Freedom Line Blog

So said Vince Lombardi. The same question could be hurled at the Obama White House for its latest transgression against common sense. First there were the inane gifts of American classic DVDs to the British Prime Minister that weren’t compatible for viewing in England. Then the Queen received an I-Pod with pictures of places she’d been. There were bows to Arabian autocrats and a diminished Japanese emperor. Next came the quixotic firing of Greg Craig. A couple of news cycles ago the social secretary neglected to post a guest list at a security checkpoint. Now it comes to light that the Obamas originally wanted a non-religious Christmas this year. And as if looking to pick yet another unnecessary fight, there will be no formal receiving line for media members looking for an official photograph with the President of the United States.

Really? These aren’t calculated jabs to please certain political allies. They’re just stupid. What’s more, they indicate either a pettiness of character or disregard for the image of the American presidency. Those in the White House should care that they are projecting sophomoric caricature of people in power. As the new administration’s first year draws to a close, its public relations blunders reflect a White House that looks much more like Spamalot than Camelot.

The Obama Administration increasingly resembles an oceanliner captain who stubbornly responds to iceberg alarms by shifting to full speed ahead.

Ignoring recent news of declining global temperatures and the Climategate scandal that has shaken global warming activism to its core, Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) yesterday declared carbon dioxide a “dangerous pollutant.”

That’s right – the gas that we all exhale and that plants inhale is suddenly a toxin.

The political cynicism behind this maneuver is obvious.  Barack Obama and climate change alarmists (notice, by the way, how they dropped the term “global warming” when the temperature data became too inconvenient) know that passing draconian carbon cap-and-tax legislation in the foreseeable future is nearly impossible.  Consequently, they have used the EPA to arrogantly shove their agenda through, or at least as a threat to Senators and big business lobbyists that the alternative to Congressional cap-and-tax is even worse.

Fortunately, the EPA’s reckless, mindless and arrogant maneuver will be challeneged in court.  But in the meantime, we’re left to wonder whether there’s any limit to the destructive efforts the Obama White House will shove down Americans’ throats in order to placate the extremist left wing.

The nation’s unemployment rate dipped slightly last month, and Barack Obama predictably trumpeted this seemingly-postitive “trend.”

Unfortunately, we can’t pop the champagne corks just yet.

A one-month decline isn’t a “trend” (the unemployment rate has dipped slightly in recent months only to resume its increase, and remains high), and the longer-term prospect of improvement under current leadership is troubling.  As noted by The Wall Street Journal’s Mark Gongloff, the nation still shed 125,000 jobs last month.  Additionally, the portion of unemployed Americans on permanent layoff reached an all-time high of 55.1%, a record 9.3 million remain underemployed, over one million have abandoned the workforce altogether and employers “show little inclination to rehire, even though the recession has supposedly been over for five months now.”

The bottom line is that unlike previous recessions, there is a much dimmer light at the end of the tunnel due to the ominous prospect of new healthcare burdens, skyrocketing deficits, a weakened dollar, draconian carbon cap-and-tax burdens, tax increases, more federal regulations and bald negation of common-law contract rights by the government.  Until Obama, Reid and Pelosi smell the coffee and recognize the gloom that they’re casting over the nation’s economy and employment picture, the prospect of dramatic rebound remains thin.

In his book “America Alone”, Mark Steyn discusses the “strong horse, weak horse” theory of foreign affairs. When terrorists like Osama bin Laden see a strong horse and a weak horse, they will necessarily like the strong horse. Traditionally, weakness was shown by the absence of power. Among many modern nations, it is evidenced by the refusal to use power. In either case, weakness is a provocation to those seeking to do harm.

And, as Ivan Krastev describes in today’s Washington Post, President Obama’s weakness on foreign affairs – silence on the killings of Iranian dissidents, making nice with dictators, bowing to the Japanese emperor – is signaling an over matched man in critical times. The Russians are familiar with a leader whose celebrity masks his country’s drop in prestige.

Obama himself is largely viewed in Russia as the American Mikhail Gorbachev, but Russians are less impressed than other Europeans have been with Obama’s brilliance and rock-star popularity. They remember the Gorbi-mania that conquered the globe at the moment the Soviet Union was about to crumble. Russians are tempted to view Obama’s global reformism and his progressive agenda as an expression of American weakness and not as an expression of America’s regained strength and legitimacy.

