As top Democrats debate health care reform “behind closed doors,” it’s important to recall President Obama’s repeated promises for a more open and transparent government.
Hat tip to Breitbart.tv for the video below.
In response to the attempted terrorist attack aboard a Detroit-bound flight on Christmas Day, President Obama is set to release a new wave of airport security measures.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has responded somewhat by giving pat-downs to travelers from Yemen, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and 11 other countries that are havens for terrorist activity.
Of course, the Christmas bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmatallab, was already in a U.S. database of 550,000 suspected terrorists, but that did not subject him to additional scrutiny under current law. No word yet on whether the President’s new proposals will change this practice.
Read more of CFIF on Homeland Security and Terrorism.
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.”
Reason’s Matt Welch on President Obama and the “Economic Consensus” of his fiscal policy:
Obama is a political master at drawing boundaries around the “respectable” debate and marginalizing a swath of his critics as being beyond the pale. Will he succeed at doing it with economics, too? We only know that he will try.
The White House has made the decision that debt, all $12 trillion worth of it, no longer matters in America. Instead of attempting to lower the $1.4 trillion annual budget deficit, the White House is looking for another round of stimulus pork.
According to White House Economic Advisor Christina Romer, it would be “suicide” to focus on deficit reduction to the exclusion of “job creation.” Her solution, of course, is to repeat the past two/three failed stimulus bills and spend another $50 billion on infrastructure. In Washington, D.C. that means $5 billion on infrastructure and $45 billion on pork and other preferred government handouts.
Romer’s solution is odd considering this paper she authored with her husband in April (after she began working at the White House) that concluded each dollar of tax cuts historically raised Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by $3, greater than many similar estimates of government stimulus spending.
Romer also concluded that tax increases can easily lower GDP. As she wrote, “Our results indicate that tax changes have very large effects on output. Our baseline specification implies than an exogenous tax increase of 1% of GDP lowers real GDP by almost 3%.” There appears to be a big difference between Doctor of Economics Romer and White House employee Romer.
With all this knowledge about the virtues of tax cuts and the harm of tax increases, Dr. Romer should pay a visit to the West Wing occasionally and remind President Obama that his policies will continue to shrink GDP and impede job creation.
Given enough time, President Obama will probably find occasion to apologize for that act of wanton American aggression at Lexington and Concord during a state visit to the United Kingdom.
For now, however, the President is contenting himself with paying penance for America’s 20th century “sins”. When Obama’s Asia trip took him to Japan over the weekend, former New York Times military correspondent Richard Halloran noted that the President hinted at a press conference that he may accept an invitation that no previous Commander-in-Chief has ever entertained — a visit to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Per Halloran:
Many Japanese, particularly left-wing organizations, would most likely demand that the US apologize for dropping the bombs, which would stir up rancor in the US. That would call into question the judgment of President Harry Truman, who made the decision to drop the bombs. In turn, that would put President Obama in a politically difficult position.
Among Americans, veterans of World War II, especially survivors of Japan’s surprise attack on the US naval base at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, would be vigilant for any sign of remorse for an action that many believe ended World War II with Japan’s surrender, sparing the lives of tens of thousands of Americans poised to invade Japan.
And the veterans would be right. Not only did Truman’s courageous decision prevent widespread American military deaths, it also likely prevented the millions of Japanese military and civilian casualties that would have resulted from the urban warfare that a ground invasion would have brought. It also was almost certainly responsible for preventing the planned Japanese execution of Allied POWs (a slaughter of 100,000 — or 2.5 times more than the initial death count from Nagasaki).
It’s bad enough that Obama would even entertain the notion of recoiling from the moral superiority of the Allied cause in World War II. Even worse (if utterly predictable at this point) was his tortured use of Japan as a model for his dream of the world as a nuclear-free Fantasia:
“Indeed, Japan serves as an example to the world that true peace and power can be achieved by taking this path. For decades, Japan has enjoyed the benefits of peaceful nuclear energy, while rejecting nuclear arms development – and by any measure, this has increased Japan’s security, and enhanced its position.”
