Video of Obama’s lofty promise including ill-informed fools clapping for it:

More from American Thinker:

When House Speaker Pelosi said that ObamaCare will allow Americans to realize their dream of being an artist, photographer, or writer without having to work a day job to have health insurance, some of us wondered whether ObamaCare also will cover other expenses, such as for housing and food, that force people to work a job they may not like while they pursue their dreams. Now we know the answer: yes it will.

Monday in Strongsville, Ohio, President Obama said that ObamaCare will reduce health insurance premiums by “3,000 percent.” Considering that a 50 percent decrease in premiums would mean that we’d be paying half as much as we now pay for health insurance and that a 100 percent decrease in premiums would mean that we’d be paying nothing for health insurance, President Obama is telling us that insurance companies will actually start paying us money to keep our health insurance.

If your current health insurance policy costs $5,000 a year, insurance companies will pay you $145,000 a year (2,900 percent multiplied by $5,000). If you’re fortunate enough to be paying $25,000 a year for health insurance, insurance companies will pay you $725,000 a year. There’s no word whether you can purchase a more expensive health insurance policy to increase the amount of money that insurers pay you each year.

Just think, America: These are the people telling us that they know best how to run 1/6 of our economy.

This will be a fascinating aspect of ObamaCare which I’m looking forward to hearing more about. Obama will drive down premiums so low that insurance companies will actually begin paying employers. What stuns me is that the people clapped for it, they just took it at face value and digested it as if it was backed up by simple math.

Imagine if President Bush or Gov. Sarah Palin had made such a statement? The liberals in the mainstream media would get the permissions slips signed and leave for a week long field trip immediately.

The health care debate and the subsequent mad dash to pass something, anything has generated a clear message, the bill’s passage notwithstanding.  The message is that this Congress and this Administration will pursue an agenda that bears no witness to the desires of the electorate.  The willingness to govern absent the consent of the governed is manifest and unadulterated.  They have failed to win the argument, they have failed on the merits, to them it matters not.   

Punditry focuses on the jeopardy to the President in the event that the bill fails and the jeopardy to legislators in the event that it succeeds; they miss a broader and more fundamental point.  The breadth and resilience of this effort, contrary to public opinion, foreshadows a major Democratic defeat in November regardless of the final answer on health care legislation because it represents an attitude.

Congress and the Administration have demonstrated an attitude that, short of electoral rejection in November, will reoccur.  They have made this point so clearly as to be inescapable.  Passage of health care means more of the same!  Democrats will not be rejected because of health care they will be rejected based on attitude, an agenda and hubris.  The will be rejected because we will come to an evidence based opinion that legislative efforts past are a prelude we care not to continue or reward.

We will reject them because they have rejected the Constitution as a hallowed set of ideas worthy of fidelity.  We will reject them because they have motivated us to educate ourselves and that education has resulted in exactly the manner of insight that they fear.

We have studied the history of Progressive thinking and we reject it.  We have studied the founding and embrace it.  We have begun a process that potentially emasculates both parties.  We have based our positions on ideas, not fealty to national organizations.  We have relied on the power of those ideas and our ability to engage them.  We have rejected a moderate recycling of positions that take us neither here nor there.

We are a vanguard, we will pull back from the brink of social democracy and the many perils of Progressivism and its spawns. 

We are a renaissance of necessity!

Two top Democratic strategists/pollsters, Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen, put out a piece today in the Washington Post explaining this and it is a fantastic read:

In “The March of Folly,” Barbara Tuchman asked, “Why do holders of high office so often act contrary to the way reason points and enlightened self-interest suggests?” Her assessment of self-deception — “acting according to wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by the facts” — captures the conditions that are gripping President Obama and the Democratic Party leadership as they renew their efforts to enact health-care reform.

Their blind persistence in the face of reality threatens to turn this political march of folly into an electoral rout in November. In the wake of the stinging loss in Massachusetts, there was a moment when the president and the Democratic leadership seemed to realize the reality of the health-care situation. Yet like some seductive siren of Greek mythology, the lure of health-care reform has arisen again.

Obama’s insistence that Americans want this “reform” package is nonsense and couldn’t be further from the truth. I guess the hope is that if he says it enough times, we’ll start to believe it.

Continued…

Bluntly put, this is the political reality:

First, the battle for public opinion has been lost. Comprehensive health care has been lost. If it fails, as appears possible, Democrats will face the brunt of the electorate’s reaction. If it passes, however, Democrats will face a far greater calamitous reaction at the polls. Wishing, praying or pretending will not change these outcomes.

Nothing has been more disconcerting than to watch Democratic politicians and their media supporters deceive themselves into believing that the public favors the Democrats’ current health-care plan. Yes, most Americans believe, as we do, that real health-care reform is needed. And yes, certain proposals in the plan are supported by the public.

However, a solid majority of Americans opposes the massive health-reform plan. Four-fifths of those who oppose the plan strongly oppose it, according to Rasmussen polling this week, while only half of those who support the plan do so strongly. Many more Americans believe the legislation will worsen their health care, cost them more personally and add significantly to the national deficit. Never in our experience as pollsters can we recall such self-deluding misconstruction of survey data.

The White House document released Thursday arguing that reform is becoming more popular is in large part fighting the last war. This isn’t 1994; it’s 2010. And the bottom line is that the American public is overwhelmingly against this bill in its totality even if they like some of its parts.

The notion that once enactment is forced, the public will suddenly embrace health-care reform could not be further from the truth — and is likely to become a rallying cry for disaffected Republicans, independents and, yes, Democrats.

America does not support this plan and we do not want bigger government intruding into our lives. If Obamacare passes, 2010 will be a bloodbath year for Democrats hoping to get reelected.

Continued…

Second, the country is moving away from big government, with distrust growing more generally toward the role of government in our lives. Scott Rasmussen asked last month whose decisions people feared more in health care: that of the federal government or of insurance companies. By 51 percent to 39 percent, respondents feared the decisions of federal government more. This is astounding given the generally negative perception of insurance companies.

That right there is enough to put this into perspective. As much as Pelosi/Reid/Obama have all vilified insurance companies, people would still prefer to have insurance making decisions as opposed to the federal government. Obama cannot erase decades of incompetence (especially when he’s piling on more incompetence) and expect people to just start trusting a bloated, out-of-control government to be efficient and fair.

Continued…

CNN found last month that 56 percent of Americans believe that the government has become so powerful it constitutes an immediate threat to the freedom and rights of citizens. When only 21 percent of Americans say that Washington operates with the consent of the governed, as was also reported last month, we face an alarming crisis.

Health care is no longer a debate about the merits of specific initiatives. Since the spectacle of Christmas dealmaking to ensure passage of the Senate bill, the issue, in voters’ minds, has become less about health care than about the government and a political majority that will neither hear nor heed the will of the people.

Voters are hardly enthralled with the GOP, but the Democrats are pursuing policies that are out of step with the way ordinary Americans think and feel about politics and government. Barring some change of approach, they will be punished severely at the polls.

Now, we vigorously opposed Republican efforts in the Bush administration to employ the “nuclear option” in judicial confirmations. We are similarly concerned by Democrats’ efforts to manipulate passage of a health-care bill. Doing so in the face of constant majority opposition invites a backlash against the party at every level — and at a time when it already faces the prospect of losing 30 or more House seats and eight or more Senate seats.

For Democrats to begin turning around their political fortunes there has to be a frank acknowledgment that the comprehensive health-care initiative is a failure, regardless of whether it passes. There are enough Republican and Democratic proposals — such as purchasing insurance across state lines, malpractice reform, incrementally increasing coverage, initiatives to hold down costs, covering preexisting conditions and ensuring portability — that can win bipartisan support. It is not a question of starting over but of taking the best of both parties and presenting that as representative of what we need to do to achieve meaningful reform. Such a proposal could even become a template for the central agenda items for the American people: jobs and economic development.

