Sold! One Judge For One Vote!

March 4, 2010

Over on her blog, Michelle Malkin is asking whether the White House is “incorrigibly corrupt or incorrigibly stupid” over the latest brouhaha from the Obama camp.

Hot on the heels of Robert Gibbs saying that Obama would do “whatever it takes to pass health care” comes word that the President has nominated Scott Matheson to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. That’s a nice, prestigious title for Matheson. Whatever his qualifications are, the nomination looks a little, shall we say, “suspect” because Scott Matheson’s brother is Representative Jim Matheson from Utah. Jim Matheson is one of the Representatives who voted “No” on health care reform the first time it went through the House. Now Obama is courting him to change his vote to “Yes.” Oh, and hey, how about a seat on the Court of Appeals for your brother?

But getting back to Michelle’s question: the answer is both, and there is a third ingredient.

At a time when people are extremely upset over the political back room deals like the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, special deals for unions, etc., for the Obama administration to do yet another one of these deals reflects a level of political stupidity that is mind-boggling.

While technically not illegal, the entire affair screams of a corrupt political machine that uses a labyrinthine system of favors, kickbacks, and punishments to get what it wants. This may not be illegal, and Scott Matheson is apparently very qualified for the job, but let’s call this exactly what it is: a bribe. Hmmm…now where I have heard the word “bribery” in relation to the Presidency before? Oh yeah, it’s in the Constitution, right before the words “treason, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Now I am not calling for an Obama impeachment. These political hijinx go on all the time, with both parties. But just because both Republicans and Democrats do this sort of thing doesn’t mean it isn’t a type of corruption.

The third element here is the one that blinds Obama to both the stupidity and the corruption of this: his all-consuming arrogance. Obama does these things because he apparently believes that nobody will question him, that dissent from his agenda and his method is somehow illegitimate.

Well, pride goeth before a fall, Mr. President, and if your plummeting approval ratings aren’t enough of an indicator, allow me to spell it out for you: We are on to you. We disapprove of your agenda. We disapprove of your methods. We will make our voices heard.

Hot Air is on the case, too.


Off The Cliff

March 3, 2010

President Obama is going to push for reconciliation (what Senate Democrats used to call “the nuclear option” when it was used by Republicans) to pass health care reform, urging the Democrats to go blindly off the cliff and onto the sharp rocks below. This follows Nancy Pelosi’s grandstanding admonishment to representatives that they need to be worried about the good of the country, and should willingly walk the plank for reform (this coming from a woman safely elected in the People’s Republic of San Francisco).

This is political suicide for the Dems. If they really think opposition to the plan is strong now, just wait until they shove it down our throats and tell us to shut up and like it. I’m thinking we should start a pool…how many seats will the Democrats lose in the House this November? Forty? Sixty? Eighty? A hundred? A hundred would be nice. It’s a good round number. And by doing this, they may well lose the Senate also. Every Democrat (or Republican) who votes for this bill has painted a huge target on his or her back. As for the President, Obama may get this through (still not certain), but he will be completely wiped out. He is using all of the political capital he has, and some he doesn’t have. Obama will not be strengthened by the passage of this bill, he will be crippled by it.

And it will serve his Imperial Majesty right.

Meanwhile, Breitbart is showing a video detailing many of Obama’s statements about how healthcare should not be done on a simple majority vote. There’s a word for Obama that’s not usually used in politics because it’s considered rude or somehow tacky. The word is “Liar.” And it fits.

Write and call your representative. Write and call your senator. Let them know that passage of this bill via reconciliation will not be tolerated.


UPDATE: Obama has now come out and settled the issue by declaring the debate to be “over.” Memo to Barry: It’s not your ball, and you can’t just go home with it. The debate may be over, but if this travesty passes the fight will just be beginning. Also, Michelle Malkin weighs in with one-stop shopping on all the latest about reconciliation.


Obama’s Healthcare 2.0 And The Need For Real Reform

March 2, 2010

Allegedly, Barack Obama will be unveiling a new, stripped down health care proposal tomorrow. It may incorporate some of the Republican ideas that were discussed at the “summit” last week, possibly some version of tort reform and possibly allowing people to buy insurance across state lines.

The trap has been sprung.

Many commentators, including myself, feared that the whole purpose behind the health care summit was to trap the Republicans, to paint them as obstructionist, as tools of the insurance industry, as motivated by hateful feelings and a disregard for all things Obama.

I have a feeling, based on no knowledge of what will actually be in Obama’s proposal, that phase two of the trap is tomorrow. The proposal, Healthcare 2.0, may contain a couple of the ideas the Republicans want, but my guess is that it will also contain several poison pills that will make it impossible for Republicans to support. This sort of legislative chicanery goes on all the time, though usually in reverse. A really bad, partisan bill will contain an element that is extremely popular and bipartisan. Vote against the bad bill, and you are accused of hating children, hating immigrants, hating the elderly, pick your poison.

