Freedom Line Blog

Senate Majority Leader (for the time being, at least)  Harry Reid (D – Nevada) mistakenly believes that he’s got a winning card with his scheduled vote today on yet another unemployment benefit extension.  Reid, along with co-conspirators Nancy Pelosi and President Obama, predictably mischaracterize Republican opposition to the vote that will immediately follow the introduction of replacement West Virginia Senator Carte Goodwin.

But here are some facts.  First, Senate Republicans only request that unemployment benefit extensions be offset with cuts in other forms of runaway federal spending.  Second, Harry Reid’s proposed extension will add $30 billion to this year’s projected $1.4 trillion deficit.  Third, unemployment benefits already stretch for 99 weeks – almost two full years.  Fourth, there have already been seven extensions in unemployment benefits during the period in which Obama’s $1 trillion “stimulus” spending has instead managed to stifle what should be a robust cyclical rebound by this point.  Fifth, even Obama’s own economic advisers have proclaimed that jobless benefits actually perpetuate and exacerbate unemployment itself.

Here’s the better policy prescription:  prevent upcoming tax increases, slow the federal government’s breakneck spending expansion and reduce the threat of anti-growth regulatory uncertainty.  When we implemented those prescriptions during the Reagan Administration, we witnessed astounding two-year gross domestic product growth of approximately 7% over eight consecutive quarters in 1983-1984.  How much longer will it take Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama to finally learn that simple lesson?

At least Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is signaling an overall legislative strategy: Get (Me) Reelected! According to Byron York’s reporting, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was “fuming” when he was double-crossed by Reid’s decision to gin up the Hispanic vote in Nevada to increase their turnout for his ailing reelection campaign. The move had the consequence of booting Graham’s carefully crafted energy bill off the Senate’s table for the foreseeable future.

Hopefully, after the health care deem-and-scheme travesty and now this personal affront, Senator Graham will learn something the rest of us surmised about Washington’s Democratic leadership from the beginning: there are no honest brokers leading the party today. Forget that at your peril.

Here at CFIF, we don’t make it a habit of promoting chain emails.  But one such email, which has landed in our inboxes on more than one occasion today, is worth an exception.   The author is unknown.  Here it is as it has been sent to us.

Senator Harry Reid goes to a local GM dealer in Washington, D.C. with the intention of buying a brand new vehicle. Harry looks around and finds one he likes.  

After going back and forth with the salesman, Harry settles on a price of $45,000. 

Harry and the salesman go back to the office to complete the paperwork. Harry works out a 4 year payment plan, and signs on the bottom line.

The salesman shakes Harry’s hand and says, “Thanks Senator Reid, the car will be ready for pickup in 4 years.”  Harry says, “What are you talking about?”  

“Where are the keys to my new car?”  The salesman replies, “No, you don’t understand Senator.  You make payments for 4 years…THEN we give you the car.  You know, just like your health plan.”

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.

With five Republicans voting for cloture in the Senate– Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Kit Bond, George Voinovich, and (surprise!) Scott Brown — we should expect the Congress to pass its new “jobs bill” this week (in reality, this is like a 100-calorie pack version of the stimulus).

It’s not surprising that some Republicans are feeling the pressure to get behind this legislation. The perennial temptation in times of economic crisis is to get behind anything that seems like it could make a difference. This is not that piece of legislation.

Let’s start with the basics: At $15 billion, this package could be financed with what’s between the cushions of the sofas in the Oval Office. But that’s still $15 billion in new debt that can’t be justified without a commensurate kick to the economy. This package can’t deliver that kick.

The big hooks for Republicans are going to be the exemption from payroll taxes for new employees through the rest of the year and the $1,000 tax credit for new employees who are retained for a year. These provisions will have positive economic effects, but they will be very subtle. Because this bill only aims to jumpstart the employment side of the market without addressing broader economic conditions, it will make it slightly cheaper to hire new employees, but won’t create enough economic activity to justify employers adding many new hires to their payrolls. As with the similar plan that was tried during the Carter years, this most likely means that the majority of the benefits will go to hires that would have been made with or without the package. Given the limited time horizon of the bill, we should also expect its net effects to be similar to “Cash for Clunkers” — that is, just moving up hiring decisions instead of changing the fundamentals behind them.

