Buy Health Insurance...Or Else?

Interesting comments from Gary Bauer's End of Day report....I can't imagine the uproar if the "mandate" part of the Baucus bill gets passed...great opportunity for some civil disobedience....can you imagine a bunch of us sitting in jail because we wouldn't buy healthcare? One is tempted by the idea...

Here are a few excerpts:

Senator Max Baucus' latest “bi-partisan” healthcare bill has been criticized by Republicans and Democrats alike. The liberals in Congress are upset because it does not provide for a public option, while conservatives are upset that it still amounts to a government takeover of healthcare and forces individuals to buy healthcare coverage whether they like it or not. A large percentage of younger workers in our country are healthy and would prefer not to pay for healthcare coverage. Also, many wealthy Americans, who can afford to pay their own bills, don’t want to be forced to buy a policy they don’t need.

But what, under the Baucus plan, would happen to people who refused to buy health insurance? The bill states that a $1,900 “excise tax” would be assessed. Senator John Ensign (R-NV) asked what would happen to someone who refused to pay the tax. He was told by Tom Barthold, Chief of Staff for the Senate’s Joint Committee on Taxation, that the person could be charged with a misdemeanor, face up to one year in jail and a fine of up $25,000.

During the 1994 healthcare debate, the mandate issue was at the forefront. At the time, the Congressional Budget Office called the individual mandate “an unprecedented form of federal action.” In the history of the United States, the federal government has never legally forced people to purchase any service or good. If this bill is passed, history will be made.

More “Buyer’s Remorse” On Obama More and more, voters who supported Obama last November are having second thoughts now. Richard Cohen, the very liberal Washington Post columnist, wrote this morning that Obama was “appearing promiscuously on television and granting interviews like the presidential candidate he no longer is.” He added, “The trouble with Obama is that he gets into the moment and means what he says for that moment only.” 

 

Here's the rest of Cohen's article Time to Act Like a President. Pretty harsh, coming from an Obama-man...

On Obama's Speech to the United Nations: A Collection of Conservative and Liberal Reactions

Listening in on both conservative and liberal reaction to the president's speech (NRO editors called it his "confession"). 

Here's a smattering of commentary from the "right"...

Victor Davis Hanson (National Review Online)

The key question is at what point will the American people sense that the Obama feel-good magic comes at the expense of long-term American interests — and that making some unsavory characters like our president now will mean only trouble ahead for the country itself and its friends abroad.

Charles Krauthammer (blog)

This speech hovered somewhere between embarrassing and dangerous. You had a president of the United States actually saying: “No [one] nation can or should try to dominate another.” I will buy the "should try to" as kind of adolescent wishful thinking. But “no [one] nation can dominate another”? What planet is he living on? It is the story of man. What does he think Russia is doing to Georgia?

Obama's speech is alarming because it says the United States has no more moral right to act or to influence world history than Bangladesh or Sierra Leone. It diminishes the United States deliberately and wants to say that we should be one nation among others, and not defend the alliance of democracies that we have in NATO, for example, or to say — as [did] every president who goes before Obama — that we stand for something good and unique in the world.

Anne Bayefsky (senior fellow with the Hudson Institute and executive director of Human Rights Voices) reporting from the U.N.:

President Obama had the audacity to speak at length about his commitment to standing with the oppressed. While he spoke inside the U.N., hundreds of protesters from Iran were outside refuting his words...President Obama has offered an outstretched hand to the man who is responsible for the terrible fate of Iranian dissidents. Every Iranian demonstrator in New York today said loud and clear that they believe President Obama’s policy on Iran to be an outrageous abandonment of democratic values....Instead of leading, the president sounded confused and relativistic....The president’s deliberate ambiguity on the nature of democracy was well-received at the U.N., but it did nothing to enhance America’s moral stature and leadership capacity in the world today. ...This speech ought to send shockwaves through the United States and our European allies. We have the weakest president in modern times ensconced in Washington, a man who will run away from saying what has to be said, if it doesn’t appeal to an audience rife with demagogues.

