Freedom Line Blog

Jonah Goldberg has a great op-ed today about the populist mood currently gripping the nation’s electorate. The money passage:

The tea-party protesters are in large part the heirs of Perotism, and they are being subjected to the same insults. Liberal commentators are deaf to the tea partiers’ disdain for both political parties, preferring to cast the protesters as a deranged band of birthers and racists or hired guns of a Republican “AstroTurf” campaign.

If the media had any interest in listening to the Tea Party crowd rather than just mocking them, this would be obvious. Look at the New Jersey governor’s race and the special election for the House seat in New York’s 23rd district and you’ll see that Republicans are underperforming not because of Democrats but because of perceptions that they’re insufficiently conservative (NY-23) or insufficiently reformist (New Jersey). The new zeitgeist is libertarian, populist, and reform-minded. It’s also extremely angry (there’s a reason that the Boston Tea Party is the symbol of choice).

Republicans (many of whom deeply disappointed the tea party crowd during the Bush years) can’t win back this disaffected crowd just by being the second-ugliest girl in the room. Until there’s a party that’s legitimately committed to smaller government and more freedom, the ranks of unaffiliated and irascible voters will only swell.

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, penned a great op-ed in Roll Call this week about the climate change legislation (aka Cap-and-Trade) being pushed by the Obama White House and the majority leadership in Congress.

No matter how many times Congress debates it, and no matter how environmentalists couch it, cap-and-trade will do virtually nothing to stop global warming, and cap-and-trade, as Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) said, ‘is a tax, and a great big one.’ These are the fundamentals in the cap-and-trade debate…

We need to remind the American public, for example, that the 1,400-page Waxman-Markey monstrosity is a monument to big government that will make food, gasoline and electricity more expensive, increase mandates on small businesses, and increase the size and reach of the federal bureaucracy — all while doing nothing to affect climate change.

The Kerry-Boxer legislation introduced Sept. 30 is, in many ways, worse than the Waxman-Markey bill. This reflects the attitude of one of the bill’s sponsors, who said recently that, because of the recession, businesses should be expected to make even more expensive emissions reductions. While it’s never a good time to pass a national energy tax, one would have thought that imposing such a tax during a recession is especially bad.”

Read the full column here.

P.T. Barnum, the American businessman, politician and showman remembered most for his celebrated hoaxes, is widely credited with coining the phrase, “There’s a sucker born every minute.”  Judging by the fortune he was able to acquire on his traveling band of circus freaks, one would be hard-pressed to argue Barnum’s point.  Indeed today, nearly 150 years later, the so-called leaders of the current Congress are seemingly taking Barnum’s words to heart.

“Medicare for Everyone” — That’s the headline branded above the fold today on the front page of the Capitol Hill newspaper The Hill.  The accompanying story leads with:

Say hello to ‘Medicare Part E’ — as in, ‘Medicare for Everyone.’

“House Democrats are looking at re-branding the public health insurance option as Medicare, an established government healthcare program that is better known than the public option.

“The strategy could benefit Democrats struggling to bridge the gap between liberals in their party, who want the public option, and centrists, who are worried it would drive private insurers out of business.”

In other words, Congressional Democrats have resorted to scheming up a public relations re-branding campaign in an effort to sell their government-run public option (the hoax) to an American public (in their minds, the sucker) that has thus far rejected it at every turn.

Step right up folks!  Welcome to the modern day version of “The Greatest Show on Earth” that is “health care reform.”

HT: Breitbart and James O’Keefe

Proponents of ObamaCare have couched their language in terms familiar to conservatives and libertarians: choice, option and freedom.  We’ve been told that a ‘Public Option’ will be available to compete with private health care companies.  White House officials want Americans to forget that more than 88 million patients could lose their private health care and be forced into the government option.

Peering into Harry Reid’s newest health care incarnation, which you can read here (with our commentary here), the new Senate health care bill is all about force, not choice.  In the first 100 pages alone, there are dozens of examples of “requirements” on doctors, patients, states and the federal government.