The other provisions are no more impressive. This package will subsidize further borrowing by local and state governments, which only continues the sugar-high spending that simply can’t be sustained even in the best of economic times. And while infrastructure spending is certainly a legitimate function of government, it’s hard to sell as a strategy for increasing employment. After all, the mark of good infrastructure development — quick, efficient construction — is fundamentally at odds with the idea of creating jobs that are meant to endure for the long-term.

This certainly isn’t the worst piece of legislation to come out of the Age of Obama, but it also isn’t much more than a placebo. Until Washington begins to focus on shrinking the size of government, however, we shouldn’t expect the prescription to change much.

The arbitrary love a vacuum, so when they find one, the temptation to fill it with inanity usually proves too great. Consider the case of Gloria Navarro. By all accounts, she is an accomplished Nevada attorney whose work as a public defender and prosecutor has won her a presidential nomination to be a federal district judge. While I suspect her judicial philosophy is to the left of Clarence Thomas, I nonetheless acknowledge that she is “qualified” to serve on the bench, if by that term it means owning a bar license and practicing as an attorney. Then again, those are my requirements, not the Constitution’s. While the nation’s fundamental law details the age and citizenship requirements for the president and members of Congress, it has no specific qualifications for being a federal judge.

But don’t tell that to the politicians who impose them nonetheless. Since adult conversations about judicial philosophy are off the table, most presidents and senators resort to indirect indicia of competency like schools attended, grades earned, and clients represented. Some demand judicial experience. Others, like Senator Harry Reid with Navarro, prefer “real world” (i.e. non-judicial) experience when it suits their nominee.

In fact, there’s more than a tinge of bias against attorneys who didn’t hit their professional stride until well after beginning the practice of law. To hear politicians and pundits, unless a lawyer’s resume includes Ivy League credentials and a federal clerkship followed by a career serving the upper echelons of government and mammon, a president shouldn’t even bother with a nomination. Yet, these types of opportunities depend on a level of access that is unattainable for most people in their teens and twenties. It is almost as if the comparatively unfettered ability to rise in the political and economic realms must be compensated for when it comes to peopling the bench. Though many in the academy lionize him, few spend much time discussing the fact that Robert Jackson rose to prominence and then the Supreme Court without having trodden the golden path of law review, clerkship, and partner.

All of which makes the American Bar Association’s judicial rating system seem like an exercise in subjective grading. When a nominee’s rating depends on the make-up of a particular committee, the resulting scores have all the marks of a high school prom vote. Like an American Idol panel, an ABA process does not (and perhaps, cannot) employ a consistent standard for judging someone “qualified” when there are no concrete qualifications to use.

Instead of weighting a “qualified” rating towards accomplishments clustered at the beginning of a career, the ABA should reward nominees that have made significant contributions to the practice or study of law. After all, a good judge is someone who appreciates both the realities of legal practice, and the history, philosophy, and structure of the American Constitutional order. Lawyers serving as judges should have a breadth of experience and a depth of knowledge. If that sounds too much like the exceptional being the enemy of the competent, it is. But it emphasizes the accomplishments earned over a career, not standardized test scores. Be not afraid; there are more than enough attorneys to “qualify” under such a standard. It just may take a little extra work to find them.

Hopefully, the Obama Administration will come to the same realization its predecessor did and chuck the pretense that a professional cartel like the ABA can be objective. Like any advisor, when the ABA stopped providing useful information it was rightly fired. With one of President Obama’s own nominees getting less respect than her achievements deserve, now would be a good time to make the break permanent. Maybe then competent attorneys like Navarro can move past debates about qualifications to more serious matters: like whether her judicial philosophy squares with the Constitution itself.

It must have been Groundhog Day yesterday, because another major Democratic politician was accused of severely damaging the profitability of an American industry. This time it was President Barack Obama, who said at a New Hampshire town hall meeting:

“When times are tough, you tighten your belts,” the president said. “You don’t go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you’re trying to save for college.”

Not much to quibble with there – unless you happen to live and work in Las Vegas. The president’s sensible remarks (which would be totally un-remarkable if not said by a major politician) didn’t sit well with the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, which claimed that a previous critical statement about corporations using bailout money for Vegas junkets cost the city millions in cancelled trips.