Rich Lowry (excerpts from his column in the New York Post)

President Obama yesterday did his best impression of a high-school sophomore participating in his first Model UN meeting… Obama hopes that all our self-effacing niceness will catalyze the world into ending its "bickering about outdated grievances." No wonder he twice had to deny that he was being naive.

And from the "left..."

The New York Times editorial board, taking the requisite swipe at George W. Bush, writes that Obama “took another step toward repairing America’s battered image,” while the Los Angeles Times focused mostly on the power of Obama’s personality. Commending Obama for his ability to “palpably reduce global tensions,” the L.A. Times wrote that “some delegates were so awed by the American president that they couldn't resist snapping pictures during his Wednesday speech.”

 Michael Crowley, writing in his column in The New Republic, is a bit more circumspect, calling the speech “elegant if not terribly profound” and “idealistic,” and concluding that “it is the force of Obama's identity and personal experience which offers some hope that his words might have more resonance.” Yet his final statement (“In the months to come, we’ll find out”) suggests he seems willing to reserve judgment.

Comparing these contrasting views, one can’t help but feel commentary today is all about perceptions, expectations, and preferences and not necessarily about actual facts. These divergent views aren’t coming from the fringes. These are thoughtful, informed, intelligent comments about the exact same event but with widely different assessments and conclusions. Is it even possible to get at actual truth anymore, or will it always be that opinions and ideas are shaped by whose “side” we’re on?

How to Change the Subject in Two Syllables

Charles Krauthammer commenting in his blog on the latest attempt by Democrats to change the subject by calling Joe Wilson "racist":

The minute you call somebody a racist, the debate is over. You don't continue….Accusations of racism are the last refuge of the liberal scoundrel. As for Maureen Dowd, imagining a word [“boy”] that wasn't said: Well, in my previous profession, I saw a lot of people who heard words that weren't said. They were called patients. Many of them were actually helped with medication.

 Funny.

Not Sure How He Gets Away With It

The premise for B.O.'s Big Speech to Congress on health care reform had to do with what he referred to as lies and distortions emanating from those who opposed health care reform. The "time for bickering is over," he declared. He then proceeded to lay out a plan for reform that apparently contained its own share of half-truths or distortions, which two days later are now being scrutinized. But rather than focus on this, the big news of the speech was not so much what the president said but what Republican representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina did, which was to interrupt the speech and call Obama out as a liar. Rude and inappropriate behavior to be sure, not befitting the solemnity of the moment. Wilson apparently apologized later, as he should have. But too much is being made of the outburst. It's not as though the Democrats have "clean hands" in this regard. (Did they never "boo" President Bush during his addresses to Congress? If so, did they apologize later?).

What's missing in all the chiding of Wilson is the fact that his reaction was gut-level and instinctive. Mona Charen, writing in NRO today, says that "similar exclamations were heard" at her house. And Kevin Williamson, also writing in NRO, says that Joe Wilson "could use a visit from Miss Manners," but he was telling the truth about Obama. The L.A. Times published a picture of three or four Republicans wafting their own versions of health care reform in response to Obama's claim that the "other side" has not offered any good ideas. And Joe Wilson's slur was a reaction to Obama's claim that his reform plan would not pay for illegal immigrants. Yet Republicans' attempts to ensure this by requiring proof of residency were not included in the House version of the bill. Wilson understood the game that was being played up there. Words are cheap. This President can "say" anything he wants. Truth and accuracy don't seem to matter. So the irony here is that Joe Wilson is being villified for calling Obama a liar, but President Obama, who probably is "dissembling" (let's not call him a liar), is praised. It's amazing to me. How does he do it?

Here's Kevin Williamson Joe Wilson is Rude but Right  and Mona Charen Obama's Trouble With Numbers

Paglia and Ponnuru on Health Care Debacle

I always enjoy how Camille Paglia (Liberal? Democrat/Libertarian?) seems to have no compunction about slice and dicing her own party, including the venerable Barack Obama. Of course she's equally brutal on the Republicans, but that goes without saying. Here she goes again, this time on health care....you go, girl.

Too Late for Obama to Turn it Around?
(Salon)

And here's Ramesh Ponnuru from National Review skewering Obama et al on the flat out lies they're telling about health care reform, all the while accusing Republicans of spreading misinformation.

