Freedom Line Blog

How interesting that the Age of Obama is bringing about the demise of “centrist” Democrats.  The flurry of retirements from the House of Representatives this session come almost completely from the South and Midwest, once the cradle of Democratic congressional leaders.  Now, members like Marion Berry (D-AR) and Bart Stupak (D-MI) are retiring from politics after years of finding their social conservatism unwelcome in an increasingly secularist Democratic Party.

Many Americans outside Stupak’s congressional district were surprised to find an ardent pro-life Democrat still getting elected to public office.  Even more startling was his stance on ObamaCare: he wants a single-payer system; he just doesn’t want federal funding for abortions.  With his retirement announcement today, America isn’t likely to see another high profile Democrat willing to risk curtailing the growth of leviathan for what amounts to a religious conviction.

Then there is Associate Justice John Paul Stevens.  His retirement, along with former Justice David Souter’s last year, will probably be the last to involve a court member of one party leaving the bench so that a president of the other party can appoint his replacement.  Make no mistake; had Senator John Kerry (D-MA) won the presidency in 2004, neither Souter nor Stevens would have waited this long to leave.

So with Stupak and Stevens exiting Stage Left, there are now two more examples of the sharp, rigid partisanship that President Barack Obama has brought to our politics.  After all the election spin about post-partisanship, the only change he gave us was a historical dividing line between politics as people with ideas, and politics as parties with agendas.

John Podhoretz pens a spirited defense of sharp-elbowed partisan politics in his piece for Commentary today.  After noting that treating politics as war helps to avoid war itself, Podhoretz crystallizes President Barack Obama’s knee-jerk reaction to claim that “the time for talk is over” whenever he hears criticism.  For President Obama, politics is talking; governing is doing.

The problem for Obama, as Podhoretz points out, is that Republicans in Congress and members of the Tea Party movement agree: the time to engage Democrats as honest partners in public policy is long past gone.  The time for organizing and campaigning against their Statist agenda is now.

No wonder President Barack Obama continues to campaign for his signature domestic policy – precious few people have a clue what it does or when it does it.

Questions reflecting confusion have flooded insurance companies, doctors’ offices, human resources departments and business groups.

“They’re saying, ‘Where do we get the free Obama care, and how do I sign up for that?’ ” said Carrie McLean, a licensed agent for eHealthInsurance.com. The California-based company sells coverage from 185 health insurance carriers in 50 states.

McLean said the call center had been inundated by uninsured consumers who were hoping that the overhaul would translate into instant, affordable coverage. That widespread misconception may have originated in part from distorted rhetoric about the legislation bubbling up from the hyper-partisan debate about it in Washington and some media outlets, such as when opponents denounced it as socialism.

“We tell them it’s not free, that there are going to be things in place that help people who are low-income, but that ultimately most of that is not going to be taking place until 2014,” McLean said.

But don’t worry; you’ll start paying for the benefits this year.

H/T: Miami Herald

I guess there had to be at least one negative aspect of the Reagan legacy. It’s temperamental. The Gipper was famous for the sign on his desk reading “It CAN be done”. What a great American sentiment: sweet-tempered, optimistic, tenacious. It helps, of course, when the goal in question CAN be done.

Not so “energy independence”, which has become something of a Fox News shibboleth the last few years. While there’s a strong case to be made for allowing increased domestic energy production, the idea that it will free us from the vagaries of the global energy market is a pipe dream. But don’t take my word for it. Noted conservative economist Irwin Stelzer (a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a regular contributor to the Weekly Standard) makes the point in a very judicious analysis of President Obama’s push for increased oil exploration published in today’s D.C. Examiner:

More important, and this is no fault of the president’s, even if these offshore areas are eventually opened up, their development cannot eliminate the security threat and economic consequences of our dependence on foreign oil. Fuel autarchy is not in our future.

There just isn’t enough oil offshore to replace our imports from unfriendly countries such as Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. No matter what happens in the newly permitted areas, we will need their oil.

Sober, but entirely accurate. Call it Coolidge Conservatism.

In the next six weeks Britain will go the polls and most likely pry Gordon Brown’s fingers off the levers of power.  The Economist thinks his successor will be the Tory leader, David Cameron.  The magazine offers a closer look at the Conservative Party’s answer to Tony Blair.  Though Cameron takes many positions that suggest a taste for government intervention, he also seems to possess a subtle debt to Edmund Burke, the philosopher-politician who argued for tradition, order, and the importance of the family.

British society, so his critique goes, is broken. The cause is the erosion of responsibility (his favourite word) by a hyperactive state. He is at his most animated when justifying his (arguably overstated) social pessimism, pointing to “our records against the rest of Europe on things like teenage pregnancy and drug abuse, alcohol, family worklessness, educational problems”. The analysis is open to criticism: the societies he sees as unbroken, including many in continental Europe, spend more on welfare than he would want to or can afford to.