Unless the Democrats fundamentally change their approach, they will produce not just a march of folly but also run the risk of unmitigated disaster in November.

Caddell and Schoen predict losing 30+ House seats and 8+ Senate seats if the Democrats manage to squeak Obamacare through without legitimate votes or process. Being so blinded to outside criticism sounds a lot like what the Democrats used to complain about President Bush regarding to the Iraq War.

President Obama and congressional Democrats are waging a Jihad against private health insurance. They do not listen to reason. They do not listen to voters. They are focused only on the end goal so they will be rewarded in their progressive circles for having nationalized one-sixth of the American economy. There is no rhyme or reason to what they’re doing, much like a terrorist waging blind Jihad against the “infidels.”

Taking the 30,000 foot view, FUBAR comes to mind!  

Putting aside the specifics of health care legislation; the lesson relearned, should be that central governments are simply BAD at this; proof positive the farther away governance gets from the governed the worse it gets, geometrically.  Even governments that have been at the health care thing for a while are bad at it.  This process cannot, logically, be analyzed as having been about doing the right thing, or the most efficient thing, or the most non-intrusive thing; it must therefore be about something else; variants of power and application of ideology.  It is also, just as clearly, not about using existing resources to their fullest before embarking on unaffordable new entitlements.

We might ponder what the process might have looked like if Congress, in effect, said to the insurance industry, “here is what we want to do, here is how we plan to regulate it, here are our minimum standards, here is what you have to give up to get a shot at the potential market; give us a price, and give us options!”  Give us creativity…..or else!

A fair, justified proposal would have eliminated the need for the year long process we’ve observed and eliminated the perception of a health care “takeover”.  An unfair offer would have set the context for Congress to pursue other options with a political wind at their backs.  The road not traveled is worth of a thought or two, especially when the road you’re on fails the smell test.

We further ponder the absence of actual as opposed to rhetorical leadership; leadership is an omnipresent point of context.  Committed leaders adapt and reallocate resources to execute their priorities.  If Democrats are truly devoted to health care as the critical issue they say it is and if Republicans are truly committed to fiscal responsibility how about a token five year freeze on earmarks?  Perhaps a self imposed 10% reduction on discretionary spending; Good Faith?  Leadership commitment?  The absence of a thing can be as illustrative as the presence of a thing.  And now a scheme to pass a health care bill without the actual requirement to vote on it.  We simply “deem” the bill to be passed.  Great, I now announce, I’m sorry deem, that I’m six foot three, young  and strikingly handsome.  Gosh if I’d only known it was that easy.     

A wise man once impressed upon me that the best thing to do with power is to arrange your affairs in such a way, that you do not have to use it, he argued that a reversion to the use of power was an indication that a failure or process or creativity had occurred.  A lesson Congress might be well advised to contemplate in light of approval ratings and voter discontent.

As a matter of negative reflection Democrats have, inadvertently, made the best of all arguments for market solutions.  The absence of at least a swing at threshold market based solutions invariably ends up looking like the rough equivalent of monkeys chasing a beach ball.

 It will be tempting for some in the movement to seek the anal compulsive comfort of a top down organizational chart; it is unnecessary, ultimately dangerous and stands the potential for the movement to lie down in the same corrupting rut as the existing national parties occupy.  Standing on principal, does not require a national organization, nor does it require identifiable leadership.

The Tea Party folks have already achieved a significant degree of credibility, polls show that north of 51% think that they are serious people honestly concerned about the direction of the country; only 20% considered them a fringe group.  Standing up to both media dismissal and castigation those are impressive numbers.  They, (we) did not require a national organization or clearly defined leadership to accomplish that point of credibility.  We simply required principals and motivating events, a patriotic silent majority committed to American values and to being silent no more.   

The only thing necessary to accomplish Tea Party credibility was an honest commitment to principal and a willingness to stand up for those principals.  It is true that participants focused on a variety of specific issues; however, fidelity to founding Constitutional principals is the tie that bound them together regardless of issue.  Tea Party adherents must never lose sight of the ultimate power of ideas; they have proven the power of ideas to themselves and to others.  Tea Party folks know in their hearts and minds that there have been no more powerful set of political ideas than those present in our founding. 

It’s a good thing that professional politicians still don’t quite know what to make of the Tea Parties.  It’s a good thing that they tread carefully in their characterizations, but they have a problem.  They are trying to define the movement within the context of their own political experience but the context of their experience up till now will not serve to deliver them to the required epiphany.  Senator Bunning’s flogging over the demand that a way be found to pay for extended unemployment benefits may be proof enough that even supposed conservative Republicans still don’t get it!

Beware the advice from those that fear you, and those who don’t understand you because they can’t!  Beware the temptation to focus on anything other than principal.  Be mindful of the possibility that a typical national organizational structure may accomplish no more than to allow those who fear it or wish to control it to actually get a handle on it, to negotiate with it, to direct it and to manage it!  Principal, energy and a voice is all you need.

It’s also confusing, in light of the deluge of regulations that have come out of the administration that concept of national standards for insurance companies to allow for interstate purchase of health insurance cannot be accomplished by regulation (pp 8).

The President now believes individuals as opposed to government bureaucrats or insurance companies should have control over health care (pp 9). Interesting evolution, considering the proposals offered in the campaign and the actual health care bills passed by the President’s party which place those decisions firmly in control of the now eschewed bureaucrats. Perhaps counseling for eschewed bureaucrats should be a part of health care reform, after all bureaucrats need love too.

While rationing by insurance companies is evil, the potential for rationing by a heath feasibility board set up in HR 1 is not potentially evil. Also devoid of evil are the Medicare cuts present in all of the Democratic bills. Confusing, as well, is the general approach to insurance companies. One the one hand insurance companies will, hypothetically, have a larger pool of people to insure; the assumption being that a larger client base will lower costs, without actually lowering unit costs. But on the other hand the President is proposing a variety of regulations, stipulations, fees and subsidy reductions that will, without doubt, raise costs to the insurance companies, although regulations to allow for interstate sale is impossible. Those costs will be passed on! The degree to which tortured logic is applied to meet a predetermined outcome should be banished as the political equivalent of waterboarding.

Based on the most recent statistics the top 10% of American wage earners pay 72% of all taxes, the bottom 50% about 3%. Yet, (pp14) the President once again looks to high wage earners to pay more; “We’re going to make sure that the wealthiest American pay their fair share on Medicare”. Margaret Thatcher famously quipped that the problem with these types of approaches is that “eventually you run out of other people’s money”.

Once again, waste, fraud and abuse are a target for savings. If every politician who used that phrase in the past two years were charged $5.00 for each use we could probably pay for the President’s plan. Common sense Americans ask ; “if you know it’s there what are you waiting for?” Good question; neither party has come up with a good answer. While the President is correct that the debate has been well engaged there are serious questions that the political class has simply not answered.

The President contends that the program is paid for. “Paid for” is a result of financial profiling based on a set of assumptions, there is no other way to do it. Keep in mind, however, that in light of another 465,000 first time jobless claims reported today, the President’s budget assumption is that 95,000 new jobs will be added each month this year and that 3% GDP growth will occur. Both assumptions are belied by the realities of the economy. One must also wonder if the savings from “waste, fraud and abuse” is also nothing more than an assumption that embraces reality only in so far as the number of times it’s repeated!

The President includes what he calls Republican ideas. This is an exercise in the lowest common denominator meets cut and paste as the President clearly and completely rejects the philosophical and economic basis of those ideas. While the President claims to care not for the politics of the issue (pp30) his attempt to pacify Republicans is exactly that, no more than an attempt to mitigate the politics of an issue that has been firmly rejected by 60% of Americans. His tortured inclusion of Republican ideas is, unfortunately, no more than an effort to justify future application of reconciliation in a Senate that will not pass the President’s proposal with 60 votes.