What I believe we will find here is the opposite. Obama doesn’t care about Republican votes. He just needs to collect enough blue dog Democrats in the House and maybe swing some liberal Republicans like Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins in the Senate. If he can convince them, health care will pass and he gets to point his fingers at the Republicans and say that he reached out to them at the summit, that he included their ideas, and that they voted against him because they want him to fail. Meanwhile, the Republicans will be left standing there trying to explain that the revised bill may have had some good parts, but that it was a very bad bill overall.

This was why during the summit the Democrats kept insisting that most of the bill had bipartisan support, that Republicans and Democrats could agree on all but a few fringe issues, such as tort reform and buying insurance across state lines. If those elements are added, and the price brought down a smidge, then Republican “no” votes must be based on partisan politicking.

The truth is that there is almost nothing in the Democrats’ bill that is worthwhile. It is a travesty of a bill, thousands of pages of new rules, regulations, and laws designed for the sole purpose of putting the Federal government in charge of 1/6 of the economy and creating a new entitlement program that will ensure Democrat votes from now until doomsday.

But doomsday will come a lot sooner if this bill passes. The United States simply can not afford to do this anymore. We as a nation need to rise up and destroy the entire concept of “entitlements.”

A presidential candidate who says we need to abolish Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and welfare would be hanged by the media in this country, but the fact is that these are the programs that are bankrupting us. We have a choice: we can continue these programs and tax the people into oblivion, restricting their freedom and opportunity to pursue happiness, or we can begin to look at ways to phase these programs out of existence. Properly done, a true reform of the health care system in this country would eliminate all health care insurance with the exception of catastrophic coverage. That would include Medicare and Medicaid. Properly done, free market choices and incentives to save would completely usurp the need for Social Security, which could and should be made voluntary immediately. At that point, we could then say “Starting in 20 years, or 30 years, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be accepting new users.” The programs would continue as long as the current users were in the system, getting smaller and spending less with each passing year.

Heartless? I don’t think so. What I truly think is heartless is the notion of the government mortgaging our futures and the futures of our children in order to continue these programs when there are free market alternatives.

The free market can be a wild ride, and people will need to educate themselves about how to invest and prepare for rainy days, how to diversify so that a sudden stock market crash doesn’t wipe out a lifetime of savings just before retirement. People will need to learn from an early age that purchasing catastrophic, individually-tailored health care plans and putting money into Health Savings Accounts is a very wise decision, and by putting in place a system of incentives it will soon become something that everyone recognizes is the smart and right thing to do. But a government that takes these decisions out of the hands of the citizenry is a government that infantilizes the citizenry and makes a mockery of liberty and freedom.


Obama’s Health Care Decline

February 26, 2010

There were several points in yesterday’s health care photo op summit where the Republicans, particularly Rep. Paul Ryan, were challenging the President with facts and figures. Obama responded by scolding Ryan and saying that he didn’t want “to get bogged down in numbers.”

You know, because facts only get in the way.

I immediately thought of this, which I feel could be genuine secret footage of Barack Obama preparing for the summit:

Aside from the fact that the summit yesterday was among the most excruciatingly boring seven and a half hours since the three Star Wars prequels, I thought that the President did not come off well. He was even more insufferably arrogant than usual, scolding the Republicans for “talking points” because the Republicans stuck with facts while the Democrats recited teary anecdotes about people with ill-fitting dentures and kidney stones. He doubled the amount of air time for the Democrats and claimed that it didn’t count because “I’m the President.” He not-so-gently reminded John McCain that the election was over and McCain had lost when McCain pointed out the difference between Obama the Campaigner’s promises and Obama the Campaigner-In-Chief’s actions. He accused Rep. Eric Cantor of bringing the Senate bill and using it as “a prop.” (Memo to Cantor: next time look him straight in the eye and say, “Mr. President, this is not a prop. This is what we are here to discuss.”)

The summit may have helped the President appear more bipartisan, at least to those people who didn’t actually watch it (and God help me, but I did). But to those who did watch it, I doubt very much whether it changed any minds. The Democrats stuck to their guns, and so did the Republicans. Despite the constant assurances of the Democrats, there was no real common ground reached. There is a massive philosophical divide between the two parties on this issue. Where you stand depends on how you answer this question: Do you believe the Federal Government should control and regulate your health care and make decisions about the type of coverage you have and the type of treatment you receive, or do you believe that health care reform should be based on the free market, allowing you to decide the type of coverage (if any) that you have, and allowing you and your doctor to decide on the type of treatment you receive? For me, that’s the easiest question I’ve ever heard.


Michelle Malkin has a great syndicated column up about this sham of a mockery of a travesty.


Health Care And The Continuing Crisis

December 21, 2009

Well, Harry Reid has managed to bring to life the title of P.J. O’Rourke’s great book, A Parliament Of Whores. All the special deals for states with Democratic Senators (paid for with your money), all of the secrecy and back room shuffles have paid off for the Majority Leader from Nevada. The victory is likely to be pyrrhic, however. The bill is hugely unpopular by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, and because it was enacted on strict party lines there is no way they can blame the Republicans. The Republicans weren’t even consulted on this travesty of legislation, with the exception of an attempted wooing of Olympia Snowe, the RINO from Maine who put herself out there under the lamppost with the rest of them.