The cure, he says, is giving power away, strengthening local government and empowering people directly by, for example, letting them set up their own schools. He is undogmatic about the precise size of the state, deploring instead its over-centralisation; he prefers a big society to a big state. It remains to be seen whether that will bring relief to the overburdened public finances.

If he becomes the next British Prime Minister, David Cameron could do much to counter President Barack Obama’s juvenile treatment of America’s most important European ally.  If he expands his cultural critique into a governing philosophy that returns power to citizens, he’ll outshine The One on style and substance.

Apologies to Virginians, but the Commonwealth isn’t the first place most people think about when the issue of off-shore drilling comes to mind.  But President Barack Obama isn’t most people.  In a move that can only be understood as ploy to win back some of the support he lost with his cavalier attitude towards a state that helped give him the presidency, Obama is clearing the way for more oil platforms along the Atlantic seaboard.  Maybe this kind of targeted job creation will be enough to distract Virginians from the fact that their Attorney General is challenging Obamacare in the courts.

Curiously, there is at least one state that won’t benefit from the president’s newfound interest in domestic oil supplies: Alaska.  Probably just a coincidence.

If you are overjoyed to see the line item deductions from your paycheck flowing to the federal government, this blog post is not for you.  If you have the opposite reaction, get ready to pay an additional $150 – $240 per month so the feds can pay for long term care.  (Not yours directly, of course.  Contra Al Gore, there is no lockbox or personal account for your tax dollars.  Just an IOU written to your grandchildren.)

The reason?  Taking the money helps ease the burden on Medicaid for all those future bed-ridden citizens unable to care for themselves.  Perhaps the worst thing about this program isn’t the increase in taxes; it’s the replacing of family with government as the comfort care provider of last resort.  Not only will people be told to look to government for their pensions, but also for their end-of-life needs.  Under Obamacare, taxpayer dollars are going to fund abortions and end-of-life care.  Credit Democrats for this: in one bill they managed to extend government intrusion from the womb to the tomb.

The question whether President Barack Obama would make recess appointments over Republican objections has now been answered.

So, who needs Congress?  With President Obama issuing an executive order purporting to make law, and filling administrative vacancies through recess appointments, is there really a need for the legislative branch?  After a month where it became evident that the Obama Administration sees Congress as a bifurcated procedural process, it won’t be too surprising if after Republicans gain a majority the White House refuses to acknowledge the legislature’s presence.  If that happens, we may be headed for a government shut-down early next year when the GOP turns off the financial spigot.

Stay tuned.

So says the Congressional Budget Office:

President Obama’s fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation’s economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday.

Ready to buy gold?

Another week, and now there are two articles dissecting Eric Holder’s tumultuous ride as United States Attorney General.  In one, Michael Gerson lists five consequential mistakes, any one of which would be enough to spur the Democratic blogosphere into a feeding frenzy had Alberto Gonzalez been the culprit.  Among his transgressions are incoherently keeping some Bush era terrorism policies while changing others.  The effect is creating a man without a constituency.  Then, there are the quickly reversed decisions to try certain terrorists in civilian court, close down the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, and give Miranda warnings to the undie-bomber.

Almost forgot; Holder’s planned indictments of John Yoo and Jay Bybee fizzled after being dismissed by the Justice Department’s top career attorney.

Not to be outdone, Massimo Calabresi attempts to explain away any threat to Holder’s job security as the product of partisan Republicans.  However, he doesn’t give one example of a major Holder decision carrying the day.

The overriding prominence of Obamacare is certainly benefiting Holder because it is shielding him from a much-deserved performance review.   Sacking him now would only add to the perception that the Obama Cabinet is staffed by people who couldn’t manage themselves out of a paper bag.

Unlike the specter of Kathleen Sebelius, Eric Holder has made his presence felt in this administration.  If President Obama ever gets a string of wins, don’t be surprised to see Holder announcing his intention to return to the private sector.

The ongoing, excruciating, resource-draining attempt by Democrats to foist ObamaCare upon an unwilling American public (what ever happened to their promise to “focus on jobs” in 2010, anyway?) by any means necessary, legal or illegal, will obviously cause deafening reverberations in November’s Congressional elections.  With each passing day, scientific polling suggests that a Republican takeover is more and more likely.