I wish there was a pithy one-liner to capture the stunning stupidity of that statement. Let’s just put it this way: Obama, his speechwriters, or both are historically illiterate. Japan hasn’t ‘rejected’ nuclear arms development, so much as it has had the United States government preventing it from remilitarizing for nearly 65 years. And were it not for the substantial American military presence and security guarantee enveloping the island nation, its nuclear neighbors in China and North Korea would have swallowed it years ago.
The lesson here is not about the benevolence of a nuclear-free world. It’s about the benevolence of American power. What are the odds we’d hear that message in presidential remarks at Hiroshima?
With the Congressional Budget Office set to release its cost estimate of the Senate’s version of health care “reform” sometime this week, taxpayers continue to speculate over the whip count and the prospects for ObamaCare.
Congress.org has set up a virtual prediction market for the health care bill in the Senate. Click here to make your predictions of ObamaCare’s future. (Sorry, you can’t make any money off of your predictions.)
Let’s all hope that President Obama and leaders in Congress have a sudden change of heart and decide that more massive government won’t bring down health costs or reduce the federal deficit.
My prediction was 55-45 for final passage, but that doesn’t mean the bill will survive a filibuster attempt.
HT: Political Wire
Earlier this year IMS Health projected the American drug industry to contract slightly in the next few years, at a rate of 0.01 percent. In an updated report, however, the industry now stands to turn in healthy profits.
This change in good fortune is not because of a surging economy; it’s because of backroom deals with the White House and Congress. According to the report, the industry is expected to grow by 3.5% next year, and is set to rake in about $137 billion over the next four years.
Behind this paradox is the Obama Administration’s deal with the drug companies. IMS states that ObamaCare is actually going to “lead to higher priced brand [non-generic] products.”
So drug companies, the villain and devil-incarnate for much of the left-wing, will soon gain another $137 billion because of the Obama Administration? Wasn’t President Obama supposed to be the destroyer of all evil in the world?
These newfound profits might be surprising, but it comes as no surprise that former Representative Billy Tauzin leads PhRMA and still has plenty of political clout in Washington, D.C.
You might recall Tauzin, architect of the 2003 Prescription Drug Bill, who then bolted for his current cushy position at PhRMA.
What capitalism creates … crony-capitalism destroys.
HT: Huffington Post
Someone in Congress really wants to keep their job. Representative John Adler, a Democrat who represents New Jersey’s 3rd Congressional District, just announced that he will be voting against H.R. 3962, the government takeover of health care.
This comes as a bit of a surprise since rarely are New Jersey Democrats of the moderate “Blue Dog” variety. Then again, President Obama won Adler’s district last year, but only with 52 percent of the vote.
Call Representative Adler at 202-225-4765 to thank him for standing up for taxpayers and freedom. Or if you live in his district, you can reach his local offices at 856-985-2777 or 732-608-7235.
Larry Summers, Director of President Obama’s National Economic Council, has been a loyal ally to the administration and proponent of current health care reform proposals floating around Congress.
Summers has backed ObamaCare despite the many troubling provisions contained in House and Senate legislation, namely the individual health care mandate and the government-run public option.
Apparently, the economic views of Dr. Summers have changed in the current partisan environment. When he was an academic and cared more about economic externalities than political favoritism, he penned this paper critiquing individual mandates and government-run plans.
Here is an excerpt:
Note that a payroll tax on employers directed at financing health insurance benefits publicly would have the same employment displacement effects [translation: people lose their jobs] as a mandated health insurance program…. If policymakers fail to recognize the costs of mandated benefits because they do not appear in the government budget, then mandated benefit programs could lead to excessive spending on social programs. There is no sense in which benefits become “free” just because the government mandates that employers offer them to workers. As with value-added taxes, it can plausibly be argued that mandated benefits fuel the growth of government.”