Michelle Malkin’s doing a bang-up job detailing the sleazy corrupt deals that went into making this nightmare a reality. You can read her full posts here and here, but allow me to provide a brief synopsis:

  • Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu was given $100,000,000 of taxpayer money for her vote.
  • Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson sold his vote for some mealy-mouthed anti-federal spending on abortion language and a promise that the Federal Government would pay Nebraska’s increased Medicaid fees forever…thus putting the onus of collecting these fees on the other 49 states.
  • Massachusetts and Vermont also received special deals similar to the one for which Ben Nelson sold his soul
  • Connecticut will be getting $100,000,000 to build a hospital as a payoff to Senator Chris Dodd
  • Non-profit insurance companies will be exempt from paying the billions in taxes the other insurance companies will have to pony up…a gift for Ben Nelson (boy, he’s good at this) and Michigan Senator Carl Levin
  • Our one out-of-the-closet Socialist in the Senate, Vermont’s own Bernie Sanders was given a $10,000,000,000 gift of socialized medical clinics.
There are more, which you can see with all appropriate links on Michelle Malkin’s site.


While there is some solace in the notion that this bill could have been even worse by including a public option, that comfort is extremely cold when we consider just how bad this bill is. It is the equivalent of standing in middle of an earthquake and saying, "At least it’s not raining."

It will cost the taxpayers of this nation trillions of dollars, it will increase taxes, it will cause health insurance premiums to rise, it will leave approximately 23,000,000 people uninsured, it creates a completely unconstitutional mandate on the citizenry to buy a privately offered service.* The bill takes a bad situation and makes it markedly worse. In a stroke of genius, Congress has made sure that the worst effects of the bill won’t be seen until safely into Barack Obama’s second term.

So the question then becomes…why? Why pass this bill that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, does not solve the acknowledged problem?

Remember, the problem was an estimated 30 million people without health insurance. The whole notion of health care reform was based on the task of covering those people (whether they wanted it or not). But this bill leaves 23 million people uninsured, and it places all sorts of restrictions on the insurance companies that effect the 85% of the country that is currently happy with their insurance.

What Congress has done is pass a bill that does not address the condition it was supposed to address, and screws up the system for everyone else. And they’re happy about this. They think it’s “historic” as if “historic” was a synonym for “wonderful.”

So again…why?

The answer is simply this: the Democrats know that in 2009 there is no way they can achieve their real goal: a 100% takeover of the entire health care system, from providing insurance to managing hospitals to mandating how many physicians get to practice in each specialty. Their reason for wanting socialized medicine is also simple: create a class of people that depend on you, and they will never vote you out of office. There’s a reason why people refer to Social Security and Medicare as “the third rails” of politics…touch them and you die.

The reason there is no stomach for socialized medicine in America is precisely because 85% of Americans are happy with their medical plans. We know that it could be better, and that costs are too high, but we don’t wait months for an MRI, and we sure as hell don’t want government bureaucrats looking to cut costs at our expense or the expense of our loved ones.

The new health care plan is going to make that 85% of Americans very upset. For the Democrats and other Statists, this is the sound of opportunity knocking.

What the Democrats are doing here is creating a real crisis where only a problem currently exists. A state of crisis gives them the excuse for even more reforms in order to "solve" the very crisis they created. Obama’s consigliere Rahm Emmanuel said, “Never let a crisis go to waste.” By creating a continuing crisis, the Democrats can continue to “address” the issue in ever more intrusive ways.

Health care reform didn’t work the first time? That’s because there was no public option.

The new Public Option is insufficient? Add billions more taxpayer dollars. Everyone knows that Washington’s solution to broken systems is to throw money at them.

There are still uninsured? Increase the scope of the public option.

The private insurance companies can’t compete with a taxpayer-subsidized system that sets the rules? Increase the scope again to include those whose insurance companies have gone under.

Why before you know it, America is looking down the barrel of socialized medicine. Only now it’s an "entitlement," a brand-spankin’ new "third rail" for hapless politicians to lose their office.

When this bill was passed, Iowa Senator and proponent of socialized medicine Tom Harkin rushed to the microphone to reassure the liberals and progressives who are complaining that this bill doesn’t go far enough. This bill, Harkin assured them, was not a mansion, but it was a "starter home." There will be plenty of time, he purred, for revisions.

…we can add additions and extensions to it as we go on in the future. It is not the end of health care, it’s the beginning.

That’s just what I’m afraid of.


*Back in July, I wrote a piece here that suggested an individual mandate might be a good idea. I covered my bets a bit by stating that there were likely considerations I had missed when I wrote the piece. Since then, I have come to realize that the concept of the Federal Government insisting the citizens of the country buy a product or service is 100% unconstitutional. I haven’t changed the original post because that wouldn’t be ethical (although I do change posts for grammar and spelling at times), and I stand by most of what I wrote that day. But the more I thought about the issue the more I realized that I no longer believe in the individual mandate.