The President, consistent with the Speaker’s position has essentially said to his own party “please follow the signposts to the cliff, upon arrival would you please just jump off, I’ll wave to you on the way down.”

The President renews his commitment to make the case for reform. Mr. President, with all due respect, a new shade of lipstick for this pig won’t sell. You’re not talking about reform, your talking about revolution. We face the nearly omnipresent potential of “solving” one problem and creating dozens of others, not the least of which is additional debt, new bureaucracies, rationing from afar and a massive expansion of government.

 I’ll be taking my lab coat off now…………..till next time.

Bunning had been seeking an up-or-down vote on actually paying for legislation in the Senate which temporarily extends unemployment insurance and a host of other provisions. Since he was not getting that vote, Bunning held up the bill since not a single Democrat could explain how we could pay for it other than borrowing more and going further into debt. Bunning’s reasoning was principled in that he knows the government does not have the money to continue throwing it at more temporary fixes and spending. Of course, the liberals went nuts over this since they do not believe in a principled stand against government waste.

The whole controversy started when ABC News tried to heckle Bunning as he got on a Senators-only elevator:

Bunning had been on record stating exactly why he was holding up this bill, he just wanted Harry Reid to explain how we would pay for it. ABC News made him out to be the bad guy when in truth, Bunning was standing up for every single taxpaying American watching their country go down the deficit tubes.

Bunning released the following statement:

U.S. Senator Jim Bunning issued the following statement after Senate Democrats used a procedural gimmick to oppose the Bunning amendment that would have paid for the unemployment extension legislation and other federal programs.

“Democrats tonight showed their true colors by going back on their word on the agreement I had reached with Majority Leader Reid to have an up-or-down vote on my amendment to fully pay for the unemployment extension and other federal programs. Instead, Senate Democrats used a procedural gimmick so they would not have to vote on my pay-for amendment. What are they so afraid of?

“For too long Congresses controlled by both Republican and Democrat majorities have not done a good enough job of controlling the spending of the taxpayers’ money. My stand over the last couple of days was not against those Kentuckians who are on the unemployment line. I support the underlying legislation and support those who are out of work and need a helping hand. What I do not support is the hypocrisy displayed by Senate Democrats. Just over a month ago Democrats passed pay-go legislation and then turned around and waived it for the next two major pieces of legislation that were considered by the Senate. What was the point of passing pay-go legislation? If Democrats continue to ignore their own rules I will oppose future legislation that is not paid for.”

I applaud Senator Bunning for the stand he took even if he could not hold out against the forces at will.

Shame on anyone who voted for this bill as it simply adds more to the debt and does not provide any real solutions, merely temporary spending on a long term issue. Bunning has stated he will not run for re-election in 2010 but that’s a shame since we need more voices like his representing us.

Despite the pressure and the promise to focus on the economy, health care is back as priority one.  No matter public opinion.  No matter concerns about government intrusion.  No matter 120 new agencies authorized by the bill.  No matter the number of issues that could easily pass both houses were they not approached as a comprehensive bill.  No matter that the full benefits of the bill don’t kick in for years.  No matter that House Democrats will be asked to walk the political plank.  No matter the corruption associated with the deals leading up to this point in time.  No matter what manner of totalitarian vision people like John Holdren are discussing related to the implementation of the legislation.    No matter…………, well, anything! 

(PLEASE go to http://biggovernment.com/kashiver/2010/02/25/hidden-healthcare-reform-objective-feds-want-to-know-your-number/#more-80258 for a frightening insight into the administration’s Orwellian vision for the health care end game)

Why risk the effectiveness of a Presidential term swimming upstream against the public opinion tide?  Why risk losing a majority in Congress should the bill pass against that tide?  Why risk losing political credibility when key provisions of the bill could be neutered by a future Congress in the absence of a Progressive President or by the Supreme Court?

Because it’s not about health care, it’s about something much more basic that that.  It’s about a vision, it’s about the Progressive vision dating back to Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson which is how long government controlled health care has been on the Progressive agenda.

It’s about the nearly infinite opportunities for government intervention that present themselves in the guise of health care.  No, it’s not paranoid!  Progressivism is based on the idea that the only path to a nebulous nirvana is central government control and planning. 

What are 120 new government boards and agencies actually going to do, process mindless paperwork?  HR 1, the Stimulus Bill set up the mechanism for health care rationing in the Brave New World of Progressive health care the 120 will execute it.  Nearly, everything can, by some extension of tortured logic, be associated with health.  In point of fact it is a much shorter list to consider what might not be associated with your health.

Senator Tom Harkin clearly and publically illustrated the way forward identifying the ongoing intention to “fix and expand” the Senate health care bill.  Senator Harkin knows that once the foundation for government controlled health care is laid, a massive structure will be built upon it, built potentially to the point of no return.  To think otherwise is naïve and ignores the history of massive government bureaucracies and how they mutate.  The history is clear, original legislative intent bears no long term control of bureaucratic processes and that lack of accountability is, eventually, endemic.  The Energy Department was created by President Carter to move us away from dependence on foreign oil; enough said?     

The opportunities are limitless, that is why, from a Progressive point of view, the risk is worth the potential reward.  There is no other issue that opens as many regulatory doors as control of health care.  Health care is the Holy Grail.

It’s not about which health care bill is less distasteful! It’s about the role of government.  It’s a choice between a Progressive utopian vision, and the original construct of a constitutionally limited government.  It’s about whether we govern ourselves or govern by bureaucracy. 

Ultimately, it’s about who we are.  Are we responsible or is it best we delegate that responsibility as the burden of governance?  Are we victims, or arguably the most blessed people in history? Are we still that people that in 200 years created the greatest representative government, the largest economy and the most beneficent and charitable society in history; or are we witless children in search of the synthetic succor of the nanny state?

Oh no, it’s not over, not even close!

In February of 2008 in a state of incredulous disbelief I wrote about the House Intelligence Committee’s hearings concurrent with the release of the National Threat Assessment.  The point of the post was to illustrate the difference in focus between the ranking members; Mr. Reyes the committee Chairman and Mr. Hoekstra the ranking member. 

Mr. Hoekstra immediately focused the assembled brain trust on their analysis of the threats from radical Islam.  Chairman Reyes immediately focused his energy on hiring diversity within the intelligence agencies with little to no attention paid to threat assessments.   

Now, I search for a more significant adjective than incredulous to describe Mr. Reyes’s stewardship of this critical committee.  Utter stupidity occurs, but even that seems to fall short of the mark.

Although beaten down by Republican members at the last minute Mr. Reyes’s behaviors are illustrative.  He attempted to include a Manager’s amendment in the intelligence authorization bill not previously considered by the committee.  The amendment would mandate up to 15 year prison terms for intelligence officials who “engage in beatings, infliction of pain or forced sexual acts” the bill further prohibits “acts including hypothermia, mock executions, and deprivation of food, water, sleep or medical care”. In other words, no activities short of polite conversation and tea service to high value detainees.   Critically, Congress would assume responsibility for defining exactly what these terms mean in their application; given Congressional inconsistencies the definitions will become a moving target subject to prevailing political winds. 

This legislation intimates, indeed must assume, that these activities are occurring and require legislative direction, when they are not.  The 30 year war Progressives have waged on the intelligence community continues unabated.  If you’ve been paying close attention you’re shocked, but you’re not surprised.

Democrats argue that assigning criminal penalties to intelligence officials simply underlines existing law.  Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D. Ill.) argues that the bill would actually enhance national security although her trail of logic remains uncertain.  If it does nothing more than underline existing law why try to pass these provisions under the cover of darkness with no broad committee consideration or debate?  The process illustrates attitude.     