Here is a brief snippet of what to expect.  Of course, this represents just over 6% of the new mandates and regulations contained in the 1,502 page bill.  Unfortunately, most of the language below is completely unintelligible.

1) Requiring that all new health benefits plans offered to individuals and employees in the individual and small group markets be qualified health benefits plans.

2) SEC. 2201. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: New plans must be qualified health benefits plans. Each State shall provide that each health benefits plan which is offered in the individual or small group market within the State shall be a qualified health benefits plan.

3) An offeror of a plan shall not be treated as meeting the requirements of this subsection unless the plan also accepts, renews, or continues in force coverage of an individual who is eligible for enrollment in the plan by reason of their relationship to the named insured under the plan.

4) Each offeror of a health benefits plan shall establish annual and special enrollment periods meeting the requirements of section 2236(d)(2).

5) Each State shall establish 1 or more rating areas within that State for purposes of applying the requirements of this title.

6) The contribution amount for any plan year may be based on the percentage of revenue of each offeror or on a specified amount per enrollee and may be required to be paid in advance or periodically throughout the plan year.

7) An employment based plan meets the requirements of this paragraph if the plan—provides benefits appropriate for individuals between the ages described in subsection (a)(2)(C) and that are certified as so appropriate by the Secretary; implements programs and procedures to generate cost-savings with respect to participants with chronic and high-cost conditions; and provides documentation of the actual cost of medical claims involved and for which reimbursement is sought under this section.

8 ) Each State shall phase in the application of the insurance reform requirements under subpart 1 to grandfathered health benefits plans offered in the small group market within the State.

9) SPECIAL RULE FOR RATING REQUIREMENTS — A State law shall not be treated as offering more protection to consumers than the protection offered by such requirements if the State law imposes ratios that are greater than the ratios specified in section 2204(b).

10) Each State shall — require each offeror of a qualified health benefits plans offered through an exchange — to provide an internal claims appeal process; to provide notice in clear language and in the enrollee’s primary language of available internal and external appeals processes and the availability of the ombudsman established under section 2229(a) to assist them with the appeals processes.

11) PLAN REQUIREMENTS — An offeror meets the requirements of this subsection with respect to a qualified health benefits plan if the plan offers a benefits package that is uniform in each State in which the plan is offered and meets the requirements set forth in paragraph (3) the offeror is licensed in each State; the offeror meets all requirements of this title with respect to a qualified health benefits plan, including the requirement to offer the silver and gold levels of the plan in each exchange in the State for the market in which the plan is offered; and the offeror determines the premiums for the plan in any State on the basis of the ratings rules in effect in that State for the ratings areas in which it is offered.

12) The State provides that the amount of the monthly premium an eligible individual is required to pay for coverage under the standard health plan for the individual and the individual’s dependents.

13) The amount of the monthly premium an individual is required to pay under either the standard health plan or the applicable second lowest cost silver plan shall be determined after reduction for any premium credits and premium subsidies allowable with respect to either plan.

14) The Secretary shall each year conduct a review of each State program to ensure compliance with the requirements of this section.

15) INFORMATION REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANTS: An applicant for enrollment in a qualified health benefits plan offered through an exchange shall provide the information required by any of the following paragraphs that is applicable to an enrollee.

The last sentence on Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter’s entry on The Huffington Post says it all:

We could all take a lesson from FDR.”

And what, pray tell, might that lesson be? Apparently, that it is the government’s job to put people back to work when the private sector can’t. The key to the Specter Plan is creating an indirect subsidy to out-of-work people via cash incentives to employers for hiring more workers. For example:

A tax credit to encourage employers to create new jobs or extend hours worked is just the kind of direct subsidy that worked so well with the cash-for-clunkers program. That was about cars. This is about jobs and people, an unquestionable priority. The moral imperative to act is aggressively clear.”

Astute readers will notice a disagreement between this author and the Gentleman from Pennsylvania about whether paying one party in order to benefit third party is a “direct” or “indirect” subsidy. Logic would seem to dictate that if one wants to help someone pay his bills, the most efficient way to do so is to skip the go-between and give the man some money. If people need help now – and many do – why not send them a check that covers the cost of bills and requires the recipient to get relevant job training? In today’s credential-crazed economy, the time and money spent earning a Microsoft Office certificate or sales license would go a lot further in landing a job than bribing employers to hire people they can’t otherwise afford.