Thank goodness that Senator Judd Gregg (R – NH) called the Obama Administration out on its habit of scapegoating its fiscal irresponsibility on former President Bush.
Whenever confronted with questions about their alarming fiscal trajectory, which will quickly double and then triple America’s cumulative national debt, Obama Administration officials invariably seem to rationalize it as an inheritance from the Bush Administration. Never mind, of course, that then-Senator Obama voted for such things as last fall’s questionable bailout proposal. And granted, the Bush Administration was far from perfect in its frequent fiscal misbehavior. But the simple fact is that Obama’s budgetary agenda is like “Bush on steroids,” as one observer noted.
And appearing on CNN’s State of the Union yesterday, Senator Gregg refreshingly pointed out that Obama’s fiscal insanity is in a category of its own. Addressing Obama’s deficit projections, Sen. Gregg said, “you can’t blame that on George Bush,” because each of the next ten years will witness deficits exceeding $1 trillion. He also noted that the nation’s debt as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) will skyrocket from 40% to “banana republic” levels of 80%.
Who knows how much longer the mainstream media will allow Obama’s apologists to repeat this canard, but we owe Senator Gregg our gratitude for eviscerating it in vivid terms.
In a recent interview with Charlie Rose, Speaker Pelosi not only hinted at a Value-Added Tax (VAT) to pay for health care “reform,” she practically endorsed the idea as a way to equalize tax treatment between the U.S. and Europe.
Pelosi stated, “Somewhere along the way, a value-added tax plays into this. Of course, we want to take down the health care cost, that’s one part of it. But in the scheme of things, I think it’s fair to look at a value-added tax as well.”
The implementation of a VAT would assuredly break President Obama’s pledge that no one making under $250,000 would see a tax increase of any kind. A VAT is essentially a massive sales tax (over 20% in some countries) on all consumers. What’s worse, a VAT is typically not transparent, that is, prices go up but consumers don’t see the tax when they’re at the checkout counter.
See below for Obama’s pledge. Studies on the regressive and horrible idea of a VAT here and here.
The $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is set to expire on December 31, and approximately $130 billion remains unspent. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, however, now wants to keep those unspent billions and convert TARP into a permanent federal bureaucracy.
Has this administration no sense of shame or propriety whatsoever?
The TARP program was dishonestly sold to the American people one year ago as a “temporary” intrusion to keep our financial system afloat until the economic seas calmed. Markets have long-since stabilized as they naturally do, and an enormous portion of TARP funds either remain unspent or were spent in ways totally unrelated to troubled assets. Independent auditors also remain unable to verify the program’s success, and the Obama Administration and Pelosi/Reid Congress have us hurtling toward unthinkable levels of deficit and debt. Despite this, but unsurprisingly to anyone with even a modest understanding of how government constantly erodes our individual freedoms, Geithner & Co. seek to make TARP permanent.
Time for another tea party at Geithner’s office.
For those wondering whether the public option will ever get through the Senate, the White House chief of staff just answered the question.
Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s chief of staff, gave an interview with Charlie Rose last night and stated that a public option could not pass the Senate. I wonder if that includes the “co-op” that the Senate Finance Committee is currently considering.
Here is the link to the interview.
For those unsure about the “Rahmbo” reference, click here.
Jeff Flake, arguably one of the strongest supporters of the free market in Congress, has just sent a letter to the White House regarding President Obama’s recent decision to impose tariffs on Chinese imports.
Here is the link. The text is below.
The President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500Dear Mr. President:
I write to raise concern about your recent decision to impose tariffs on imported Chinese tires pursuant to a petition filed by the United Steelworkers of America under Section 421 of the Trade Act of 1974.
In an opinion piece highlighting the G20 summit in March of this year, you stated that “we should embrace a collective commitment to encourage open trade and investment, while resisting the protectionism that would deepen this crisis.” Unfortunately, it is difficult to see how exercising your discretion to impose trade restrictions on imported tires from China is consistent with this sentiment. Given the upcoming G20 summit in Pittsburgh, the timing of this decision is troubling. Rather than showing U.S. leadership in the global effort to encourage open trade, your decision runs the risk of giving other countries the green light to take their own protectionist measures that could stall a global economic recovery.