Obama's False Witness
(NRO)

I agree with Ponnuru's concluding paragraph:

Americans have increasing doubts about President Obama’s agenda but generally like him as a person. They consider him honest and trustworthy, and give him the benefit of the doubt. As the health-care debate continues, it becomes less and less clear that Obama deserves that trust.

"How Then Shall We Live?"

Always astounds me that people think they can wag their fingers at the rest of us while "living as they please" (a nice way of saying "hypocrisy"). But do the environmentalists commend George W. Bush? Nay....Al Gore gets the Pulitzer and Bush is maligned. Grrrrr.....

A Tale of Two Houses

Democrats Got Religion!

I guess it was only a matter of time before Democrats saw the light. If only the bald-faced hypocrisy weren't so glaringly obvious.

"God's Partners"
Mona Charen
National Review Online (September 1, 2009)

Disappointed in Anne Lamott

An open letter today, to President Obama from Anne Lamott, in the Los Angeles Times. Anne is lamenting the fact that "her" president is letting her (and the other 66,882,229 Americans who voted for him) down because he might capitulate on his promise of universal health care for all Americans.

Please.

What about the 58,783,221 who voted for McCain? Does Annie think we don't matter? Does she believe elected officials only represent those who voted for them? Does it not occur to her that maybe (maybe?) officials of elected parties represent all their constituents, even those who didn't vote for them?

This gives me an idea. What if there were a presidential election...no VP candidates at all. The "winner" is the president. The "loser" is the vice president. And the real winner...? The American people who don't have to fear being locked out of the debate (or the decisions) just because "their guy" didn't make the cut.

Everyone wins?

Here she goes: Anne Lamott, for your reading pleasure. If you can stand it.

President Obama : Health Care; You Promised
by Anne Lamott
Los Angeles Times, August 27, 2009

"We are all butlers"

As follow up to my friend's email exortation to Choose love instead of fear or other petty emotions, and all will be well I asked her to clarify what she meant. She replied:

It’s hard to say what I’m saying exactly, other than in my belief that times will get even harder than they are, and there will be choices to made in how each of us treats one another, the basic option behind all that will are going through now and will be going through will boil down to two choices – love or fear. To the degree that we are able to observe our inner nature and slow down with a stimulus arrives, and choose the higher path (love) I believe we are supported. In the Biblical perspective, “the greatest of these is love” comes to mind. In the metaphysical perspective, love has a higher vibration than fear which lowers us. I believe we are closer to our creator and our ‘real selves’ when we choose to love, despite the illusions around us. I don’t know if that makes sense.

After teasing her a bit about sending her back to re-write (it's the English teacher in me, can't help), and trying my hardest to be polite and loving (!), I offered some of the following thoughts (slightly edited for this blog post).

My (short) reply is I don't really agree there are "only" two options, as you suggest (love/fear). Nor do I believe "love" has anything to do with what I thought we were talking about here, the context being Barack Obama/politics (which is what generated your original platitude). While what you say may be true when interacting with people at work or at home, I believe we as voters need to critically scrutinize our political leaders and when necessary speak up loud and clear. It may not be "nice" or "polite" or "loving" to do so, but politics is not about "love"--politics is about remaining clear-eyed and maintaining a healthy cynicism towards our elected officials. This is not a debasement of our inner self, as you suggest. Rather, it's a necessary responsibility.

To be frank, the message you send (in both your first comment and your second clarification) is sort of disturbing. I don't know if you voted for Obama, but I'm noticing that many people who not only voted for him but still support him, especially people who might otherwise call themselves social or fiscal conservatives, are guided by this sort of blind devotion, in spite of what I perceive to be evidence that he was not ready for prime time (to put it politely). I don't know if this applies to you, but that's what I'm hearing.