What does all this mean for the “reset” policy? First, it means that Russians will not be in a hurry to respond to the positive signals coming from Washington, and any perception of Washington weakness will diminish Moscow’s willingness to cooperate even in areas of common interest and common concern. It is not Obama’s deference but his strength that can persuade the Kremlin to cooperate with Washington. Simply put, to persuade Russians to join him, Obama must first demonstrate that he does not need them. He needs a clear victory, whether against the Taliban in Afghanistan, Iran’s nuclear ambition or Beijing’s habit of devaluing its currency. Obama must show strength for the “reset” policy to succeed.

Chances are Obama’s decision tonight to send less than the requested amount of troops to Afghanistan will do nothing to achieve either a clear victory in Afghanistan or more esteem for the Russians (or anyone else for that matter).

Turns out Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) told the truth when he yelled “You lie” after President Obama said illegal immigrants would not be covered under the health care reform bill. A report by the Washington Times shows that both the House and Senate versions of the legislation fail to prohibit illegal immigrants from getting taxpayer-funded health coverage.

The House bill mandates, and the Senate bill strongly encourages, businesses to extend health care coverage to all employees. But the bills do not have exemptions to screen out illegal immigrants, who usually obtain jobs by using false identities and are indistinguishable from legal workers.

A rough estimate by the Center for Immigration Studies suggests that the practical effect of the mandates would be that about 1 million illegal immigrants could obtain health insurance coverage through their employers.

Democrats who wrote the House bill said that employer coverage for illegal immigrants is not intentional, but rather the outcome of people breaking the law.

Well, it may not be intentional, but it certainly logically follows. The failure of Democrats to address this loophole (and others like it) is the reason the health care “reform” will become seemingly uncontrollable. Of course, no social welfare program the government creates is truly uncontrollable, so long as there is diligent enforcement of means testing. But then, what’s the point of having universal health care if everybody (citizen or not) isn’t in the same system?

Whither evidence-based public policy? In the wake of the metastasizing scandal over falsified global warming data, the Obama Administration is acting as though the only debate over climate change is when to stop it. As Richard Wolffe reports, President Obama’s recent Asia trip was a crucial part of brokering a deal to set new restrictions on carbon emissions at next month’s Copenhagen conference.

Beyond the photo ops and press statements, Obama was pushing President Hu Jintao and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for the kind of climate deals that eluded him at the G8 summit in Italy in the summer – and have eluded international negotiators for the last decade. China and India have played central roles in blocking past agreements, alongside the US, in a seemingly intractable dispute between fast-developing economies and the older, wealthier polluters.

Now Obama is at the point where he feels on the verge of a breakthrough, based on the kind of talks that don’t get covered by reporters obsessing about state dinners. “He had extensive conversations with President Hu specifically on climate and conversations with the prime minister of India,” said one senior White House aide. “So he has been building momentum for a political agreement to be brokered at Copenhagen.”

This is another example of what Obama meant during the campaign when he said as president he would “turn the page” on the old debates dividing America. Then, as now, the only page turning to be done is when it dismisses the opposition as unserious and uninformed. How tragic if the president succeeds in realizing Al Gore’s dream of a voluntary global energy contraction just as news is surfacing that the very data supporting it is corrupt.

In spite of the dubious value of his recent trip to Asia, now comes an announcement that President Obama will be traveling to the glorified photo op that is the denuded climate change meeting in Copenhagen on his way to Oslo to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize. In both cases Obama’s presence was assured only after any meaningful criteria were removed.
The only meaningful accomplishment possible at Copenhagen is scheduling another meeting next year. And of course, no single person on the planet can claim to live in a greater state of peace after 10 months of Hope and Change. Such is the Obama approach to international relations, which is looking and sounding resolute when there is nothing able to be resolved.

It’s late on Monday night and President Obama has been huddling with his “war council” at the White House for the ninth time discussing a strategy for the war in Afghanistan.  Never mind that Obama himself unveiled a new strategy in the spring, that he was responsible for appointing General McChrystal as the commander in theater, and that his months-long ambivalence on Afghanistan is in sharp contrast to the “fierce urgency of now” that drove the stimulus package, cap and trade, and health care reform to be rolled out in massive pieces of legislation delivered in the middle of the night.

Even putting all that aside, what’s truly worrisome about the President’s current state of mind is his unseriousness.  According to CNN’s coverage of the council meeting:

At the last war council meeting – on November 11, Veteran’s Day – Obama pushed for revisions in proposed plans for troop increases to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Monday that Obama would seek answers at Monday’s meeting to the questions he posed on November 11 about “not just how we get people there, but what’s the strategy for getting them out.”