Even if that’s true, though, is the president wrong? Trips to Vegas – or Disney World, a Red Sox game, or an evening at the movies – are luxuries that (should) depend on disposable income. If you can’t pay your mortgage, or in the case of bailed out companies, your debts, you shouldn’t be jetting off to expensive locales at taxpayer expense. The same holds true for a family on a budget.  Isn’t this the paradigmatic “kitchen table conversation”?

Nonetheless, Nevada’s senators responded with bipartisan denunciation, and extracted a written apology from the president. One hopes it was delivered in the form of an IOU.

Ironically, the president’s truth telling about where Sin City fits on the priority list did a lot less verifiable damage than Senator Harry Reid’s cryptic comments about a “major American insurer” “whose name is familiar to everyone” last October. After pairing those talismanic phrases with a statement that the mystery company was about to go bankrupt, MetLife, The Hartford, and Prudential all lost between 11 and 32% of their stock value within a day. Other than backtracking a bit, Senator Reid apparently didn’t feel the need to write a public apology to these companies. Maybe they’d prefer he save the stationary and pass some regulatory relief instead.

The president is wrong about a lot of issues, but using Vegas as an example of how not to spend your nest egg isn’t one of them. America isn’t going to get its savings rate and overall economy back on track by spending more money at casinos. Then again, his insightful criticism not to spend gobs of credit card money on fleeting emotional experiences probably won’t migrate into the president’s thinking on how best to structure his deficit-exploding progressive agenda.

Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) has recommended that Democrats hold off on any health care votes until Senator-elect Scott Brown can be seated.

Webb stated, “I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated.”

With a margin of victory of more than 100,000 votes and a concession speech from his opponent, Martha Coakley, Brown should have no trouble arguing that the race is settled.  Now, it’s up to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to honor the will of her fellow Democrats and the voters of Massachusetts.

Senator Ben Nelson’s home state kickbacks are notorious.  The “Cornhusker Kickback” is firmly entrenched in the American political lexicon and now Nelson is starting to hear it from his constituents.

According to this report from Politico, Nelson and his wife were eating at a local pizza joint when one patron recognized the longtime politician and yelled, “Get him the hell out of here!”  Other customers began to boo and Senator Nelson and his party disappeared into the Nebraska cold.

It appears that this local pressure is taking its toll on not only Nelson’s approval rating but also his conscience (if politicians have those).  Roll Call reports that Nelson has asked Harry Reid to drop the infamous Cornhusker Kickback.

As Andy Roth over at Club for Growth wrote, “Nebraskans will still be forced to swallow ObamaCare AND they’ll have to pay more for it.  Sorry, Senator Nelson, you can’t unring that bell.”

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

Not all behind-the-scenes political books definitively scuttle reputations and ambitions. For instance, former Bush speechwriter Matt Latimer’s “Speech-Less: Tales of a White House Survivor” caused a stir among fellow former Bushies, but after less than a month of notoriety, the book took its place on the shelves of the chattering classes to be consumed and forgotten. But “Game Change”, the new book by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann about the behind-the-scenes maneuvering during the 2008 presidential campaign is different. Way different.

Today’s Drudge Report has no less than four distinct links commenting on the book’s contents. There’s confirmation about John Edwards’ affair, and more than you ever wanted to know about his dysfunctional marriage. There are stories about the Clintons attempting to use slights and smears to undermine Barack Obama’s campaign. And of course, there’s more evidence that John McCain did a disservice to Sarah Palin and his supporters by failing to make sure she was prepared to be a Vice President. Oh yeah; don’t be surprised if Harry Reid’s racist remarks about Obama presage a Dodd-like retirement announcement after a health care “reform” bill gets signed.

While the information in this book isn’t likely to impact the 2010 congressional races because they’ll be a referendum on the Democrats’ control of Washington, the same can’t be said for which Republican candidates become serious presidential contnders in 2012. My guess is that the people most interested in this book are the politicos and journalists that make up the GOP establishment. Most of the sources denigrating Palin since the campaign are the moneymen and professional staff that have a hand in every presidential contest. They’ve seen her act before, and no amount of Tea Party support is going to persuade them to promote her to the top of the ticket next time around. And now they have a printed counter-argument to Palin’s “Going Rogue”.

All of which poses the question of who benefits the most from Palin’s likely marginalization? Probably Mitt Romney. While keeping a low media profile compared to Palin’s book tour and Mike Huckabee’s television show, Romney is doing the kind of chit building that wins primaries. Through his PAC and endorsements he’s currently in full back-scratching mode. Come campaign season, it will be time to cash in those chits for generous, top-down support.