I watched a really good movie last night called Remains of the Day, starring Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thompson. It's an old Merchant Ivory production, based on a novel of the same name by Kazuo Ishiguro, about a head butler (Hopkins) and head housekeeper (Thompson) serving in the household of a London aristocrat in the days leading up to World War II and how he was duped by the Nazis into propagating their propaganda, and how the butler dutifully served his master and looked the other way. What a powerful (and sad) story about loyalty and blind devotion. This morning I followed up and read a couple of reviews. One line from a Rolling Stone review stood out to me:

For Ishiguro, we are all butlers in the service of global masters who screw us up if we offer unquestioning trust.

"Unquestioning trust" is the message I'm hearing from Obama supporters, and your comments seem to reinforce my concerns. That you would sort of (gently) rebuke me in your first email about "petty emotions," as if to suggest that being critical of Obama is petty, and then, in your later clarification, imply that there are only two options (fear or love) when it comes to how we view this administration--is pretty disturbing. In the days preceding the rise of Nazi Germany, many people (like this London aristocrat) ignored or dismissed the significance of what was going on until it was too late.

There are plenty of "red flags" about this administration that should give all of us pause, and maybe we should "fear" a little bit. Personally I think it's OK to fear when many of our Congressmen and women don't actually read long and complex bills in their rush to pass bills for "our own good." I think it's OK to fear when legitimate criticism is mocked by our own elected leaders, including our president. I think it's OK to fear when the mainstream media stops being the responsible watchdog it should be and instead begins to take on the role of cheerleader for this administration. And I think it's OK to fear when otherwise intelligent and educated people have a hard time articulating why they believe what they believe and can rely only on feeling or emotion or symbolism or wishful thinking.

OK my short response is longer than I meant to be...if you're interested, here's an item that I stumbled on yesterday while browsing through Snopes. It's an open letter to Barack Obama, written by Lou Pritchett, former VP of Procter and Gamble, who apparently sent this to the New York Times but it wasn't published.

You Scare Me, by Lou Pritchett

"A Plague on Both Their Houses"?

Karen sent me this link to a blog in which the author asks the "liberal left" for a divorce, citing irreconcilable differences. Funny. Here was my response to Karen:

Very funny and (sadly) something I've been thinking about. It does seem as if there are irreconcilable differences. If John McCain had won the presidency, it's possible we would have seen this horrendous divide diminish somewhat. He is a gifted conciliator and peace-maker. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Barbara Boxer and their ilk are more partisan than any politicians alive. They (not the Republicans) are the ones who have been stoking the partisan flames. Yet they have the gall to call Republicans obstructionists.

I pray (often) for some kind of reconciliation between the two parties. I pray (often) for God to expose the hypocrisy and the corruption of people in both parties. To clean house ("a plague on both their houses"?) and then let good people from both parties try to work together to clean up the mess, throw out the garbage, re-decorate, and start fresh.

All Will be Well?

I just watched "Woodstock: Then and Now," a documentary celebrating the 40th anniversary of that amazing festival. It was decent enough of a documentary, with only a few sour notes, one of them being the ending where columnist Gail Collins of the N.Y. Times tries to suggest that the only thing today that can compare with Woodstock is the inauguration of Barack Obama, the film then cutting to video of the massive crowds that came out to witness that event. That's a stretch, at best.

I said as much in passing to someone who had just emailed me and asked how I was doing. Then I apologized for offending her on the off chance that she was one of "them"...Barackophiles. Apparently she is. Here was her reply:

Choose love instead of fear or other petty emotions, and all will be well.

A rebuke of sorts, I sense. But what exactly does she mean? I want to ask her,
What does love have to do with politics? If I disagree with an elected official, or if I question his motives, or doubt that he has my best interests in mind, or believe somehow that he is beholden to groups or organizations that do not represent my views....I will say so. Also, her use of the word petty, which means, "Marked by or reflective of narrow interests and sympathies," is telling. This is the latest trend, I'm noticing. To disagree with Barack Obama is to be petty (at best...when that doesn't work, try calling dissenters racist. Shuts 'em up every time.) And her implication that by refraining from disagreement with this administration "all will be well" is unsettling. It makes me wonder what, exactly, Obama supporters want their new and revised America to look like? Does anyone remember Stepford? 

 

Lacking Courage?