And what about the alleged success of the cash-for clunkers program? The long-term effects of the program reduced the number of used cars thus driving up the price of those that remained. This FDR-style intrusion into the market decreased the sales of used car dealers and put car purchases out of reach for the poorest families. Now, Specter wants to spend more taxpayer money on jobs that cannot be sustained without subsidies. There may be a moral imperative to act. But like health care reform and the bank bailouts, the only worthwhile government acts are those that get the private sector moving away from the public’s money as fast as possible.

Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal posted a great piece comparing (or rather, contrasting) President Barack Obama’s words and record on human rights. From President Obama’s recent decision to cancel an appearance at the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall to his extending money-laden olive branches to Sudan and Burma, the candidate of hope and change is summing up to be depressingly less than foreign democracy advocates anticipated.

Remember the White House’s timidity during the riots and retaliations in Iran earlier this year? There were people agitating for freedom while an American president worried what world opinion would think. Apparently, President Obama made the “right” decision, since his version of “engagement” garnered him a Nobel Peace Prize. It’s too bad that – so far – he’s more interested in securing peace with governments than peace for the people they allegedly serve.

Glenn Beck – Obama Czar Says ‘Free Market is Nonsense’
WSJ – Lawyers Called in ACORN Secret-Video Case
Washington Post – Can Doug Hoffman Win?
SurveyUSA – Blowout in VA Gov. Race
WSJ Editorial – The Doctor Fix is In
New York Times – Democrats Hit Snag with Doctor Payment Bill
PC Magazine – Interest Groups Battle over Net Neutrality

Federal Debt: $11.960 trillion

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

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

The Obama Administration’s highly-publicized campaign to punish and silence Fox News may have broader implications than just the broadcast media.  So too might the “Fairness Doctrine” that it favors.  Namely, as noted by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R – Tennessee), they portend ominous censorship possibilities if government control over the Internet becomes a reality via so-called Net “Neutrality.”

By targeting Fox News, the Obama Administration has abandoned any pretense of governmental content neutrality.  It has thereby commenced an attempt to censor those whom it disfavors, and elevate those whom it favors.  The same is true of the “Fairness Doctrine,” which conveniently targets those media sources most likely to engage in criticism of Obama and the liberal agenda more generally.  Should Net “Neutrality” become a reality, that censorship could be spread to the Internet as well by introducing regulatory control over Internet delivery options.  Does any reasonable person believe that they would stop there?  It may sound far-fetched to suggest that the White House would stoop to Internet censorship, but who would have thought that it would so openly and explicitly target a single media outlet, the only one that exposed such things as the ACORN undercover videos?

We’re not just talking about a slippery slope here.  With this White House and the Pelosi/Reid Congress, we’re talking about a greased slope.

The Baucus Bill, passed by the Senate Finance Committee last week, has been written and filed… all 1,502 pages of it.  The public posting of the bill is, of course, after the Committee passed it without reading it.  After the absolute certainty that it isn’t going to be the bill on which the entire Senate votes.

You can read it here, but we wouldn’t recommend wasting your time.  Harry Reid and other members of “the most open and transparent Congress in history” are presently working behind closed doors with senior aides of “the most open and transparent Administration in history” to draft yet another version of ObamaCare that will ultimately be considered by the full Senate.   News reports indicate that a floor debate on the new, secret “reform” legislation could begin as early as next week.  But that all depends on whether the White House and Senate negotiators are able to buy off the docs and finish their other back-room wheelings and dealings by week’s end.  

Didn’t President Obama promise to air all health care reform negotiations on C-SPAN?

For all you policy junkies out there who just can’t resist, we must warn you that reading the Baucus Bill can cause severe anxiety, eye strain, sudden spikes in blood pressure, heart palpitations and chronic disgust in your government.  If you decide to proceed, it’s best you read it online rather than printing it off and carrying it over to that comfy Lazy Boy.  It’s still unclear whether hernia operations will be included on the final list of government-approved procedures covered by what is likely to be your new government-approved insurance plan.