Beyond the global implications, your decision could set in motion a troubling trend in our bilateral trade relationship with one of our strongest trading partners. The tire tariffs represent the first time restrictions have been imposed under Section 421. While other trade laws do not require presidential involvement, duties imposed under Section 421 reflect the direct orders of the U.S. president, which might help explain China’s reaction. It is difficult to interpret the Chinese government’s initiation of antidumping proceedings against U.S. chicken and auto product exports as independent of your actions on tires. Your decision to impose duties on Chinese tires is likely to encourage other domestic industries to file their own petitions for relief under Section 421. The potential for an endless cycle of U.S. restrictions and subsequent retaliation from China is the last thing our economic recovery needs.
Finally, it is worth noting that the domestic tire industry was conspicuously absent from the Section 421 petition. Given the economic importance of vibrant export markets for our products, it is critical that the Administration avoid even the appearance of U.S. trade policy being based on political calculus rather than comprehensive, pragmatic, and forward-looking economic analyses.
I respectfully request that, based on these concerns, you reconsider the decision imposing protectionist tariffs on Chinese tire imports. I appreciate your attention to this request, and please do not hesitate to contact me should you like to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely,
JEFF FLAKE
The first surprising quote came from the opening line of his remarks. “I’m not the first President to take up this cause but I am determined to be the last.” Really?!? Mr. President, do you really think that passing a 1017-page bill will end all of our health care problems? Have you seen the Prime Minister’s Question Hour on C-SPAN? Do you realize they still have debates over health care in other single-payer countries? Only their debates focus on people dying in hospitals because the government won’t pay for procedures, and they die waiting. Passing your bill will assuredly not make you the last President to take up the cause of health care, especially with trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities.
Also, the President claimed, “I will not sign a plan that adds one dollar to our deficits either now or in the future.” We hope you live up to that promise because the current version of the House bill will add to our deficits. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it will add at least $239 billion over the next ten years, and this is a conservative deficit projection according to some experts.
Of course, the deficit is only one piece of the health care puzzle. Cutting costs and confronting over $50 trillion in unfunded liabilities should also be addressed, but the President only promised that he would not touch Medicare. There is simply no way the President can promise health care for all without drastically raising taxes or adding trillions more to our national debt.
What was left unsaid last night was how the President plans to give consumers more control over their health care. The bill that the President is likely to sign instead gives 53 new government agencies control over health care, not patients and doctors.
According to the Wall Street Journal, President Obama is trying to reassure his closest allies that the Public Option (government-run health care) is still on the table. As we noted yesterday, dropping the Public Option could mean losing over 100 votes in the House.
From the story:
“The government-run plan does not have the votes to pass in the Senate, and it never has,” said Michael Mahaffey, spokesman for Sen. Mike Enzi (R., Wyo.), a Finance Committee member. “So while Sen. Enzi is pleased to see the White House backing away from its insistence on including a government-run plan, the fact is this doesn’t change the dynamic in the Senate very much.”
The President no doubt has a difficult balancing act to walk in the next few months. The fall of the Public Option could spell the demise of his health care overhaul and even possibly other heavy-handed legislative goals like Cap-and-Tax.
Perhaps most troubling, however, is that government control could be re-branded under new names like co-op or individual mandate. Taxpayers should still be on the lookout for whatever derivation of government control that the White House conjures in the next few weeks.
Could the end of the public option mean the end of Obamacare as we know it?
As much as the White House would like to claim that they are the sole source of facts about health care, President Obama recently made some comments that have little factual support in the actual House bill.
The White House might claim that it has a monopoly on the truth, but gap between rhetoric and reality on health care reform is about as large as America’s distrust with government-run health care.
 CFIF Freedom Line Blog RSS Feed CFIF on X CFIF on YouTube |