Well, here we go. That which we dreaded has finally happened. BO has selected his (first) Supreme Court justice nominee, and she's everything we (who resisted and still do resist BO's allure) expected her to be, and more. More because the now emasculated Republican Party doesn't appear to have the slightest idea what to do with her. Even a whisper of criticism will be labeled racist. Not even logical, commonsensical criticism, like that presented here by Rich Lowry, would they dare to utter.

Will they stand up, present their arguments, make their case? Or will they slink away, flaccid tails between their wobbly knees? I don't recall the Democrats having any problem skewering Clarence Thomas, a black man...should not a Latina be given the same scrutiny? Are we not a color-blind society? Has not change come to America?

Well Dressed Emperor

One thing was said during our last email discussion (very civil, thanks) was that you thought I was wrong to refer to BO as "the emperor having no clothes." You said you thought my logic was flawed because people are now much more critical of him and will be more so as issues get scrutinized, etc.

As I said in response, I hope you're right, but evidently it's still pretty much of a love fest out there, at least according to GB, who reported on the "hilarious" correspondents' dinner (he was there). Here's how he saw things:

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said his fellow reporters acted like schoolgirls in the presence of a rock star. It’s fortunate no one fainted. There was a moment that really stood out for me. The president looked out at the crowd of panting journalists and said, “Most of you covered me (during the election) and all of you voted for me. Apologies to the Fox [News] table.” Without any shame, the room erupted into one of the loudest rounds of applause of the night. Barack was their man in November and he is their man now. Objective journalism is dead.

Me again: So for now at least, I think it's safe to say that, at least to those who voted for him and are rooting for him, people still see in him what they want to see and not what many of us who haven't been bitten by the Obama bug clearly do see...

It's disturbing to me (and should be to all of us, regardless of party affiliation)...the media are supposed to be the watchdogs, holding government accountable. Right now, though, for the most part, the "mainstream" media still appears to be tongue-tied and deferential. That's why I go directly to my own media sources after reading the papers (we get three, actually).Yes, I know...the LA Times has written editorials that are critical, they have a weekly conservative columnist (Jonah Goldberg), sometimes the letters represent "my" side, etc.

All well and good. But sometimes, balance and objectivity is more than op-eds. It's the news that doesn't get told. For instance, I learned recently that Obama invited the families of the USS Cole to the White House because they were starting to publicly question his decision release prisoners from Guantanamo and he wanted to quell the ruckus. Here's an op-ed (link below) written by one of the family members who was in attendance at that meeting. Her name is Debra Burlingame. It's a good example of what I'm talking about...the press reports one thing ("touching and powerful meeting") but the reality is quite another (she concludes, "We've been had," and one of the families has even said they regret having voted for him). The naked emperor in all his glory....?

I saw nothing of this in our papers. I learned about it through Bauer's daily report, and then went and searched out Burlingame's op-ed myself...who does this besides me? Not very many, I'll wager. And if papers go under (or worse, if the federal government offers to "help" them out), well, so much for a free and independent and responsible press...is this really what we (Americans) want?

Obama and the 9/11 Families

Post Election Musings

Excerpts from a letter to a relative:

Rereading your original note, I realize I skimmed your last sentence, the one about your analogy of a 6th grade kid running for class president promising soda fountains, even though he knows he can't keep the promise. But the 6th grade kid gets elected anyway because, as you say, voters tend to believe what they want to believe.

There was a point during the campaigning that I naively believed voters would listen to the candidates, the debates, the promises, would examine the facts, and would ultimately figure out that it was McCain who would be better equipped to lead our country during these terrible times. And they'd vote for the right man for the job.

The first time I realized this might not happen was in the immediate aftermath of the first presidential debate. (My husband Perry) and I watched it from start to finish (as we did all the debates). This one was on foreign policy, where many analysts believed McCain was the stronger candidate. I remember being so impressed with him--his eloquence, his comprehension of the issues, his experience, his knowledge. I distinctly remember commenting to Perry at one point (about McCain), "I want him to be my president" and another time saying (about Obama), "He comes across as the junior senator that he is." When it ended I dubbed it "The President and the Professor," and predicted the pundits would give this one to McCain, 1-0.