It’s all well and good for Obama to be considering what the endgame in Afghanistan will look like, but that’s no reason to delay the decision-making process.  The historical record is pretty clear. While an emphasis on exit strategies always sounds comforting, they’re almost impossible to construct in a vacuum.  If Afghanistan is really the “war of necessity” the president has said it is (and it is), he needs to settle on a strategy for victory. Trying to figure out how to leave before figuring out how to win is a recipe for failure. Obama is president now — which means it’s time for him to stop thinking about the war in terms of election cycles.

Gee, if only poor Barack Obama could have known that actually being President would prove this difficult when he rattled off easy promise after promise as a candidate.  Back then, it was quite fun to throw rhetorical rocks and thunder commitments from behind his teleprompter with his trademark raised chin.  But he wants us to know that the reality of living in the White House is just so…  hard.

The particular occasion for Obama’s lamentation was his admission that he won’t be able to fulfill his promise of closing Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention center by January 2010 after all.  In an interview with Fox News’s Major Garrett (which is iteself another monumental capitulation to hard reality), Obama said that he is “not disappointed” that he can’t make good on his written closure order, because doing so is “just technically hard.”

Well, gosh, President Obama.  Who knew that closing Guantanamo, balancing the budget, winning the war in Afghanistan, persuading Iran and North Korea to forego their nuclear ambitions and achieving Middle East peace would be so tough?  It all looked so easy when someone else was in charge.

And now a word from Big Sister. With comprehensive climate change legislation tabled until next year and comprehensive health care reform on life support in the Senate, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says the current immigration system is “unacceptable.” Translation? It’s time to pursue comprehensive immigration reform. (By the way, is there any issue area that doesn’t require a “comprehensive” solution? Whatever happened to incrementalism?)

Characteristically, the Obama Administration will not be advocating a fix that speaks to the fundamental issue in the debate. The primary criticism of the current system is that it attracts and rewards low-skilled workers living at the margins of mainstream American society. Compounding matters is the current system’s focus on “re-uniting” families; which over time has been expanded to mean any tangentially related family member overseas gets bumped to the front of the visa line.

Steven Malanga of the Manhattan Institute thinks this is a problem.

The more people who came and established residence here, the longer the so-called ‘family re-unification’ list of visa applicants grew as newcomers placed their own relatives on it. That put pressure on Congress to continually expand the family-visa category until it came to dominate our immigration system. It also sparked more illegal immigration because Congress could never enlarge the number of immigration slots fast enough to reduce wait lists for family members, which meant many people just came without permanent visas to join relatives and then hoped for the best.”

As Malanga advocates, a more far more sensible solution would be to follow the lead of countries like Australia, Ireland, and Canada who “tilted their policies towards focusing on those with skills and talents most likely to succeed in and contribute to a late 20th century developed economy.”

Instead, all indications are that Secretary Napolitano will claim that a year’s worth of border enforcement is not enough. She’ll then declare a need to “comprehensively” reform the system and the people who brought you nearly $2 trillion of stimulus and health reform will conjure up ways to sell amnesty as the only moral decision possible. Get ready for a spirited Spring congressional session!

It’s sad when American leaders must look to “Old Europe” for economic wisdom, but that’s where we stand with this Obama White House.

Speaking this week to media, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that the worldwide recession demands tax cuts, not higher taxes and redistribution, to jump-start economic growth.  Impressively, she’s standing firm even in the face of fierce opposition, saying, “the government has opted for growth.  I indeed face very critical treatment, as does the whole government, regarding the course that we have chosen.”  A spokesman for Merkel’s partner Free Democrats added, “this is the right path.  This will create jobs and this is the condition for healthy public finances.”  Meanwhile, Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi offer more government, higher taxes and more regulation to somehow “stimulate” America out of recession.

Hmmm…  Perhaps this recent trend of economic sense out of Germany helps explain why Obama was so reluctant to visit Berlin to celebrate the fall of the Berlin Wall this month?

Since he was inaugurated last January, Barack Obama has broken almost all of the promises he earnestly made as a candidate, from pledges of bipartisanship to not raising taxes on anyone earning under $250,000.  Indeed, he even gave a preview to his future behavior when he jettisoned his pledge to abide by public campaign finance limits as soon as he secured the Democrats’ nomination.

But not all of Obama’s broken promises are bad.

Last November, he promised immediate action to impose climate change hysteria as official federal policy, saying, “now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all.  Delay is no longer an option.”

