Freedom Line Blog

“But those political promises were only good for as long as it took to get the mandate enacted into law.”

That was the observation of “neither politically or socially conservative” author and Massachusetts resident Wendy Williams, commenting this weekend upon her first-hand experience under that state’s mandatory healthcare “reform.” Readers should be forewarned – Mrs. Williams’s commentary generates visceral anger at the sanctimonious bureaucrats who would wrench control over our own health and family budget decisions.  She describes how she and her husband rationally chose to purchase insurance through IBM, his former employer, only to be informed three years later that they’d be fined by the state because Massachusetts changed the rules to make their bare-bones catastrophic policy unpalatable.  Accordingly, they were told to either purchase a pricier policy that they didn’t want, or pay another $1,000 each year to Massachusetts. 

This directly contradicted the explicit promises of then-Governor Mitt Romney and then-Senator Ted Kennedy that middle-class residents would not find themselves taxed or otherwise penalized if state government healthcare reform was imposed.

Now, advocates of a federal healthcare mandate make the same promises to us.  As they say about those who fail to learn from history…

In response to questions being raised about the justification for President Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, a Democratic National Committee official is accusing the GOP of siding with terrorists.

DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse earlier today told Politico:

The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists – the Taliban and Hamas this morning – in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize.”

Among those praising the surprise decision by the Nobel Committee?  CNN reports:

Praise came from … a senior official from Hamas — the Palestinian militant group that controls Gaza.”

This week, the fictional character Don Draper from AMC’s critically-acclaimed series Mad Men was somehow named the Most-Influential Man of 2009 by askmen.com.  That’s right – a nonexistent man is somehow the year’s most influential.

So what does this have to do with Barack Obama and his coronation as Global Prom Queen this week by the Nobel committee?  Lots.

Just as a fictional character has somehow attained the title of most-influential man, a President who has done absolutely nothing to achieve actual peace in the world has just won the Nobel Peace Prize after just nine months in office.  Indeed, last February’s Nobel nomination deadline meant that Obama was nominated no more than 11 days into office. 

French President Nicolas Sarkozy captured the essence of this absurdity last month when he mockingly referenced Obama’s “virtual world.” But as Sarkozy also pointed out, we don’t live in that virtual world – we live in the real world.  And by repeating mindless platitudes about ridding the world of nuclear weapons, Obama ignores the very real danger of nations like Iran rapidly acquiring them.  It’s possible that Obama’s Nobel will prove to be nothing but a bizarre, humorous footnote when we look back, but Sarkozy’s observation reminds us that living as if we’re in a virtual world can have dangerous implicaitons for the real world.

There’s already been plenty of criticism leveled at this morning’s announcement that the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize is going to President Obama — despite the fact that the nominating window closed 11 days into his presidency and he did not then (or for that matter now) have a single major foreign policy achievement under his belt.

What hasn’t received enough attention yet is the false humility of Obama’s Rose Garden remarks this morning on the prize.

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize — men and women who’ve inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

“But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women, and all Americans, want to build — a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. And I know that throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it’s also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action — a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.”

Good grief. So here we have the President essentially admitting that the award is a preemptive endorsement of the transformative nature of his time in office. This would be less bothersome if it were untrue. Unfortunately, the Nobel Committee (which has doled out prizes to the likes of Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and Paul Krugman in recent years) has lost all trace of being a non-partisan organization.

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:  ObamaCare – Fiction, by Acclamation
Lee:  Political Opposition to Destructive “Net Neutrality” Gains Momentum
CFIF Staff Commentary:  Jubilation over the “Health Care Reform” Bill that Isn’t a Bill and Isn’t Going To Be the Bill
Batkins:  Big Business, Big Liberals

Freedom Minute Video:  Gunning for the Second Amendment
Podcast:  One Nation, Without God – Interview with GOPUSA.com’s Bobby Eberle
Jester’s Courtroom:  Tired of the Legal System 

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 by e-mail, sign up here.

“This is the first time the award is given for wishful thinking.”

Those were the words of Israeli Knesset member Danny Danon upon receiving word that Barack Obama won this year’s Nobel Peace Prize. Who knew that Saturday Night Live’s parody of Obama admitting that he had done absolutely nothing so far in office would prove so prescient?