However, immediately the post-debate analysis began, and to my amazement, the pundits were saying how presidential Obama came across, how knowledgeable, how he proved to the American people that he could lead in foreign policy, and that yes, Obama had clearly won the debate. Perry and I looked at each other as if to say, Did they watch the same debate I did? And that's when I started to think something was going on here, something that transcended mere politics. You could hear the the Twilight Zone theme in the background...

I'm beginning to think that people believe what they want to believe, regardless of reality--whether it's soda fountains or strong foreign policy experience. Worse, when the soda fountains don't materialize and the promise-maker says, "Gosh, unfortunately, they never will materialize at all," the voters who elected him, rather than challenge him on why he didn't research the facts before making the claims, are remarkably indifferent. "He just didn't know at the time that he was making promises he couldn't keep," they say. "And isn't it just so brave of him to admit it."

This is going to sound odd to you, but to me, there's something almost beyond "politics as usual" going on here. I can't put my finger on it. It borders on the "mystical." There's a verse in the Bible about how God sends "a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie." This is in reference to the time of the anti-Christ (for the record, I don't think Barack Obama is the anti-christ), and that one phrase about powerful delusions rings true to me. It puts the whole election, as well as that post-debate "what the heck?" moment, into perspective. For the first time I could see how it actually could happen, how people actually could fall under the spell of the actual anti-christ, because he will be attractive and seductive and will make promises and people will want him to keep his promises.

I realized too how difficult it is to try and convince people otherwise if they are blinded by what they want to see. Deception is a powerful thing. It's like that old fairy tale, the Emperor Has No Clothes. Everyone sees the emperor all dressed up in his fancy regalia, but the little boy sees him naked and can't figure out what everyone is cheering about. The guy's not wearing any clothes, he says. But the people can't see it.

I know what you mean about voting for "your" guy....that's what's sad about what's going on in politics today. Substance doesn't matter as much as party loyalty. Woe to you if you vote for the other guy, right? Was I blinded by Bush's charisma? I don't know, but with Bush, it was more about there was no other option. No way, Gore, no way Kerry. With McCain and Obama, on the other hand, I truly believe McCain was a viable alternative for Democrats, if only they could have gotten beyond their unreasonable hatred of Bush (which Obama skillfully exploited). McCain has a long track record of working across the aisle with Democrats, has strong foreign policy credentials, has a long and documented Senate voting record, and would have been much more likely to heal the partisan divide than any of the other Republican or Democrat candidates. The Maverick moniker got old and eventually was mocked, but there's something to it in the sense that McCain really wasn't an old guard Republican. He really was more of an independent at heart.

Obama's triumph over McCain, though inevitable, was one of symbolism over substance, of theater over truth, probably because the contrasts were just so stark: young vs. old, black vs. white, handsome vs. craggy, politically shrewd vs. politically inept, and, of course, the biggie: New and Fresh vs. No More Bush (untrue and unfair to McCain, but hey, whatever wins elections).

The Ugly Side of the Democratic Party

Barack Obama promised to bring change to Washington, and that he has. But I don't think it's the change people (who fell under his spell) were expecting. Here's some insight into the latest happenings:

Now, let me say something about the census, because it is related to [Rebublican Senator Judd] Gregg’s decision not to join this administration. The media hasn’t focused on this yet, but it is a big issue you will hear a lot about in the days ahead.

One of the Commerce Department’s most important functions is to oversee the census that takes place every ten years. The census is used primarily to allocate the number of congressional representatives for each state in the House of Representatives (which determines votes in the Electoral College), and it is also used to determine the funding formulas for most federal programs that send tax dollars back to the states.

For obvious reasons, this is a highly sensitive political issue, and for that very reason this job has always been entrusted to the career civil servants in the Commerce Department. But after Gregg was announced as Commerce Secretary, the Obama team yanked the census out of the Commerce Department and decided that we should trust it to the tender mercies of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

For those of you who may not know, Rahm Emanuel is a brass-knuckles, hyper-partisan operative from, of course, Chicago. He was one of Bill Clinton’s key “fixers,” and served as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006, when many good conservatives were smeared with disgusting negative attack ads.