To give President Obama some credit, he knows how to get Congress in line.  Or,  perhaps Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid know how to crack the whip on their members.

According to Congressional Quarterly, Congress voted with the President 96.7% of the time in which he had a clearly stated position.  This broke the 44-year old mark set by President Lyndon Johnson, according to the study.  Oddly, President Johnson also had a miserable fiscal record.

Of course, many Democrats who voted with President Obama in the past will attempt to run as far away from the President as possible when pitching their “achievements” to voters.   Luckily, Congress can’t hide from its voting record.  From cap-and-trade, to tax hikes, to pork-barrel stimulus spending, this Congress has been far worse than the previous band of tax-and-spend acolytes.

Luckily, voters will have a chance to voice their disapproval on November 2.

When asked to identify a leftist counterpart to the wit and wisdom of conservative commentator George Will, liberals commonly cite The Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne, Jr.

Frankly, that’s a bit like a D.C.-area baseball fan offering the Washington Nationals as a counterpart to the New York Yankees, as confirmed again by today’s commentary from Dionne.

In it, Dionne counsels a veritable suicide strategy for Democrats hoping to avoid a landslide defeat in November’s 2010 Congressional elections.  In the face of poll after poll demonstrating widespread public opposition to ObamaCare, Dionne advises Democrats to trumpet its virtues.  He apparently remains blissfully oblivious to the fact that the more people learn about ObamaCare, the less they like it.  Since Obama demanded legislation before the August Congressional recess, the public has swung from narrow approval to wide disapproval, yet he advises that Democrats tell them more?  Dionne subsequently argues, presumably with a straight face, that Democrats should utilize proposed carbon cap-and-tax legislation in their effort to gain electoral momentum.  As is the case with ObamaCare, however, Dionne’s recommendation flies in the face of public skepticism and opposition toward this costly bill that will raise utility costs for everyday consumers, cripple businesses struggling in a weak economy and surrender additional American sovereignty to United Nations-style climate regulation.

Those in the legal profession often advise against interrupting opposing attorneys who are dooming their own cases.  One suspects that Republicans are similarly in no hurry to interrupt Dionne’s advice to Democrats.

Early this morning, the United States Senate passed its version of health care “reform” legislation.  Though Congress won’t be back in session until January 18^th, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will be discussing ways to reconcile the bills so they can get it to President Obama for his signature.  In a departure from the go-go pace of the last two weeks, there are signs that the legislation may not become law until February of next year.

Since an overwhelming majority of voters oppose either version of the plan, Democrats are leaving themselves open to serious opposition over the holidays; especially since media outlets and activist groups will have time to comb through the bills and highlight the waste and corruption tucked away in each.  For CFIF and its supporters, the fight continues!

Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) on Harry Reid’s (D-NV) health care compromise with Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson:

You’ve got to compliment Ben Nelson for playing, ‘The Price Is Right.’  He negotiated a Medicaid agreement for Nebraska that puts the federal government on the hook forever.  This isn’t the Louisiana Purchase, it’s the Nebraska windfall … this isn’t how this process is supposed to work.

Sadly, the “Louisiana Purchase” already took place during Senate negotiations.  Now, taxpayers are “on the hook” for Louisiana and Nebraska.  This is not because Nebraska and Louisiana are especially important for health care reform, but because two politicians from those states were able to game the system better than their colleagues.

This is why our national debt is over $12 trillion.

This morning, the Senate invoked cloture on its scheme for government-run health care.  Under Senate rules, there will now be 30 hours of debate divided equally between the two parties, and then there is a strong possibility that the Senate will pass the legislation.

For Majority Leader Harry Reid, getting to this point was no easy task.  The typical horse trading that takes place on Capitol Hill was on overdrive lately as Leader Reid had to beg, borrow and deal to buy off each cynical Senator.

As much as the media and politicians on the Hill excoriated Governor Rod Blagojevich for selling President Obama’s old Senate seat, buying votes is a common occurrence in the nation’s capital.

As this piece from Politico demonstrates, what happens in Senate chambers typically borders on bribery.