Apparently, despite the chill that Congress, the Justice Deparatment and the Administration have successfully put in place for the intelligence community Mr. Reyes believes that the threat of criminal penalties is appropriate.  He must believe there is a rational justification for this manner of legislation despite all evidence to the contrary.  He must be unaware of the carefully considered legal arguments that led to enhanced interrogation methods.  He must believe that to “control” intelligence operations the threat of prison terms  must be in place.  He must believe that operatives living in fear of a mistake that could lead to prosecution is the proper contextual culture for intelligence operations aimed at providing security for each of us.  He must believe that his view of political correctness supersedes the need for effective intelligence operations!  Will Mr. Reyes step up as a responsible party when next, we fail to connect the dots because someone was afraid to take the extra step?   

The bill would expand the number of House Members included in the notification process that, to date, has been limited to ranking members and leadership. This provision insures, based on recent history, leaks.  It happened when Mr. Panetta notified the committee of a program to eliminate al Qaeda operatives that never went operational.  In that case, 24 hours was all it took for the leak to occur.  Leaking information about a program that never occurred must lead to the perception that it was no more than yet another opportunity to flog an already bloodied intelligence community.

Memo to the intelligence community from the President, Attorney General Holder, Speaker Pelosi, Mr. Blair, Mr. Brennan and Mr. Reyes; “don’t think, don’t plan, don’t consider alternatives, don’t be creative, don’t work you’re way all the way around a problem, don’t consider crazy stuff that might lead to other insights, don’t kill the enemy, don’t interrogate them aggressively no matter what, don’t pursue dangerous options, don’t extend yourselves, don’t take chances! 

If Mr. Reyes has his way Congress will move from oversight to operational control.  If Mr. Reyes has his way you may go to jail based on definitions that could change next month.  If Mr. Reyes has his way your security is in question.  If Mr. Reyes has his way we may accomplish diversity in the intelligence community but we will not accomplish much else.

If Mr. Reyes has his way the Intelligence Committee will require a new name; the No Intelligence Committee, the new name, effectively fitting its Chairman.   

(With thanks to my lovely research assistant)

The entire summit occurred in the shadow of the 2,400 page bill, printed and stacked nearly a foot high so Republicans could point it out for the cameras. President Obama called it a “prop” and stated that health care is complex so of course it will be a big bill. No kidding, we’re at nearly a trillion dollar price tag already and we can’t afford this socialist road.

Report from TownHall.com:

Giving no ground, President Barack Obama and Republican leaders fought forcefully for their competing visions of historic health care reform Thursday in an exhausting, often-testy live-on-TV debate. Far from any accord, Obama signaled the Democrats were prepared to push ahead for an all-or-nothing congressional vote.

The marathon, 7 1/2-hour session did reveal narrow areas of agreement on the topic that has vexed Congress for months and defied U.S. leaders for decades. But larger ideological differences overwhelmed any common ideas, all but cementing the widely held view that a meaningful bipartisan health care bill is not possible as time grows short in this election year.

Obama rejected Republican preferences for starting over, discussing the issue much longer or dealing with it in a limited, step-by-step fashion.

“We cannot have another yearlong debate about this,” Obama declared. “I’m not sure we can bridge the gap.”

Party officials said March is probably the last chance to act.

The bottom line is that Obama and his Democrat cronies have signaled they are willing to completely disregard what the voters want (as portrayed by anti-Obamacare votes in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts) and pass some form of socialized health care anyway. That is the real change Obama spoke of, hearing what constituents want and then specifically doing the exact opposite because you’re elitist and think you know better.

Here are a few video highlights:

Despite this facade of a “summit” where President Obama and the Democrats pretend to care about how badly their health care bill will wreck the country, behind they scenes they are preparing to force it through the Senate with 51 votes:

After a brief period of consultation following the White House health reform summit, congressional Democrats plan to begin making the case next week for a massive, Democrats-only health care plan, party strategists told POLITICO.

A Democratic official said the six-hour summit was expected to “give a face to gridlock, in the form of House and Senate Republicans.”

Democrats plan to begin rhetorical, and perhaps legislative, steps toward the Democrats-only, or reconciliation, process early next week, the strategists said.

After the summit, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid planned to take the temperature of their caucuses.

“The point [of the summit] is to alter the political atmospherics, and it will take a day or two to sense if it succeeded,” the official said.

Of course, the Democrats would never do something they criticized President Bush for now would they?

There has been talk of the “nuclear” option of reconciliation meaning the Senate could use arcane procedures to pass Obamacare with 51 votes. Obama used to be against this as a measure of preserving our constitutional government but he now supports destroying the constitution, apparantly:

Stunning what recorded video will do in a few short years when you reverse positions when politically expedient.

All-in-all, a bad day for Obamacare as Republican after Republican lined up for the cameras to read excerpts from the bill to illustrate how bad it really is. President Obama squirmed and lied his way around the accusations deflecting criticism by not answering anything.

This was a huge score for the American people who got to see the Republicans as offering an alternative

Update

GOP Congressman Paul Ryan tells it like it is:

Amen to that Rep. Ryan.

The Heritage Foundation reports on President Obama’s newest epic failure:

The health care plan President Obama recently released is mostly a combination of the different plans passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate. But in one major way it breaks with long-standing precedent, proposing a fundamental wrong-headed change to both entitlement policy and tax policy. He proposes for the first time to tax capital income to support entitlement programs.

Payroll taxes have always applied just to wages and salaries and the revenue those taxes raise has gone solely to pay for entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. The deal has always been that we pay payroll taxes during our working years and receive the benefits they fund after we retire. President Obama’s health care plan would shatter this compact forever.

The Hospital Insurance (HI) portion of the payroll tax is 2.9 percent on all wages and salary that is paid half (1.45 percent) by workers and half (the remaining 1.45 percent) by employers. It is supposed to pay only for the hospital insurance portion of Medicare benefits that retirees receive. President Obama’s plan adopts this break with long-held policy and doubles down by further severing the link between HI and Medicare benefits. Obama’s plan not only increases the HI tax on wages and salaries for high-income earners similar to the Senate bill, it also applies the HI tax to investment income for the first time. Obama’s unprecedented plan would levy the current 2.9 percent HI tax on what the administration obnoxiously refers to as “unearned” income, which includes capital gains, interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents for families earning more than $250,000 a year ($200,000 for single filers).

Applying the HI tax to investment income would also continue to transform entitlements and how they are paid for. Using the revenue raised by levying the HI tax on investment income would open the floodgates for future rate increases to pay for other new spending programs. Adding a new revenue stream for Congress to tap when it needs more money is always dangerous and should be resisted at all costs, otherwise expanding government will be too easy for Congress.

Yet this is likely the reason President Obama wants to levy the HI tax on investment. Applying the HI tax separately to investment income will forever give Congress yet another tax to hike whenever it wants to fund a new program. If Congress can raise payroll taxes easily to pay for any spending it desires, payroll taxes will no longer be used to pay for entitlements, but as an ATM for Congress to go back each time it needs more cash.

The basic long term implications I can gather are that once President Obama can push for new taxes on new revenue streams, there is nothing stopping greedy lawmakers from tapping those same sources for even more government growth and entitlement programs. It is a vicious circle once you allow progressives to get their hands on the purse strings anymore than they already have.

Once again though, as in the past year, the biggest hurdle for President Obama will come from his own party according to the Miami Herald:

WASHINGTON — Moderate congressional Democrats, a bloc that’s crucial to the fate of President Barack Obama’s renewed health care effort, offered only mild endorsements of his new plan Tuesday, while warning that it faces a difficult legislative path.

“It’s very constructive,” Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said of the blueprint that Obama released Monday. “But how this is done is not clear to me at this moment.”