We were told that the census was moved from the Commerce Department because we just couldn’t trust the Republican Judd Gregg to handle it properly. Well, I don’t know anyone in Washington who questions Judd Gregg’s integrity. I think his statements above speak volumes about the man. The same cannot be said about Emanuel, and there are well-known stories about his vindictiveness that would send chills down your spine.

The decision by the Obama team to pull the census out of Commerce and give it to Rahm Emanuel is extraordinarily revealing of the hardball, partisan tactics these folks are willing to use in order to make sure our side never wins another election. If the administration does not reverse itself on the census, Republican leaders are threatening to go to court. But it’s no wonder that Judd Gregg felt like he couldn’t be a “team player” in this crowd [Gary Bauer, End of Day report, 2/13/09].

When Will the Smoke Clear?

Here's an excerpt from an analysis about the so-called stimulus bill passed by both the Senate and the House. Read the entire article here.

A Trojan Horse

Both the Senate and House stimulus bills are Trojan horses that deliberately exploit anxiety about the current recession to conceal their destruction of the foundation of welfare reform and a massive expansion of the welfare system. Since its enactment in the mid-1990s, such reform has proven to be a very successful policy that dramatically reduced welfare dependency and child poverty. The fact that the stimulus proponents seek to conceal the bill's massive permanent changes in welfare is a clear indication that they understand how unpopular these changes would be if the public became aware of them. Far from an exercise in "unprecedented transparency"--as President Obama claims--the stimulus bills are an example of unprecedented deception.

Robert Rector is Senior Research Fellow in the Domestic Policy Studies Department and Katherine Bradley is a Research Fellow in the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society, at The Heritage Foundation.

An editorial in the National Review Online echoes these concerns (go here to read).

May as well start documenting all these shenanagins in this blog, because things are moving quickly behind the smokescreen that is Barack Obama. It's hard to argue with deceptive people, especially really good deceivers who have mastered the art of obfuscation. Obama is especially clever at saying things one way one day, then changing them the next and acting surprised when challenged or questioned about the contradiction. Sometimes he even admits that in saying things, he didn't really mean what he said. Recall he did this after he was elected and he suddenly rediscovered Hillary Clinton's virtues after ripping her to shreds during the campaign, pointing out that criticism of her was just campaign "rhetoric," you know. Ah yes, rhetoric...Four years from now will we remember his propensity to deceive for the purpose of achieving his objectives?

Losing track

It's hard to keep up with all the scoundrels in the Democratic Party. Here's the latest (excerpted from Gary Bauer's End of Day report):

Over the weekend, we learned about yet another tax-raising liberal Democrat who massively underpaid his own taxes. This time it is former Senate Democrat Leader Tom Daschle, who has been nominated by President Obama to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. In that post, the pro-abortion Daschle is expected to direct the Obama Administration’s takeover of American health care and dismantle the pro-life policies of the previous administration regarding human embryo stem cell research.

Daschle is considered very smart. Nonetheless, he expressed ignorance that a luxury car and chauffer he was provided by his employer were taxable... In addition, Daschle lacked proof for thousands of dollars of charitable deductions he took and failed to report some consulting income. The bottom line: On January 2nd, he sent the IRS $140,000 in back taxes and penalties. The Washington Post referred to this as a “tax glitch.” I suspect most taxpayers would apply a few more colorful adjectives.

If this sounds familiar, that is because Daschle’s tax “glitch” comes on the heels of the tax problems of another Obama nominee, Timothy Geithner (supposedly the smartest man to tackle the economic crisis), who claimed not to understand that you must pay self-employment tax on self-employment income. He is now head of the Treasury Department and oversees the IRS! And don’t forget Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), who is under investigation for failing to pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes. Rangel just happens to be chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, which means Rangel is the man who writes our nation’s tax laws!

No wonder liberal Democrats love higher taxes – they don’t pay them!

The Obama team carted out various people all weekend to tell the public that these were honest mistakes, and, besides, Daschle is such a nice guy and he’s a liberal. Everyone in Washington knows that if this were the nominee of a Republican president, the nomination would be dead on arrival. The Democrat attack machine, aided by its media allies, would go into overdrive. The nominee would be humiliated in public hearings and withdraw in disgrace.