New York Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava is the Republican candidate in a special election for New York’s 23rd district congressional seat.  She was hand-picked by party bosses, although many conservatives believe she is too liberal and prefer Doug Hoffman, who is running on the New York Conservative Party line.

So, last night, Scozzafava was at a speaking engagement, following which Weekly Standard editor John McCormack tried to ask her some questions about her positions.  That didn’t go well, to say the least.  Someone on Scozzafava’s staff called the cops on McCormack.  Read the whole story here.

Would McCormack’s infraction be categorized as “Questioning a thin-skinned political hack under the influence of conservatism?”

Another great choice, Republicans!

“President Barack Obama has not yet determined whether he will make a decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan before the November 7 election runoff, a US official [White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs] said Tuesday.” — AFP

“The United States cannot wait for problems surrounding the legitimacy of the Afghan government to be resolved before making a decision on troops, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said.” — Reuters

By now, we’ve all heard the news.  Rush Limbaugh was part of an investment group bidding to obtain ownership of the St. Louis Rams.  Judging by the Rams’ current 0-6 record and their 1-15 mark last year, a change in ownership to just about anyone will help the struggling franchise.  It’s difficult to do worse than winless.

Instead, the NFL and the Mainstream Media demonized Limbaugh with charges of racism and scuttled his ownership bid.  NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell even stated, “I’ve said many times before, we’re all held to a higher standard here and I think divisive comments are not what the NFL is all about.”

Of course, judging by the NFL’s own player rap sheet, one would be hard-pressed to find that “higher standard” in player conduct.  In 2009 alone, there have been dozens of players arrested and convicted on charges that ranged from DUI murder to running a drug ring across state lines.

Here’s the Dirty Dozen: The NFL’s “Higher Standard”

1. Minnesota Vikings cornerback Cedric Griffin pleaded guilty to drunk driving.
2. Denver Broncos rookie tight end Richard Quinn was arrested on harassment and domestic violence charges.
3. San Diego Chargers star linebacker Shawne Merriman was arrested and accused of choking and restraining reality TV star Tila Tequila.
4. Baltimore Ravens rookie linebacker Tony Fein was arrested and charged with assaulting a police officer at a restaurant.
5. Tampa Bay Buccaneers cornerback Aqib Talib was arrested and charged with battery and resisting arrest.
6. A federal judge sentenced former NFL player Travis Henry to three years in prison for financing a drug ring.
7. Cleveland Browns Receiver Donte Stallworth gets 30 days in jail for a DUI fatality.
8. Former San Diego Chargers QB Ryan Leaf wanted on drug charges.
9. Two New Orleans Saints players were charged with obscenity, disturbing the peace and lewd conduct for allegedly being drunk, urinating in public and exposing themselves.
10. Oakland Raiders tackle Cornell Green was arrested and charged with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon in Tampa, FL, after beating the mother of his two children with an aluminum mop handle.
11. Buffalo Bills running back Marshawn Lynch was charged with 3 gun-related crimes.
12. Pittsburgh Steelers tight end Jonathan Dekker was arrested and charged with obstruction of justice.

For more info visit NFL Crimes NewsBlog.  Unfortunately, there is plenty of content to populate the site.

Townhall – Congress Keeps Gold-Plated Health Care … For Themselves
Washington Post – A Premature Celebration for the GOP?
WVEC.Com – McDonnell has Edge over Deeds
The Hill – Reid Offers Doctors a Deal

Politico – Finance Committee Health Bill is Filed
NY Times – Merging the Senate Bills
WSJ Editorial – Health Costs and History
BBC News – Big Names Support Net Neutrality

Federal Debt: $11.929 trillion

Regardless of how you feel about its policy aspects, the legal components of the Obama Administration’s decision to essentially halt prosecution for users of medical marijuana in states where it is legal is curious.