The president’s self-described “opening bid,” in anticipation of his bipartisan health care summit Thursday, combines elements of separate bills that the Senate and the House of Representatives passed last year with only a single Republican vote.

The estimated $950 billion, 10-year package would require most people to buy coverage, would provide insurance subsidies for lower-income families and would impose new taxes on higher incomes and more expensive insurance policies.

Because of Obama’s pending summit, virtually no Democrats wanted to criticize the president’s effort publicly, but it was clear that once the summit’s over, the White House faces political and substantive problems in getting a comprehensive package approved.

Many centrist Democrats face re-election in November in conservative states and districts, and Republicans are eagerly trying to use Democrats’ health care positions against them.

“Everybody is looking at the polls that show, on the one hand, folks want something done,” said Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb. It’s hard to get constituents to agree on specifics, however, and “that makes health care a hard sell,” he said.

The people who have to be reelected in 2010 are well aware of the fact that constituents all around the country do not want a big government health care “reform” (takeover) program. Obama doesn’t have to face voters until 2012 and is content to heave members of his own party over the cliff so long as he can grow government and increase dependence which inevitably creates new crops of Democrat-leaning voters.

Once you suck onto a government program, it’s hard to vote for a candidate wanting to dismantle it.

From the Richmond Times-Dispatch:

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed a petition on behalf of Virginia today asking the federal Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its December finding that global warming poses a threat to people.

The petition asks the EPA to reconvene the regulatory process and allow the public to comment on “newly available information,“ according to a brief media advisory that Cuccinelli’s office put out this afternoon.

Numerous global-warming skeptics have expressed concern over the EPA’s December finding, which opens the door for the EPA to create regulations that crack down on cars and other sources of heat-trapping gases.

Cuccinelli’s office had no immediate additional comment. He will hold a press conference on the issue Wednesday afternoon.

Glen Besa, director of the Virginia chapter of the Sierra Club, said, “The attorney general is wasting taxpayers’ money on frivolous litigation that ignores the science and the law.“

Besa added, “In effect, he’s questioning climate change.“

Of course he’s “questioning” climate change, it’s complete fraud and should be challenged at every possible opportunity. I’ve had a feeling for months now that the first major challenge to the Obama administration will come from states directly. On top of the EPA challenge, Virginia is also working on legislation making it illegal to force anyone to purchase health insurance, a direct challenge to Obamacare which Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell has said he’ll sign.

Here’s the story on Texas’ EPA challenge from the Houston Chronicle:

Texas on Tuesday became the first state to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency’s finding that gases blamed for global warming threaten public health.

Gov. Rick Perry and other Texas officials said the federal finding is based on flawed science and would harm the state’s economy.

The EPA issued the finding two months ago in an attempt to regulate carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

Such rules would have a profound impact on Texas, which pumps more carbon dioxide into the air than any other state because of its scores of coal-fired power plants, refineries and other industrial facilities.

“The EPA’s misguided plan paints a big target on the backs of Texas agriculture and energy producers and the hundreds of thousands of Texans they employ,” Perry said in a statement. “This legal action is being taken to protect the Texas economy and the jobs that go with it, as well as defend Texas’ freedom to continue our successful environmental strategies free from federal overreach.”

Texas asked the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., to review the finding, with its petition coming on the heels of similar filings by business and conservative groups.

Al Armendariz, the EPA’s administrator for Region 6, which includes Texas, said he isn’t surprised by the state’s legal challenge but chided Texas leaders for not doing more to reduce emissions.

Reduce emissions of what? A naturally occurring gas which I exhale as I sit here and type? Would the EPA prefer we all breathe less?

Relax, all is well; in addition to the Executive Branch, two houses of Congress, 535 legislators, Congressional committees, Congressional staffs, committee staffs, uncountable bureaucracies, consultants, think tanks, pundits, national committees and yes, self admittedly anonymous bloggers; we need a commission.

Pardon my prodigious ignorance. Were we not led to believe that elected representatives are supposed to, well…..you know, take on the country’s challenges and problems?  I could swear that’s what they told us they begged for votes during the election campaigns. 

Oh, sorry, forgot about that partisanship problem.  That’s why we need the commission, that’s why we have one person from each party.  It’s the Omission Commission and two party representation is not partisanship it’s fairness!  No contradictions here! 

The Omission Commission will omit the need for legislators to actually deal with crushing fiscal problems for a while, or so they hope.  Maybe, if they’re lucky, all the way to November.  But, there is that sticky wicket of having to actually pass a budget before then.  The current budget increases the deficit dramatically and any homage to reductions in spending are blaringly absent in a budget that will, inevitably, pass.  “No, no, look the other way, it’s OK, don’t worry, we have a commission working on it”, we don’t need to take any immediate responsibility and, hey isn’t that Alan Simpson a funny guy?    

The Omission Commission omits the need for the President to propose a budget consistent with ever so progressively serious rhetoric about his sleepless nights worrying about the deficit. Was the radical concept of proposing a budget that actually reduces spending and the deficit considered by the President?  You know, as the self described “guy with the mop” trying to clean up the problems he inherited?  Someone get this man a ShamWow.   

Maybe, just maybe the President teed up an artificially bloated budget so Democrats in Congress can puff up their chests, cut out meaningless spending and adopt the mantle of  heroes for cutting it down to size?  A size XXXXXXXL is not a lot different from a size XXXXXXL when you shooting for a size Medium, just saying. 

The Speaker is opposed to the Omission Commission, clearly not seeing the wisdom of it.  She rejects the very idea that a commission should dictate to Congress as if it really could do that.  Hell, she doesn’t listen to all of her own caucuses or public opinion polling she’s not about to roll over on her tummy for a commission. Unfortunately, she also seems to reject the idea that Congress should actually do anything about spending and deficits.  Do we have a new “Party of fiscal NO!”

The Omission Commission represents the worst manner of political subterfuge.  The very idea should be roundly rejected and responsibility put squarely where it belongs.  The Omission Commission is a classic management failure, responsibility absent accountability and authority.

The identification is a function of two key aspects; knowledge related to the history of ideas and the ability to identify tangible symptoms for the thought processes they represent.    

If you’re a control freak it’s likely difficult for you to operate in an entrepreneurial environment and vice versa. 

If you grew up surrounded by Marxists you have a mindset, a world view, a political orientation that colors your intellectual landscape.  You will, despite efforts to the contrary, eventually expose your mindset. 

 In Europe as the global economy hit the skids people went to the streets: the demand?  “Hey, you guys in government, fix this!”  A fair representation of a European mind set.  The Europeans wanted someone, anyone to just fix it, their engagement limited to delivery of the “fix it” message. 

As the skids were hit in America, people also went to the street with a different message: “Hey, you guys in government; get the hell out of the way, stop making this worse, we can fix it; we’ve done this before we can do it again!”  Americans, in large numbers, figure they can fix it themselves given latitude and barrier removal, also a mindset.

It’s the difference between Formula 1 and NASCAR.  Formula 1 is elegant, based on cutting edge technology but if you touch the car just a smidgen too firmly, the wheels fall off.  In NASCAR if you’re not beating, banging and holding the damn thing together with duct tape and spit you’re just not living.  A Formula 1 pit stop has 14 guys each one with a single function at a single station, some just waiting in case something happens.  NASCAR depends on teams racing around the car, doing more than one thing in more than one place.  Two approaches to auto racing, two different mindsets and inherently representative of cultural differences.  

Me?  I like them both for what they are, see them for what they are, which is, after all, the point.

We occasionally need to be reminded of fundamentals.  The mindset of the left is focused on dominant government institutions, central planning and rule by elites.  It assumes, and sometimes says out loud, that you’re just not capable of grasping the complexities.