Well, maybe not.  This past weekend, Obama announced that there would be no international carbon cap-and-tax accord when world leaders meet in Copenhagen, Denmark next month.  That’s good news for strapped American taxpayers and businesses, but unwelcome news for sniveling Europeans, who are doing their left-wing Joe Wilson imitation by branding Obama a liar.

We would’ve preferred that Obama join Europeans in celebrating the Berlin Wall’s demise last week, but we can at least be thankful for the small blessing that he’s also offending the Euro global-warming alarmists.

Apparently, Iran never received Barack Obama’s “Hope and Change” memo.  Or, more worrisome, they did and opted to play him for a Jimmy Carter-like fool.

Yesterday, the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) announced that Iran may be constructing multiple covert nuclear facilities in addition to the Qom site disclosed two months ago.  Moreover, Iranian representatives have brazenly announced that they intend to commence operating the exposed Qom facility by 2011.  Making matters even worse, Iran is also wavering on its commitment following exposure of the Qom plant to ship its uranium to other nations for benign reprocessing.

The Obama State Department and IAEA reacted with their usual impotence, with the State Department saying that “now is the time for Iran to signal that it wants to be a responsible member of the international community.”  No, that time passed decades ago.

This endless cycle of Iranian duplicity and feckless response is beyond farce.  Obama brought false “hope” to international relations, but where’s the “change?”

This is rich.  Barack Obama told Chinese students yesterday that an uncensored society is healthiest.

“I’m a big supporter of non-censorship,” Obama said with an apparent straight face, because “it forces me to hear opinions that I don’t want to hear.”  He added, “I think that the more freely information flows, the stronger society becomes,” and “they can begin to think for themselves.”

This is the same Barack Obama who admonished anyone who opposes his policy agenda to “get out of the way,” expresses support for the “Fairness Doctrine” and whose White House hit men orchestrated a campaign to silence and marginalize Fox News, the Chamber of Commerce and health insurers who had the audacity to actually communicate critical information to their members.  One can only infer that Obama stands more willing to advocate freedom of speech for the Chinese than his own citizens.

One of the more frustrating aspects of debunking worldwide climate change hysteria is the false notion that a consensus exists that global warming is man-made.

On that front, there’s good news to report for those of us who prefer sobriety to fashionability.  According to a new Rasmussen Reports public opinion poll, a 47% to 37% plurality believes that climate change results more from long-term planetary causes than human activity.  Considering the fact that temperatures have declined since eleven years ago, and that global cooling was the trendy hysteria just thirty years ago, it’s refreshing to know that Americans are on to the scam.

And dangerously for Barack Obama, Americans by 50% to 20% believe that he still considers global warming man-made.  Thus, like ObamaCare, this means that more Americans view his agenda as one opposing theirs, creating a precarious phenomenon for him.  As he prepares to travel to Copenhagen to once again bow before the false international gods of global warming at the expense of America’s economy and taxpayers, it’s something of which his bumbling staff had better become aware.

Uninhibited by the mounting debt being incurred through present and future spending, the White House is pressuring Congress to raise the legal cap on the country’s debt limit.  Rebecca Christie of Bloomberg reports:

The Obama administration is confident Congress will raise the country’s debt limit by year end to avert a showdown similar to the one that shuttered parts of the government in 1995, administration officials said.

The White House wants an increase of at least $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion, according to a person familiar with the deliberations between lawmakers and the administration. Record budget deficits are pushing the national debt closer to the $12.1 trillion statutory limit.”

One would think a debt ceiling of $12.1 trillion would be a high enough threshold that – if reached – would prompt lawmakers to question the necessity (and sanity) of going over it.  One would be wrong.  What’s more, the Obama Administration is signaling that it doesn’t really care how Congress gets around to extending the nation’s credit line, as long as it does so before anyone has to choose between less spending or less work for federal employees.

The administration officials said the White House is open to any legislative vehicle that will raise the debt limit, by any amount.”

In one of the best critiques of action without regard to consequences, celebrated chaos theoretician Ian Malcolm said about overzealous experts that they were “so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

From bio-ethics to evidence-based public policy, it is astounding that the 220 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and at least a score of senators who support the Obama Administration’s health care “reform” plan cannot answer the following question:

It’s one of the most basic, kitchen-table questions of the entire reform debate: Would the sweeping $900 billion overhaul actually lower spiraling insurance premiums for everyone?

No one really knows.”

And it’s not just that people haven’t read the bill, or studies analyzing its impact on the cost of health care. It’s that the data doesn’t exist.

At a recent Senate health committee hearing, two health care rivals – Douglas Holtz-Eakin, an economic adviser to Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign, and Jonathan Gruber, an economics professor whose work is cited often by the White House – agreed comprehensive, objective evidence wasn’t available for small and large businesses.

