicians – not entrepreneurs – to fix. And so, even politicians who would otherwise oppose government control are left with arguing how to manage a failed system.
As Mark Steyn notes:
I’ve been saying in this space for two years that the governmentalization of health care is the fastest way to a permanent left-of-center political culture. It redefines the relationship between the citizen and the state in fundamental ways that make limited government all but impossible. In most of the rest of the Western world, there are still nominally “conservative” parties, and they even win elections occasionally, but not to any great effect (let’s not forget that Jacques Chirac was, in French terms, a “conservative”). The result is a kind of two-party one-party state: Right-of-center parties will once in a while be in office, but never in power, merely presiding over vast left-wing bureaucracies that cruise on regardless.
This is why President Obama can push repeatedly for Democratic members of Congress to fall on their swords for a dramatically unpopular health care “reform” bill – he knows the power shift in American politics will benefit his ideology in the long run, even if it weakens his party in the short term.
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:
Lee: Al Gore Emerges from Hiding, Calls Us a “Criminal Generation”
Senik: The Limited Government Senate Class of 2010?
CFIF Staff: The Democrats’ Charles Rangel Problem
Freedom Minute Video: Obama Takes Charge … of Everything
Podcast: The Future of the Second Amendment
Jester’s Courtroom: OMG: Burger King’s Whopper of a 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.
John McCormack of The Weekly Standard reported yesterday:
Tonight, Barack Obama will host ten House Democrats who voted against the health care bill in November at the White House; he’s obviously trying to persuade them to switch their votes to yes. One of the ten is Jim Matheson of Utah. The White House just sent out a press release announcing that today President Obama nominated Matheson’s brother Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.”
First it was the “Louisiana Purchase.” Then, the “Cornhusker Kickback.” Is the president now trading federal judgeship’s for health care votes? Read McCormack’s entire piece, then you decide.
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.
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?
 CFIF Freedom Line Blog RSS Feed CFIF on X CFIF on YouTube |