This bizarre and absurd decision by the Nobel committee, of course, follows earlier awards to such towering architects of peace as PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat in 1994…  Six years before he commenced the bloody intifada against Israel in 2000.  In contrast, Ronald Reagan led the free world to victory in the Cold War without firing a shot against the Soviet Union, freeing hundreds of millions of human beings and ending the looming threat of a global nuclear holocaust, but never seemed to gain sufficient esteem within the minds of the Nobel committee.  One can only speculate about the true basis on which this now-discredited award is given, but it certainly isn’t for tangible results in achieving peace.  If that was the basis, they could just as easily rename it the Reagan-Thatcher-Pope John Paul II Peace Prize.

Washington Post – Barack Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize
London Times – Absurd Decision Makes a Mockery of the Prize
WSJ – ObamaCare: The Greatest Show on Earth
The Examiner – Health Care Tab to be Paid by Taxpayers, Businesses, Seniors
CNSNews.com — Hoyer Won’t Rule Out Voting on Senate Health Bill Without Changes and Sending it Directly to President
Washington Times — Key Democrats Align With Military on Buildup
Michelle Malkin – Crime, Census and Censorship

The U.S. House Ethics Committee unanimously voted  today to expand its investigation into the finances and reporting thereof by Charlie Rangel, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Well, that’s good, all of you who believe that corruption by public officials is an important issue (the most important based on a Rasmussen Poll that got little notice last week) might say.

Maybe.  But the Ethics Committee investigation has been going on for a year already, and the House Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have made it abundantly clear that there will be no move to  remove Rangel from his Chairmanship until the investigation is complete, and he has no inclination to voluntarily step aside.

That investigation will now take longer.  Much longer.

Due process and thoroughness are important, but one sometimes wonders, particularly with Congressional ethics investigations, if those worthy considerations are actually the motivations driving the ship.  The investigation will now take longer.  Much longer.

According to The Hill, criminals may have been hired to conduct door-to-door census canvassing, based on a GAO report.

Hi.  I’m here to take your census.  Oh, that’s a nice watch you’re wearing.  Is your wallet handy so I can check your identification?

Earlier this week, we got an Afghan Taliban press release courtesy of the Associated Press.  It assured us that all the Taliban want is “independence and establishment of an Islamic system” and don’t want to harm other countries or any other bad stuff if only all of us would simply go away and leave them alone to do with the indigenous people as they will.  (Perhaps you are familiar with how the Taliban go about establishing an Islamic system.)

Well, good to know and thanks for sharing, we thought.

Then we got a UPI story, which led with, “U.S. officials say al-Qaida is seen as a greater threat than the Afghan Taliban in the emerging war strategy formulations of President Barack Obama. … After the president met with top advisers Wednesday for three hours, officials said the new strategy may focus more on a campaign against al-Qaida in Pakistan than on the Taliban in Afghanistan.”

And then, sure enough, we got another Associated Press story that began, “President Obama is prepared to accept some Taliban involvement in Afganistan’s political future and appears inclined to send only as many more U.S. troops as needed to keep al-Qaida at bay, a senior administration official said Thursday.”

You do see what is happening here, with President Obama’s “War of Necessity,” don’t you?  If not, don’t worry, you soon will.

“Health Care Bill Gets Green Light in Cost Analysis”

That is the gift proponents of government-run health care received this morning in the form of a New York Times headline.  That headline, however, along with its accompanying story about the Congressional Budget Office’s preliminary cost analysis of the Baucus bill, is about as deceptive as the ObamaCare sales job Washington politicians have been employing for months.

CBO’s preliminary cost analysis is just that – a preliminary estimate based on a theoretical framework of ideas approved by the Senate Finance Committee.  It’s preliminary because the actual bill hasn’t been written yet, much less been combined with at least five other, more expensive versions of “reform” circulating in the House and Senate.  As Chris Frates of Politico.com noted yesterday:

While the media and lawmakers often shorthand a CBO letter as a ‘score’ or ‘cost estimate,’ today’s CBO letter is neither. Because the bill is still in ‘conceptual,’ or layman’s terms, CBO’s letter today was a ‘preliminary analysis.’  For it to be an official cost estimate, the bill has to be translated into legislative language.

“And CBO goes to great pains in its letter to make the distinction:

“‘CBO and JCT’s analysis is preliminary in large part because the Chairman’s mark, as amended, has not yet been embodied in legislative language,’ the letter says.”