There will be a Senate hearing on Daschle today – in a closed session. The Obama team that promised “openness” and “transparency” apparently doesn’t want the public to see Daschle squirming. Senator Daschle should make his tax returns public immediately. The hearings should be open to the public. And President Obama might want to go back and review his own campaign speeches about the new ethical standards he was going to bring to Washington.

Yes, someone reading this might bring up Republican scoundrels, like Randy Duke Cunningham. But it's the hypocrisy that's so galling. These are the people who would reach deeper and deeper into my pockets to pay for their pet social projects but somehow manage to keep a tight grip on their own money (by lying or gaming the system).

Maybe taxing and reallocating should be strictly voluntary. If wealthy Democrats want to fund these kinds of projects using taxpayer money, then go ahead and set it up so people can volunteer to have their income taxed and let the rest of us donate our money to causes we believe in. But they should stop pretending this is all about social justice, etc. These people--the Daschles et al--are full of hypocrisy. They say, oops, sorry, my bad....here's a hundred thousand, will that cover it? But would he pay if he hadn't been caught?

And people wonder why I left the Democratic Party.

Ouch

Harsh words, but needed.
Republicans, indeed, are cowards.

"Obama Smiles" (Andrew C. McCarthy, NRO)

What a disaster

Since no one reads this blog, I may as well say it here. Barack Obama has been our president for a little over a week and already things are as expected. It's all too predictable. The man bought his way in to the oval office, beguiled his way into the fantasies of liberals, morphed himself into a symbol ("The One") of salvation (from Bush?), harmony (heal racial strife?), and unity (bridge the political divide?), then once in office reminded us that campaign rhetoric can't always be believed so don't expect too much.

The man is no savior. The man is no president. The man is a quack. It remains to be seen how long before people take off their rose glasses and figure that out.

Some recent articles:

Stimulus Criticism Mounts (Larry Kudlow, NRO)

Obama Made a Rash Decision on Gitmo (John Woo, Wall Street Journal)

Time to Beam Down to Earth, President Obama (Victor Davis Hanson, NRO)

In today's LA Times, an article about how Iran "sets conditions for improved ties with U.S." Here's a little tidbit:

"We welcome change," Ahmadinejad said, referring to Obama's campaign mantra, "provided the change is fundamental and in the right direction." But "if you talk of change in policies, withdraw your forces from Afghanistan," he said. "If you say change in policies, then halt your support to the uncultivated and rootless, forged, phony, killers of women and children Zionists and allow the Palestinian nation to determine its own destiny."

From Gary Bauer's End of Day report:

“Dear Mahmoud”

During the campaign, candidate Obama made headlines by suggesting that he would meet, without preconditions, with some of America’s worst enemies, including Iran’s “president,” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Today, there are reports in the foreign media that State Department officials have written three drafts of a letter for President Obama to send to Ahmadinejad, in order to pave the way for a future meeting. (You may recall that Ahmadinejad wrote many letters to President Bush demanding that America convert to Islam.)

According to one report, the “conciliatory” Obama letter “gives assurances that Washington does not want to overthrow the Islamic regime.” If true, our green president may be on the verge of repeating the mistakes of Munich, seeking to appease the Islamofascists who have threatened to “wipe Israel off the map,” who have prayed for our destruction and who are the main suppliers of money and men for radical Islam’s jihad against the West.

Mark my words, Iran will use any negotiations to stall the West and buy precious time while it works feverishly to complete its nuclear weapons program. How sad that Obama is getting ready to crush the hopes of millions of Iranians who want to live in freedom, while he puts us and our Israeli allies at greater risk.

Religious Liberty and Prop 8

This editorial has it exactly right. Prop 8 is not about discrimination against gays. On the contrary, the No on 8 crusade (and its post-election legal wrangling) is about discrimination against people of faith, about religious freedom. Is this really where we want to go in the guise of "tolerance"?

Legislating Immorality, by The Editors (NRO)