“It’s insane,” Holtz-Eakin said.

Agreed. Thankfully, at least one Democratic Senator thinks information – not just assurances – is needed before committing American taxpayers to a trillion dollar decision.

The lack of data prompted Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) to request a broad analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on premiums, which he said was “a basic, bottom-line question that we have to have answered before we can decide if this is an intelligent thing to do.”

Now we see why Senator Bayh didn’t make the cut to be Vice President. He likes to consult factually-based, non-partisan research before voting in favor of the largest expansion of federal social services in 40 years.

Characteristically, top Obama advisors have a different view – one that chooses the devil we don’t know instead of the devil we do.

“I think you could always use more data,” (White House Health Czar Nancy-Ann) DeParle said, but added that “we have plenty of data on where things are and where things are headed without reform.”

Did you catch the barely concealed contempt for “business as usual” and the stifled urge to blame the previous administration?

All this would be comical if there weren’t a $787 billion stimulus package in circulation, the consequences of which still defy an ability to be measured or predicted. To their credit, some Democratic caucus members are joining Senator Bayh’s (belated) rush to judge the health care “reform” bill on its merits.

Lawmakers say they are hungry for data that assures them they are not voting for a bill that does the opposite what they have intended.

“I want to see an objective, third-party analysis from people who don’t have a conflict of interest,” said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). “I like evidence.”

Good. So do the people being asked to finance health care “reform” unto the nth generation.

You can read the entire article from Politico here.

During a week in which Nancy Pelosi force-fed her job-killing healthcare bill to America, it was timely that the Kauffman Foundation released a report on how jobs are created in this country.

According to their study released last week, two-thirds of jobs created as recently as 2007 came from enterprises less than five years old.  Indeed, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, almost all of America’s net job creation since 1980 came from new businesses.  This stands to reason in our dynamic economy, where giant firms tend to become complacent and wither, whereas new innovators with novel ideas rapidly expand and create new jobs.  Think of General Motors and Microsoft, for instance.   Before that, the horse-and-buggy industry lost employees to the auto makers.  This is the nature of our economic system.

With this in mind, what are Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid doing to create jobs?  We’re not referring to temporary work funded by dollars borrowed from future generations or wrenched from more productive uses via taxation – actual jobs?  Stated differently, what entrepreneur in his or her right mind would consider this a promising moment to take risks and hire new employees?  From healthcare “reform” to carbon cap-and-tax legislation to higher taxes to financial regulation, Obama, Pelosi and Reid see employers as mere scapegoats who should be saddled with even higher costs of employment.  They bail out dinosaurs like GM and Chrysler, but leave smaller entrepreneurs to suddenly subsidize ObamaCare and the ever-expanding federal government.

The unemployment rate just jumped to 10.2% despite Obama’s promise that it wouldn’t exceed 8% if we swallowed his “stimulus” medicine.  At what point does he wake up and smell the real-world coffee?  Will he ever?

Although lost amidst news of last week’s elections, the Ft. Hood shooting and Nancy Pelosi’s healthcare abomination, President Obama pays a visit to China next week.  What awaits him might not be the fawning foreign crowds to which he is accustomed in his overseas travels.

As noted by The Wall Street Journal, Obama’s behavior in office has already created friction in a nation where President George W. Bush was actually quite popular.  Whereas Bush expanded and improved trade and diplomatic relations, Obama has engaged in destructive trade protectionism over such things as low-cost tires.  Considering China’s importance as a trade partner, economic force and strategic antagonist, it is critical that Obama deal with them intelligently.  Unfortunately, so far, he appears less adept at achieving successful relations with China than he does in wooing anti-American audiences in the Middle East and socialist portions of Europe.

But hey – at least the denizens of Parisian salons love him.

Remember when the Obama Administration promised that, if we only passed his potent “stimulus” plan, unemployment would top out at 8%?  In contrast, according to Obama, if the American people foolishly refused his master plan, unemployment might rise as high as 10%?

Well, this morning, the U.S. Department of Labor provided yet another wakeup call and simple math lesson to Mr. Obama.  Unfortunately, the unemployment rate has now risen to 10.2%.  Worse, Obama’s ineffective “stimulus” has only exacerbated the problem by adding to our unsustainable federal debt and creating a forward-looking business climate that is inhospitable to creation of new employment and enterprises.  Something to keep in mind as Obama issues new promise after promise regarding his healthcare, carbon cap-and-tax and other agenda items.