In other words, is anyone prepared to believe that the most recent CBO cost estimate will even come close to resembling reality once the Baucus bill is combined with the budget-busting provisions of the various other versions of ObamaCare?  After Reid and Pelosi are through with their parliamentary tricks outlined here and here?

Yet liberals and the mainstream media today are giddy with excitement.  Why?  Because regardless of the fact that the CBO letter means nothing in the grand scheme of things, something at which the CBO itself hints, for the first time in this debate they have something – anything – that supports their dream of government-run health care.   Reality be damned. 

Our guess is that the large majority of Americans are still not ready to join their party.  Even taken at face value, CBO’s preliminary claim that the Baucus bill will actually reduce the budget deficit by $81 billion over 10 years simply means that the legislation raises taxes on businesses and individuals and cuts benefits only slightly more than it increases spending, while still leaving 25 million people uninsured.  And the more expensive the final bill gets – don’t believe for a moment that it won’t get more expensive – the greater the tax increases and benefit cuts will become in order to square with the President’s pledge to not sign a bill that adds “one dime” to the deficit.

Isn’t “change” grand?

Sales of regular soft drinks have declined by almost 10% during the past decade according to Beverage Digest, but since when are facts an impediment to Barack Obama’s smug foolishness?

In a recent interview with Men’s Health Magazine, Obama conveniently scapegoats soft drinks, saying that a soda tax is “an idea that we should be exploring.”  He added, incorrectly, that “there’s no doubt that our kids drink way too much soda. And every study that’s been done about obesity shows that there is as high a correlation between increased soda consumption and obesity as just about anything else.”

Except that there’s not.  In a devastating commentary today, Coca-Cola CEO Muhtar Kent notes that sales of regular soda have actually declined, as has consumption of added sugar as a percentage of daily calories, even as obesity rates increased.  He shows that America’s increasing obesity is actually attributable to declines in exercise, as well as to increased fat and flour/cereal consumption.  Facts, however, are small hurdles for Obama in his campaign to dictate every aspect of our lives and tax us in every conceivable way.

A column in the Kansas City Star reports that former Senate Majority Leader and presidential candidate Bob Dole is urging Republican members of Congress to vote for President Obama’s healthcare reform plan. The piece quotes Dole as saying “I want this to pass. I don’t agree with everything Obama is presenting, but we’ve got to do something.”

The last five words of that sentence should be anathema to any red-blooded conservative. Is there any other serious situation in life where you could justifiably invoke a similar rationale? Is that the sort of thing you’d like to hear your surgeon say?

How about “doing something” effective? How about “doing something” that solves rather than compounds a problem? Caring about actions makes you a politician. But caring about outcomes makes you a statesmen. That puts Bob Dole’s record at 1-1.

The Congressional Budget Office has released its preliminary cost estimate for the Baucus Bill.  Here is the link.  The CBO estimates the total cost over ten years will be $829 billion.

UPDATE:

Most of the actual expenditures and mandates do not take effect until 2013-14.  In other words, CBO’s 10-year preliminary cost estimate only accounts for six or seven years worth of the expensive provisions.

The House of Representatives protected one of its own today by voting only to refer Rep. Charles Rangel to the House Ethics Committee; he will remain the Chair of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee.

Rangel, as the NY Times has revealed, has taken many liberties in his position of power.  The Times discovered that Rangel has four rent-controlled apartments, and actually uses one as his campaign office, likely in violation of House rules.  In addition, Rangel recently revealed that he failed to disclose assets from his swanky beach home in the Dominican Republic, leading to over $10,000 in back taxes.

Being an elected official has been prosperous for the New York Congressman, as Rangel lists his net worth in the millions.  Apparently there are perks to writing the nation’s tax laws, and subsequently failing to follow them.  His published ethical improprieties are just the tip of the iceberg, which is why newspapers across the country are calling for Rangel to step down. See here and here.

Today, Representative John Carter from Texas introduced a resolution that would have referred Rangel’s case to the House Ethics Committee and stripped Rangel of his Chairmanship.  The vote failed 153-246, with six Republicans voting with Rangel (King (NY), Rohrabacher (CA), Paul (TX), Murphy (PA), Jones (NC) and Young (AK).

So, as of today the New York Times and the Washington Post are investigating Rangel but Congress is not.  It looks like it will take an indictment or two to get things rolling in America’s most expensive sausage factory.