For example:

• Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE), who was once emphatic in his opposition to ObamaCare, got $45 million in federal funds for Medicaid expansion in Nebraska.   Other states were not fortunate enough to have an undecided Senator provide their state with the perks of federal largesse.

• Independent/Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (VT), who was previously opposed to the legislation, was awarded $10 billion in new funding for community health centers.

• Senator Nelson (D-NE) and Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) garnered an excise tax carve-out for their states; all other states will be forced to pay the tax.

• Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) received perhaps the most persuasive legislative nugget, a $300 million federal gift to Louisiana for Medicaid expansion.

In an attempt to rationalize this border-line legislative bribery, Senator Reid opined, “You’ll find a number of states that are treated differently than other states.  That’s what legislating is all about.  It’s compromise.”

Buying off votes = compromise?  Selling a Senate seat = felony?

Majority Leader Harry Reid this morning released his manager’s amendment to the Senate health care bill.  Read it here.

The Majority Leader is still planning to hold the first cloture vote on the bill as early as 1:00 a.m. Monday morning.

What’s Paul Krugman’s advice to liberals like MoveOn and Howard Dean upset over current health care negotiations in the Senate?  Pass the Bill.

It seems that liberals like Krugman want a bill just for the sake of passing a bill.   Politics and not principle appear to be his main motivation, which is strange coming from an economist and college professor.

Ideological purists like Howard Dean and MoveOn object to Harry Reid’s version of reform.  But why?  The current Senate bill supposedly lacks the government-run public option that liberals have been salivating over for the past year.  What remains from Senate negotiations is a hodgepodge of mandates, new regulations and higher taxes.

The one issue both sides of the aisle should agree on during the holidays is that the current health care bill is awful; it’s really really bad.

Conservatives and libertarians should hate the bill because it contains hundreds of billions in new taxes, an unconstitutional mandate for individual health insurance, an expensive employer mandate, costs over $2 trillion and it does nothing to bend the health care cost curve downward, among many other reasons.

Liberals should hate the bill because it (supposedly) contains no government-run public option, politically connected health care companies practically drafted the legislation, PhARMA supports it, socialist Senator Bernie Sanders doesn’t, it fails to cover 100% of the uninsured and it doesn’t bend the health care cost curve downward.

Dr. Krugman may attempt to use his perch at the New York Times to rally progressives toward a final health care push, but the ugly truth is that health care reform has become the product of Washington, D.C. politics.  That’s never a good thing.  President Obama rallied against Washington-style politics during his campaign but it appears that his bill and his political strategy have embraced the zero sum ultra-partisan approach that he derided so frequently in the past.

Dr. Krugman’s headline should have been “Kill this Bill.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D – Nevada) appeared on the verge of tears on the Senate floor yesterday, lamenting criticisms lodged against him.

His complaint?  That those big, bad, meanie Republicans had the audacity to question his personal judgment in scooting off to a Louisiana fundraiser, even while he threatens to keep the Senate in session into the holidays to address healthcare legislation.  Voice cracking, he feigned heartbreak that criticisms against him could become so “personal.”  He professed an inability to fathom how supposed “friends” from across the aisle could “embarrass or denigrate” him in such a cruel, cruel manner.

This is the same Harry Reid who, just three days earlier, compared opponents of his healthcare legislation to those who defended slavery and opposed the Civil Rights Act.  Never mind that the Republican Party originated from opposition to slavery, or that Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act in higher proportions than Democrats.  Factual realities are apparently no more relevant to Harry Reid than is a sense of personal decorum and judgment.

In this way, he is like the proverbial boy who murdered his parents only to later plead for mercy as an orphan.  He started a fight, but didn’t like it when his targets fought back.  In less than one year, Nevada voters will have their opportunity to render judgment on Reid’s plea.  According to the latest polls, they are apparently unamused.

Unfortunately for taxpayers, patients and health care professionals, the Senate successfully invoked cloture on its health care plan last Saturday.  With only 60 votes needed to proceed to consideration of the bill, Harry Reid got his 60 votes.

Since few Senators likely read the entire 2,074-page piece of legislation, here’s a quick breakdown, courtesy of Senator Coburn, of what was in the bill.

• 8 – new taxes created in the bill.

• 70 – government programs created in the bill.

• 3,607 – uses of the word “shall.”

• 24 million – patients left without health care.

• $494 billion – in new tax hikes.

• $2.5 trillion – total cost of the legislation.