The problem is that the Controlled Substances Act has prohibited marijuana as a matter of federal law since the 1970s.  And in 2005, the Supreme Court’s decision in Gonzales v. Raich clarified that this federal power supercedes the states’ ability to legalize pot for medicinal purposes.  Yet despite the fact that there has been no change in federal law, the Justice Department is now essentially allowing the states to nullify the statute by telegraphing that DOJ won’t bring prosecutions.

In fairness, you can make a good case that the medical marijuana laws really are an instance of federal excess (Clarence Thomas does it very well in his Gonzales dissent).  But that’s an argument about what should be, not what is.  And in a nation of laws, that’s not enough.

How’s this for unadulterated, sanctimonious chutzpah:  “Top Obama Aides Upbraid Wall Street.”

So announces a Washington Post headline, discussing the harsh criticisms leveled by Obama Administration officials against Wall Street firms.  But consider this:  if Wall Street executives ran their firms and kept their books the same way that the federal government does, they would be in jail until their dying days.  Or consider how Obama and his apologists promised that if his “stimulus” plan was passed, unemployment would top out at 8%.  Well, it’s now at 9.8% and rising.  If a Wall Street CEO made similarly fatuous promises to unwary consumers, the resulting onslaught of class action lawsuits would descend faster than a Swiss avalanche.

Yet there was David Axelrod on ABC’s This Week, labeling Wall Street behavior “offensive” and admonishing them that “they ought to think through what they are doing.”  Perhaps, but nobody should take that advice more than officials of an administration that is taking an already-dangerous fiscal situation and making it positively deadly.  Too bad there are no righteous trial lawyers who can do anything about them.

Talk about mixed messages. Yesterday, top White House advisor David Axelrod warned Goldman Sachs for having the audacity to link pay for performance during a recession. The end-of-year compensation is apparently “offensive” in a time of recession. Moreover, Wall Street needs to “stand down” its opposition to further regulation of the financial industry because the government needs to “move forward” on “reforms.”

Today, President Barack Obama announces a “shift” in policy towards the government of Sudan. In the past, the President described Omar al-Bashir’s administration as genocidal. Now, in an effort to ransom better treatment for the millions terrorized by al-Bashir’s partisans, Obama offers “incentives” (i.e. money) hoping it will spur a change of behavior.

How curious. On the one hand, the Obama foreign policy team thinks money is a better motivator than economic coercion or military force. On the other hand, the Obama domestic policy team thinks coercive regulatory policies and voluntary denial of bonuses are better ways to incentivize performance than offering big pay-days to top flight financial talent. Hmmm…

One searches for the critical distinction to make sense of these seemingly contradictory approaches. Could the best explanation be that with Sudan the White House determines the who, what, when, where, and why of using money as an incentive, while in the case of Goldman Sachs someone other than the government is making the decisions?  If you could pick only one instance to use money as an enticement, should it be for the people that systematically rape, maim, and murder their neighbors?

Larry Summers, Director of President Obama’s National Economic Council, has been a loyal ally to the administration and proponent of current health care reform proposals floating around Congress.

Summers has backed ObamaCare despite the many troubling provisions contained in House and Senate legislation, namely the individual health care mandate and the government-run public option.

Apparently, the economic views of Dr. Summers have changed in the current partisan environment.  When he was an academic and cared more about economic externalities than political favoritism, he penned this paper critiquing individual mandates and government-run plans.

Here is an excerpt:

Note that a payroll tax on employers directed at financing health insurance benefits publicly would have the same employment displacement effects [translation: people lose their jobs] as a mandated health insurance program….  If policymakers fail to recognize the costs of mandated benefits because they do not appear in the government budget, then mandated benefit programs could lead to excessive spending on social programs.  There is no sense in which benefits become “free” just because the government mandates that employers offer them to workers.  As with value-added taxes, it can plausibly be argued that mandated benefits fuel the growth of government.”

NBCConnecticut.com reports:

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotormayor’s nomination was so controlled that the White House even approved her clothes, she told Yalies when she appeared at her 30th Yale Law School reunion on Saturday.”