CFIF has written about and commented on the crushing blow that forced expansion of Medicaid, as called for in the health care reform bills making their way through Congress, will have on state budgets.

But don’t take our word for it.  Here is what Democrat Governors are saying about the issue, as compiled by the Senate Republican Communications Center:

Dem Health Care Angst Beyond The Beltway

Democrat Governors Say Their States Can’t Shoulder Burden Of New Democrat Health Care Mandates

GOV. TED STRICKLAND (D-OH): “The States, With Our Financial Challenges Right Now, Are Not In A Position To Accept Additional Medicaid Responsibilities.” “Still, Strickland warned on a recent visit to Washington that ‘the states, with our financial challenges right now, are not in a position to accept additional Medicaid responsibilities.’ Strickland said that he wants ‘a health-care package that is inclusive and provides for all citizens,’ but he added that if Medicaid is expanded, he hopes to ‘see the federal government assume the greater portion of the costs, if not the total costs.’” (“Expansion Of Medicaid Could Impose Costs On Ohio,” Columbus Dispatch, 10/7/09)

GOV. JOHN LYNCH (D-NH): Did Not Sign A Letter Supporting Health Care Reform Because It Failed To “Address Concerns Regarding Potential Cost Shifting To The States.” “Last week, Democratic governors sent a letter to congressional leaders proclaiming that ‘the status quo is no longer an option’ and urging passage of a healthcare bill this year. Six Democratic governors did not sign the letter for various reasons. In the case of New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch, he did not sign because the letter failed to ‘address concerns regarding potential cost shifting to the states,’ said Colin Manning, a spokesman for the governor. ‘And this concern has been shared by a number of governors that Gov. Lynch has spoken to across the country,’ Manning said.” (“Obama Finds Support Outside Party And Washington For Healthcare Plan,” Los Angeles Times, 10/7/09)

GOV. PHIL BREDESEN (D-TN): “My Guess Is That Most Other States Would Face A Similarly Painful Situation If These Costs Are Passed Down.” “In his letter to Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), Bredesen also urged the senator and his fellow lawmakers to temper down their proposed changes to the low-income healthcare entitlement — an expansion Corker later described as an ‘unfunded mandate’ that could overburden states at a time when many are struggling to manage the recession. ‘My guess is that most other states would face a similarly painful situation if these costs are passed down,’ Corker explained in his own statement on Tuesday.” (“Tenn. Gov Bredesen: Medicaid Expansion Could Cost State Millions,” The Hill’s “Briefing Room” Blog, 10/6/09)

Govs. Mike Beebe (D-AR), Jay Nixon (D-MO), Bev Perdue (D-NC), John Lynch (D-NH) And Dave Freudenthal (D-WY) Held Out From Signing A Letter On Health Care Reform With Other Democrat Governors. “It’s a standard letter addressed to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Boehner, telling them states ‘will only achieve the health care security and stability they need if we succeed in working together with the Congress and the President to achieve health care reform.’ But missing from the signatures at the bottom are six governors: Mike Beebe (AR), Jay Nixon (MO), Bev Perdue (NC), John Lynch (NH), Dave Freudenthal (WY) and Brad Henry (OK).” (“Six Dem Governors Hold Out On Health Care Letter,” TPMDC, 10/5/09)

GOV. DAVE FREUDENTHAL (D-WY):“Freudenthal Said Expanding Medicaid May Be A Quick Way To Get Coverage For The Uninsured, But It’s Far From The Most Cost- Effective Or Efficient.He added that any health-reform plans must include steps to hold down costs. ‘That’s why I think you find governors interested in cost savings, reform and wellness activities,’ Freudenthal said. … ‘You know, you only have so much money, and this is the basic math: If you have 47 million people who don’t have coverage in the country, and your goal is to get coverage for those people, you can’t come to us and say that it’s not going to cost society anything.’” (“Medicaid Expansion May Be Budget Buster,” Wyoming Tribune Eagle, 7/27/09)

GOV. BEV PERDUE (D-NC): “The Absolute Deal Breaker For Me As Governor Is A Federal Plan That Shifts Costs To The States.” “We are all hungry for a solution, but the absolute deal breaker for me as governor is a federal plan that shifts costs to the states.” (“Perdue: Don’t Give States The Bill,” [Raleigh, NC] News & Observer, 7/21/09)