The mindset of the right focuses on the individual.  The mindset on the left grows out of a progressive history that includes socialism, communism and fascism.  The mindset on the right grows out of a tradition that rejects the very idea that socially engineered centralized planning can produce prosperity and, most importantly, the protection of natural rights.  The war of ideas is about whether we focus on redistribution that results in a hypothetical collective good or whether we rest on the idea that individual accomplishment is the rising tide that raises all boats. It is about managing outcomes regardless of skill and motivation or creating the environment where outcomes are a function of individual accomplishment and commitment.

We may see it or simply sense it, but we must see it for what it is.  The White House is convinced that resistance to Health Care and Cap & Trade is a messaging issue.  For most of us it’s a policy issue; for most of us it’s simply unacceptable overreach that too severely limits individual choice and fundamental liberties.  The White House and a significant portion of congress will not abandon their approach to policy.  They can’t! The policy is the result of a mindset.  To speak a bit slower and get us knuckle draggers to, finally, understand and accept the wisdom of it all is a tactical representation of that mindset.   

They simply have to soldier on.  They can’t do anything else at the risk of simultaneous exploding heads all over Washington as politicians and staff attempts to accept and sell an idea outside of a mindset that they are, no doubt, sincerely committed to.  If you’ve absolutely sure you’re right and that you do know better, it’s a tough intellectual hill to climb with no current evidence that particular hill has even been spotted much less approached and climbed.

It is the same on the right.  There is a mindset.  The difference is that the right abandoned their mindset for a time intoxicated by power and we’re punished.  The left, really never did abandon their mindset.    

The argument, at its lowest common denominator, is about competing mindsets.  Policy can be confusing.  Facts are not agreed on.  Spin dominates issues.  But, in the end, Americans are capable of sensing the mindset and seeing the symptoms for what they are.  2010 will be a choice between competing mindsets.  Even if we don’t call it that, that’s what it is.  Dominant government or a constitutionally limited government?  A choice between more spending or more restrictions on spending; more debt or more fiscal responsibility? 2010 will be a choice between massive government intrusions or more space for individual accomplishment?  It is a choice between freedom of outcomes or managed outcomes.

The President has placed severe limits on rational, legal intelligence gathering in the interest of protecting our “values”. The inherent problem with that sound bite is that the “value” that has been minimized is protection of the population. Many who agree with the President and consider enhanced interrogation to be torture also agree, under duress, that the price for the Presidents definition of “values” and the abandonment of enhanced techniques is American lives. Many more are not tortured (pun intended) by this trade off in the interest of terrorist sensibilities and shallow international opinion.

Terrorist related intelligence gathering is, in large measure, a function of the ability to capture and effectively interrogate terror suspects. The ability to identify, trace, disassemble networks and detain additional suspects to continue the chain of information is the goal. Identification of a progression of involved parties is what the exercise is, in part, about.

A significant majority of what we know about al Qaeda is the result of detainee interrogations utilizing enhanced methods. A significant and unsettling unknown for prior detainees was where they were and what would happen to them. Those unknowns set the broad context for effective interrogations. Those unknowns are now completely absent, in part due to the shut down of black interrogation sites and politically correct definition of “torture”. We have created the potential for a black hole of absent information.  The actual facts of the KSM interrogations are proof of the necessity to securely hold detainees and to effectively interrogate them.

You may be gratified at the clean, video game, feel of things as we engage in Predator attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Don’t be! The administration has, apparently, replaced the idea of capturing terror suspects with killing them; values? Continuation of that policy dries up the potential flow of intelligence with each successful strike.

President Obama eliminated the potential for extended secret detention of terror detainees. Two weeks, that’s it! At that point the International Committee of the Red Cross must be notified with the concomitant guarantee of detainee information leaking. The option for executive extension of the two week period has been eliminated. Hold out for two weeks and you’re home free. Simple result: networks and cells now have the ability to roll up operations more quickly than before. As terror networks shut down contacts and operations, the potential for our intelligence personnel to follow the trail to bigger fish is eliminated. Where once, based on interrogations, we could watch as terror cells and networks operated for months on end, now have two weeks!

Fear not, potential terror suspects. Evidence indicates that you can expect constitutional guarantees, habeas corpus, lawyers and no potential that you will be subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques. Your personal copy of the Army Field Manual, in the language of your choice, insures you know exactly what will happen and what will not; no uncertainty, no fear! Just shut up and hang on for two weeks.

 Based on the threat of prosecuting intelligence professionals that have been twice cleared the administration succeeded in creating the liklihood of a risk-averse culture surrounding the very people we need to support in taking rational risks. Same for the legal community that meticulously attempted to define the legal parameters for enhanced interrogation and may now be faced with disbarment for offering carefully constructed legal opinions which were demanded by President Bush in an effort to insure the legal lines were clearly drawn.

The current administration has exposed the memoranda and the details of the techniques involved. Were the administration to attempt to reestablish those techniques, their impact would be in question as the bad guys know exactly what’s coming and what the goals of enhanced techniques are.

The 1980’s saw an effort to amend the Geneva Conventions to cover terror suspects supported by the PLO. Many of our allies signed on to Protocol I. President Regan refused, based on his belief that POW protections for unlawful combatants and terrorists would encourage yet more terrorism. President Obama has essentially adopted the provisions of Protocol I as U.S. policy without the messy process of treaty approval. It will, as President Reagan projected, embolden terror attempts by reducing the price tag for those attempts. Encourage bad behavior and you’ll get more of it; a simple concept and yet seemingly foreign to the administration.

Military commissions were thrown off track as the result of two Supreme Court decisions instigated by self admitted left wing legal organizations. Many of those lawyers are now working for Attorney General Holder in the Justice Department. AG Holder’s own firm and many others were dead in the middle of a massive pro-bono effort to insure constitutional rights for illegal combatants well beyond the long standing historical context and legal precedence for this class of detainee. Of all the possible issues these firms could have committed pro-bono legal resources to; this is the one they choose. The intelligence community is well aware of where the legal muscle in Justice is these days, insuring risk-averse behaviors. Based on the literally thousands of pro-bono lawyer hours applied to detainees in Gitmo we may as well close it down.  The restrictions on interrogation and the constant flow of legal resources render our intelligence gathering efforts essentially worthless as the ability to effectively gather and cross check secure information is nearly moot.

In the Karma department the administration has problems. Detainees that cannot be brought to trial and yet represent a serious danger and cannot be released are becoming a focus of these self same lawyers. Regardless of consequences these lawyers want these detainees tried or released, no matter potential liabilities. Pundits such as Jane Mayer, a fierce opponent of enhanced interrogations are now beginning to focus on the Predator attacks as inconsistent with our “values”. Incomprehensibly Ms. Mayer’s arguments against the drone attacks are the lack of an ability to gather intelligence. The U.N. has made noises that the Predator attacks may be a violation of international law.

The Abdulmutallab case is a clear reflection of attitudes and intents. It is also a clear reflection of the administrations willingness to expose information that should be closely held. “He’s talking again, see…. everything’s fine”. No, not really, because that family we flew over to convince him to talk is now under an undeclared but permanent death sentence from Jihadists.

The Fort Hood Report refuses to separate Islamic extremism from any other type of extremism despite the clear and generally accepted mind set of Major Hassan; proof positive that political correctness will not be easily eliminated from our discourse.

The Army Field Manual is designated as the only acceptable outline for interrogation of prisoners. The Army Field Manual exists in the context of legal combatants, POW’s. It assumes a viable definition of legal combatants and pays appropriate homage to the Geneva Conventions. Terrorists are, by administration implication, simply POW’s by another name. The manual provides more leniencies for terror suspects than what a cop on the street is allowed to do in a criminal arrest. The manual does not address acceptable procedures in the “ticking time bomb” scenario. By current policy, we have no acceptable procedures for the “ticking time bomb” situation short of direct Presidential intervention.