In a brilliant commentary in today’s Wall Street Journal, however, Michael Solon points out that ObamaCare’s impact may be even more dramatic than Congressional midterms, or even the 1994 Congressional elections that vaulted Republicans to majorities in both houses for the first time since the 1950s.  This is because not only are Nancy Pelosi’s and Harry Reid’s majorities in jeopardy, but so are Democrat seats in governors’ mansions and state legislatures, which control Congressional district realignment following the 2010 census.  As stated by Solon:

Of all the political consequences that could flow from the national healthcare effort in 2010, the potential of the fall elections to shift 2011 redistricting to the Republicans’ advantage may be the most important.  That puts the long-term viability of the president’s healthcare reform in serious jeopardy, no matter the outcome of the 2012 elections.  While the election of 1994 did signal a political realignment, none of that alignment translated into the much more permanent benefit that redistricting could provide in 2010 if the GOP takes over state legislatures across the country…  As Democratic legislators consider their choices, many are missing the impact of an electoral wipeout in 2010 on the redistricting of Congressional seats as well as those in the state legislatures.  The electoral advantage gained from 2011 redistricting would extend the short-term pain of 2010 at least through the redistricting of 2021.”

The late Thomas “Tip” O’Neil once said that “all politics is local.” But the Democrats’ suicide mission in trying to pass ObamaCare may turn O’Neil’s observation on its head and prove that not only are local politics sometimes national, but also enduring.

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.

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.

Say what you will about the 43^rd 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.

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.

Ordinarily, the term “bunker mentality” refers to an individual or group so cut off from outside opinion that they view any dissent as a threat to power.  The Obama White House is acting the part in its call for congressional Democrats to exercise the so-called “nuclear option” and pass health care “reform” through the Reconciliation process, public opinion polls be damned.  But if the president launches legislative nukes at his opponents and the American people (but I repeat myself), and then retreats back into his publicly financed bunker, how long will it be until he realizes he has to live with the fallout?  Better yet, will his agenda be so radioactive that only the most suicidal Democrats will follow him back out into the public square?

H/T: Jake Tapper at ABC News

If there are any camels’ backs at the breaking point, here’s a public employee union-sponsored straw.   As if daring the mainstream media to challenge his meritless assertions of bipartisanship, President Obama named SEIU leader and fellow Saul Alinsky disciple, Andy Stern, to his “Bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.”

That’s right; the panel of experts tasked with finding ways to reduce the federal deficit will count among its ranks a man who agitates for expanding both the membership and compensation of government employees.  He also has tight connections with ACORN and organized intimidation campaigns against Tea Party activists.  Asking Stern to find ways to save taxpayer money is like putting a fox in charge of the bed check in a hen house: it makes sense if you don’t think about it.

During today’s health care summit at Blair House, Wyoming Republican Senator John Barrasso (an orthopedic surgeon by trade) dropped the jaws of Democrats in attendance by declaring that individuals who only have “catastrophic care” health insurance (which Democrats had been spent all day citing as a moral failure) often make better medical decisions than people with more comprehensive plans. Barasso’s reason was simple — these consumers actually have to consider the cost of their treatments.

Though President Obama and Congressman Henry Waxman were quick to ridicule Barasso, he got to a truth that is at the very root of meaningful health care reform: the system can’t work as long as consumers are being insulated from costs.

Two economic maxims suffice to make the point: (1) “If you’re paying, I’ll have the steak” — There is no incentive to keep your spending under control when someone else is footing the bill (2) “No one washes a rental car” — Ownership is the best motivation for vigilance, because if something goes wrong, you’ll be the one eating the costs. Having someone else shield you from health care expenditures only weakens your incentive to be vigilant in regard to your own well-being

Earlier in the day’s proceedings, Obama and Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois rained on the tort reform parade by claiming that the $5 billion a year that could be saved by reforming the malpractice system would be a drop in the $2 trillion health care bucket (as an aside, I’ve always thought this is a bizarre rationale — how can anyone expect to realize large savings if they ignore all the incremental savings that will get them there?). Yet if tort reform was too picayune, why are Democrats ignoring Barrasso’s point, which got to the heart of what drives health care costs through the roof?

The problem with modern health care is that is built on a triangular model. In most cases, one person pays for the care (an employer), one person consumes the care (the patient) and one person provides the care (the doctor). This is a recipe for unhappiness and inflation, because the person who consumes is unaccountable to the person that pays, and the person that provides is unaccountable to the person they provide for (Harvard’s Regina Herzlinger has been invaluable on this point).

The Republican talking point is that health care needs to be reformed in small, incremental chunks. That may be a sound legislative strategy, but it’s not true as a matter of policy. The system needs to be fundamentally reformed and placed on a consumer-driven basis (and yes, conservatives, you can learn from Europe — Switzerland has a pretty good model. If you’re really in the mood for right-wing apostasy take a gander at Whole Foods’ ideas too). Subsidies are always going to be necessary for the indigent, but more far-reaching government control is not the answer. Comprehensive reform that makes health care market-driven is.