GOV. ED RENDELL (D-PA): “I Don’t Think It’s An Accounting Trick, I Think It’s An Unfunded Mandate … We Just Don’t Have The Wherewithal To Absorb That Without Some New Revenue Source …” (CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” 9/3/09)

GOV. BILL RICHARDSON (D-NM):  “We Can’t Afford That, And That’s Not Acceptable.” (“Govs Resist Added Federal Expenses From Congress,” The Associated Press, 7/19/09)

GOV. CHRISTINE GREGOIRE (D-WA): “As A Governor, My Concern Is That If We Try To Cost-Shift To The States We’re Not Going To Be In A Position To Pick Up The Tab.” (“Governors Fear Medicaid Costs In Health Plan,” The New York Times, 7/20/09)

GOV. BILL RITTER (D-CO): “Our Only Point Was That A Significant Medicaid Expansion Should Not Operate As An Unfunded Mandate For The States.” (“Ritter Fears Federal Expenses May Hit Colorado,” The Denver Post, 7/20/09)

GOV. BRIAN SCHWEITZER (D-MT): “The Governors Are Concerned About Unfunded Mandates, Another Situation Where The Federal Government Says You Must Do X And You Must Pay For It. Well if they want to reform health care, they should figure out what the rules are and how they are going to pay for it.” (“Many Governors Against Health Care Bill, Label It Unfunded Mandate,” Fox News, 7/19/09)

GOV. JOE MANCHIN (D-WV): “They Thought The Best Way, The Federal Government Thought The Best Way Is By Expanding Medicaid To Make That Happen. But We Have Said, ‘Under No Conditions Can We Take Unfunded Mandates.’ You can’t raise the eligibility of Medicaid 133% and put a $100 billion back on the states to pick up.” (“Governor Manchin Joins Counterparts In Mississippi,” [West Virginia] Metro News, 7/20/09)

###

SENATE REPUBLICAN COMMUNICATIONS CENTER
202.228.NEWS

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

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

When it comes to reducing carbon emissions to avoid what Al Gore and others refer to as Environmental Armageddon, we thought we had heard it all.  
 
The big bad oil companies, soccer moms and their SUVs, incandescent light bulbs, Al Gore himself… heck, even cows and pigs are contributing to the apparent destruction of mankind. 

But a story out today just may take the cake.  According to eTurboNews:

Sure, one person’s deposits into an airplane toilet don’t weigh much, but what about the pee from 200 people? Japanese airline ANA thinks full bladders lead to airplanes being weighed down by excrement, so it is implementing a wacky new policy: pee before you fly.

“The airline is putting up signs at airport gates asking passengers to go to the bathroom. So-called ‘loo attendants’ stand guard as well, asking potential pee-ers if they need to take a trip to the restroom. Bathrooms will still be on the plane, of course, in case of bathroom emergency. But ANA hopes that its shaming tactics will cut down on passengers’ overall weight, in turn reducing the weight of the plane and lowering fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions.”

Any bets on how long it will take Sen. Barbara Boxer or Rep. Henry Waxman to propose legislation requiring Americans to pee before driving?

Rep. Steny Hoyer – House Schedule
Political Wire – Obama Approval on the Rise
Washington Post – Paging All Doctors
Rep. Tom Price – The Ugly Side of Mandates

NY Times – Did TARP Increase Lending
The Hill – Baucus Not Worried About CBO Score
Politico – Dems: ‘Don’t Tax Cadillac Plans’
Dana Milbank – The Forest, the Trees and ACORN

Federal Debt: $11.926 trillion

In a new report, the International Energy Agency (IEA) says that we must “invest” $10 trillion over the upcoming 20 years to stop global warming.  That’s $500 billion per year, and we’ll give you one guess as to which nation will be asked to shoulder that crippling new burden…

Shamelessly, this amount is 37% higher than the IEA said was necessary just one year ago.  The IEA also demands that developed nations such as the United States reduce carbon emissions even further than the economically destructive levels already being pushed by left-wing special interests and liberal politicians through such abominations as the Waxman-Markey bill, which will cost American families thousands of dollars each year and punish American business.  This IEA report also comes just as global temperatures continue their cooling plateau over the past ten years, meaning that the global warming hysteria may be today’s equivalent of the discredited global cooling craze of the 1970s.  But what’s a trifling $10 trillion, right?