Effective security policy? You decide!

Never has the ability of democratically governed peoples to access information and express themselves been more significant. Opinion polling, 24 hours cable news, Blogs, opinion journals, instant communication capability with Senators and Congressman and political movements organized by little more than e-mail, web sites and ideas. In the case of health care what has been the impact on our political leadership? Nothing!

Despite overwhelming opposition, leadership in Congress and the White House remains undaunted by the minor contrivance of public opinion. This manner of arrogance is not unique; we’ve seen it before, just not to this degree over an issue so endemic to the lives of every single American and so impactful on the American economy.

Fear not, the Speaker will “parachute in” if necessary to pass health care under the assumption that the political fence in front of her cannot be scaled, bulldozed or gotten around. That’s a show I’ll pay to see, Botox at altitude.

The President is of the opinion that “we’re on the 5 yard line”, and “we can’t quit now”. The President’s offensive unit may be lined up at the opponent’s 5 yard line but the public opinion defense is standing around at the 35 wondering where the hell the offense went.

 Nearly every politician not occupying a seat on the progressive left is, in the best case, apprehensive about continuing the health care legislative process. Within 24 hours of Scott Brown’s election most began climbing over that fence the Speaker referred to. If Nancy doesn’t hurry up she’ll be parachuting into a vacant lot.

Despite the overwhelming communications effort on health care: [sic] “we just have not done a good enough job of messaging” according to Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Axelrod is sure that “once we pass it and people see what’s in it, they’ll love it”.

The fundamental idea that we’re not willing to roll the dice on a single party solution that represents 17% of the economy is not getting through. The premise that doing less might be more remains unconsidered.  Applying a standard that calls for both parties to participate if not agree on basic reforms is apparently incomprehensible. The idea that reform need not be revolution seems to be a concept incapable of parachuting into of the thinking of the leadership.

Look, we’ve taken the “one pill makes you larger”; let’s try the “one pill makes you small”.

The internal stakes in Iran appear to be growing based on the rise in domestic violence and ever more draconian actions by the government.  It appears that the central government will continue to crack down on dissidents as dissidents, in turn, grow more militaristic. 

Two executions occurred in Iran last week, sixteen more  trials of protestors commence this week.

An Iranian prosecutor was assassinated two weeks ago.  He was investigating “anti-revolutionary elements, as well as bandits, immoral individuals and land-grabbers,” said Web site Jahan News.  What manner of regime tends to crack down on “anti revolutionary elements”?  Go ahead, make a list, I’ll wait.

Protestors are being tried, convicted and executed on an acceleratingly  regular basis.  Thousands of political prisoners are jailed.  Western views tend to undervalue the premise that imprisonment carries with it the additional label of “un-Islamic”; a serious state of affairs, perhaps more so than the actual occurrence of a crime.  Protestors claim that they are willing to pay with their lives and they are doing just that.

A bomb detonated outside the governor-general’s office in Khorasan Razavi province on January 17^th.  An unsuccessful suicide attempt against the government, an attempt none the less.

An increasing number of Iranian clerics are pushing back against the government crackdown labeling the jailing of demonstrators and executions as the true un-Islamic behavior.

The death of an Iranian nuclear scientist has been blamed, of course, on the Israeli Mossad and the American CIA; Iran, of course, vows revenge.  The facts of the situation argue less that it was an assassination by the Mossad than a message from the Iranian government to its scientific community. 

The opposition in Iran is reorganizing and consolidating vowing to continue their efforts.

One wonders if the Clerics have fully contemplated  the two days that could change everything; each a potential prelude to dramatic change. 

What happens on the day when the Basij or the IRGC refuses to fire on, or fight their  fellow Iranians? 

What happens on the day when the Basij or the IRGC fire too often or too well, on their fellow citizens?  Each day, as possible as the other: one of them, likely to occur in the near future; each day with earth shattering precedents in history.  

Iran could sink further into fascist totalitarianism.  Iran could also rise and demand their place among the community of nations.  Iran could become yet more of a pariah or Iran could unleash the tremendous potential of its people.

It will soon be, one day or another.

“They’re (us) tired of partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness”.  Agree but the management of issues in the House and Senate this year seemed to guarantee an escalating degree of partisanship.  Not a single Republican amendment on major pieces of legislation was accepted.  While shouting and pettiness may be abhorrent so is the concept that the other side is incapable of offering even a single good idea.  Yes it was a game, a game played by both sides.

To eschew partisanship and also publically denigrate the opposition with a well worn talking point is a confusing approach to mending the partisan divide.  To castigate the opposition for, well, opposing and at the same time warn your own supporters not to run for the hill in the context of public rejection seems a bit confused as well.

To seemingly commit to American business as the solution to the employment crisis and then start picking them off one by one as “bad guys” also seems a bit conflicted.  The President’s supporters must also be confused by statements such as “Government can create the conditions necessary for businesses to expand and hire more workers”.  That is a decidedly and long standing conservative idea in its actual application.  It is also an idea that has been absent from the policy universe over this past year overwhelmed by the idea that government can directly manage those conditions.

To denigrate the opposition and then highlight a number of their ideas as part of the solution is perplexing.

To engage domestic energy production which has not enjoyed a scintilla of attention and yet place it in the context of the need for an energy bill that will essentially guarantee the failure of that production appears befuddled and disingenuous.  

It’s true that 95% of working families got a tax cut, about $12 a week, good politics but not a cut that has had any macro economic impact that we can actually see. 

It may be true that no taxes have been raised, but it was not for lack of trying.  The health care bill, had it passed would have raised taxes, so would Cap & Trade.  Taxes by another name are represented by the fees to be paid by banks that will be passed along and the promised removal of tax benefits from major industries which will result in higher prices.  There is, as well, the refusal to renew the Bush tax cuts which will result in higher taxes for 50% of the population.

Despite widespread criticism and the inability to actually spend the money the President still holds up the stimulus plan as a great victory and a critical component of a recovery that has not happened: very confusing.  

Helping Community Banks is a good idea but there are thousands of them and $30 billion is only 17% of what we gave to a single company, AIG.  Sounds good but the lack of a real commitment to the major point of capital access for small business is confusing in light of the new found importance of small business.

A pause here to agree fully with the President on reducing capital gains taxes on small business investment and creating incentives to invest in plants and equipment.  The confusing part is that those recommendations have been on the table for a year.  It has been ignored till now with questionable prospects in the House under any circumstances other than the ongoing political pressure of public opinion.

The export goal is bewildering as it’s hard to determine exactly what we’re going to export given the erosion of our manufacturing base over the past 50 years.  It sound good, we’re all for it, but how will we motivate new industry without the protectionism that most agree is counterproductive or the investment that most agree is necessary.  If the President is focused on better jobs and pay for the middle class and on greening the economy we widen the cost gap between us and countries like India and China to say nothing of emerging economies in South East Asia.

I agree with the President that not rewarding companies who ship jobs oversees is good policy.  Confusion reigns however, when GM fresh from its bailout did exactly that under government scrutiny and approval. 

It’s easy to agree that pending trade agreements with countries like Columbia create favorable trade conditions.  The Senate, however, has refused to pass that treaty, puzzling!

It also easy to agree on the value of great education, it is the ultimate silver bullet.  But finding a way to bridge the philosophical gap and engage the teachers outside of their own self interest could be another story.  To expect the same people, organizations, policies and structures that are directly accountable for the sad state of some educational systems today to create the conditions for dramatic improvement in the future is bewildering, absent proof to the contrary. 

There were many points of confusion.  The most confusing premise of all was the President asking for better ideas.  The President has asked for those ideas before and committed to entertain them.  He did not!  The people took to the streets with their ideas this Spring and Summer and were insulted by the leaders of the President’s party.  The partisanship he decries, he engaged in.  The patina of arrogance he ascribes to others, he clearly suffered himself.

Very confusing indeed.

Idealism that the populist voted him into office with is essential. CSPAN, open debate, and true bipartisan support. Sunshine and fresh air in every step of the process.

For fresh air to exist leaders of House and Senate are out. Their backroom antics nullify their believability for honest reform. The President’s insistence to gain votes at any cost should exclude him as well.

Committee members working on reform should be beyond reproach. No Harry, Nancy, Barney, Chris, etc. Not a participant in the previous 2,000 page debauchery. Those against it is a good list of candidates for this new committee to develop a bill from. Should I throw Scott Brown’s name as committee member?

Perhaps a few hundred page bill that reduces the cost of health care, insurance premiums, addresses pre-existing conditions in a responsible manner (places limits when qualified) and strives for a near 100% insured America. Also including financial aid to the poor.

Wasn’t this the thought of when Obama was elected ???

What we need the committee to do is start from the beginning.

1. Cut the waste & fraud. It’s there. How much savings in Medicare can be found? Thievery exists from all sources in the health industry.

2. Tort reform. With this test and repeated test done to safe guard doctors, hospitals, and drug companies. Their exposure to law suits can be reduced. Nothing though that endangers the patient. Reducing cost of malpractice insurance is a peg in the wheel in cost reductions for all. I would have a hot line and web site for ideas to reduce cost and report fraud. Got this idea from Obama (give credit when due).

My 2 points are not all encompassing. Not even trying to be. Couldn’t if I did try.

My link proves less big government is the honest answer that works best:

CBO confirms GOP plan will lower health care premiums and lower the deficit without tax hikes on families and small businesses.
“Nonpartisan Congressional Scorekeeper: GOP Plan Lowers Premiums By Up to 10 Percent”

Washington, Nov 4, 2009 -”House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement after the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) confirmed in a letter tonight that the Republican health care
plan will lower health care premiums by up to 10 percent and reduce the deficit by $68 billion over 10 years without imposing tax increases on families and small businesses.”

“When it comes to reforming health care, controlling skyrocketing costs is the American peoples’ top priority. Now CBO has confirmed that the Republican plan will lower health care costs for American families, and that’s good news for everyone struggling in today’s economy. The choice now could not be clearer: Speaker Pelosi’s plan raises costs. Our plan lowers them.

“Not only does the GOP plan lower health care costs, but it alsoincreases access to quality care – including for those with pre-existing conditions – at a price our country can afford. The cost of the Speaker’s bill, now at $1.3 trillion and counting, is a debt that will be paid for by our kids and our grandkids. The American
people deserve a better solution, and Republicans’ smart, fiscally-responsible plans give them exactly what they want.”

“NOTE: In a letter delivered tonight, CBO estimated that the GOP health care plan would reduce average private health insurance premiums per enrollee in the United States relative to what they would
be under current law. Specifically:”

•” For the small group market (generally businesses with 2 to 50 employees), the GOP plan would reduce premiums in 2016 for example by up to 10 percent.”
• “For the individual market, the GOP plan would reduce premiums in 2016 by up to eight percent.”
• “For the large group market, the GOP plan would reduce premiums in 2016 by up to three percent.”

You can compare Obama’s plan to the GOP plan here and see the advantages of smaller government with tangible results.

No one expected it to arrive in January of 2010, eleven months ahead of schedule.  Few saw it coming as even a vague possibility until after the first of the year.  Belated recognition that a tsunami is coming does not alter its course.  

I digress, but it’s not about Martha Coakley.  Had she run a really good campaign and presented her administration/Congressional leadership friendly positions consistently and well she might have lost by even more.  She may have simply removed all doubt. Martha, it could have been worse.

Tsunamis don’t happen without a precipitating event: something has to occur to generate it.  The tsunami has been building since last spring.  

The tsunami came because the all important moderate center was caught up in relative movement.  It is difficult to know for sure if the moderate center simply stood their ground as policy moved leftward, or whether the moderate center actually moved to the right in a specific reaction to the leftward policy agenda. That’s where the relative movement equation comes to the fore.  That’s why it’s important.

If the moderate center simply stood their ground as policy went flying by on the left, then Democrats have a chance to survive the tsunami.  The inherent challenge is that they must be able to repudiate what they did and said in 2009.  They have to mount the argument that 2009 is not what they are about.  They have to sell the idea that their new post tsunami positions are “really, really, really” where they stand.  It could be a tough argument to win for many in light of stimulus, economic conditions, health care, cap & trade, back room deals, no transparency and the rush to regulatory reforms and punitive taxation.  Three statewide elections have gone the other way for Democrats; it took the third to actually deliver the message to the political class even though many still resist the message or look for a justifying interpretation that is simply not there.  

And then, there is the leadership equation.  Many Democrats, to win reelection, are going to have to run hard against or repudiate to some degree, their own leadership and what that leadership has said and done over the past year.  Imagine the ads: nothing but quotes from Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Hoyer for 30 seconds followed by how many times Representative X voted with leadership; ads with Nancy, talking about Astroturf, her fears of political violence, Nazi signs, reactionaries, Tea Baggers. Oops, hang on there, we  might have overplayed that one a bit! 

Moderate Democrats should consider taking a position in opposition to Ms. Pelosi remaining Speaker of the House if they want their “new” positions to stand any the chance of being credibly considered by moderate voters.  If Democrats maintain their majority and reelect Ms. Pelosi as Speaker it will be a crystal clear message that the appearance of moving to the center was no more than that, just appearances.  Watch out, tsunamis can occur  without warning!   

We’ve seen it this week, no one on the hill really wants to take on a new piece of legislation regarding health care.  The Speaker, in announcing that health care was as good as dead could not get out of that press converence fast enough, but had to get out ahead of her own caucus going public.   The newly minted 180 degree turn by some Democrats suggesting  small steps to address health care comes from  liberal Members of Congress such as Mr. Dellahunt of ………, wait for it, …… Massachusetts. Three Senators are bailing on cap & trade, Senator Warner has adopted the look of a deer in the headlights and many Democrats, fearing the potential for an aftershock, could not get to a microphone quick enough to support the expeditious seating of Senator Brown, and that’s just for openers.        

If, however, the center really has moved to the right and not just as a reflection of movement relative to the left, Democrats are in serious trouble.  If the center has moved to the right the inherent motivation for that movement will be a powerful force in the next election and the Speakership of Ms. Pelosi will be mute.  It’s easier to move right than left.

Republicans, however should take no comfort; their ability to lead on these issues remain to be seen.  Based on recent Republican town halls they are still foundering, looking for a unifying message that they actually have right in front of them.  They simply cannot seem to bring themselves to answer the questions from constituents  with “look, folks my position is based on a fundamentally different belief system than the majority in congress and the President, we should talk about what that belief system is because that is what’s going to guide me, and that is what I’d most like you to understand”.         

Tsunamis, typically have more than one wave.   The tsunami is the result of Americans speaking out and not being heard.  The tsunami is the result of a political class, in the event that they heard what was being said, ignoring and denigrating what they heard and more importantly who said it.  Astroturf indeed!  The tsunami came because the priorities of people were not the same as the priorities of the political class.  It came because ideology overwhelmed common sense and the very idea that politicians are elected to represent us, not manage us.

The tsunami is Americans being Americans.  The tsunami is Americans being a whole lot smarter than anyone inside the beltway thinks.  The tsunami is a demand for representative government at its most fundamental level. The tsunami is a demand to be heard and a demand that our current direction moderate.  The tsunami, whatever else you wish to say about it, has been peaceful, vocal, and passionate.  It has occurred within the parameters of our political system not outside of it.  It has convinced others to look seriously at a different point of view.  It is, untimatly,  American!!