J.S.Mill - Comments On Liberty Today

An Incoherent Truth

Seldom does Paul Krugman write an Op Ed page that I can agree with as much as his piece today on the New York Times. He attempts to debunk the Blue Dog opposition to the Obama Health Care plan, and doing so, makes the case the opposition has been making. He argues that the Blue Dogs are insisting on changes to the plan that can not be made without killing the plan, and even goes on to say, at the end of the piece, that it will kill the Obama administration. 

His argument is precisely correct. The plan can not achieve its goals if any of the plan parts are taken out. The difference I have in his reasoning is that the plan can not work because it can not be implemented without major tax increases that will cost the average tax payer, not just the wealthy, more than any increased value to them. The plan can not work without the controls on health care delivery which are unlikely to be acceptable to the general citizenry, let alone to seniors who already have the protection of Medicare. The plan can not work without a public option that will simply amplify the losses that the Medicare and Medicaid systems are experiencing each day.

Paul Krugman is correct, it does not appear that any universal health care system can be implemented with government, unless it increases cost to the society. Instead of the radical overhaul, the Obama administration should focus on incremental changes that can reduce costs of care and at the same time expand the private sector options that can allow insurance to be tailored to the needs of the uninsured, rather than satisfying the government establishment. 

The Blue Dogs must hold out for fiscal responsibility. The society does not need more taxes at this time; it needs less. Obama says he wants a budget neutral plan. The plain fact is that he can not have his current plan without increases in revenues, and those increases are massive. President Obama needs to pull back, and listen to the other side quickly, or Krugman will be right and the Obama plan will fall into the pile of the Clinton care initiative. 

Biden Trys to Explain

The New York Times today has an OpEd piece by Joe Biden and it is such a shallow defense of the stimulus, that is is just one more embarrassment for the Vice President. The irony of this piece is that it readily admits that the "stimulus plan" is nothing more that a spending plan. He "explains" that the plan was designed to unfold over a two year period. By then the problem will have probably solved itself. 

Candidly, the economy is going to recover on its own without any of the stimulus spending. There is no doubt that by the end of 2010, the slump will start to be reversed. Had the administration simply put more income into the hands of those who could spend or invest, through tax cuts, there would have been a faster and more cost effective effect. Further, much more of the money should have been put into real construction projects, since the housing crisis was a major part of the slump, those same workers could have been put back to work. But then, that would have been to simple, and all the expansion in the social welfare programs would have been forced to go unfunded. 

Obama's Waterloo

Senator DeMint suggested that Health care legislation could be Obama's Waterloo. The President, playing the classic straw man game, has now used those words to try to suggest that the Republican opposition to the House legislation is "purely political." Well, firstly, any time groups of people attempt to design and decide on governmental options, there is politics. Indeed one could suggest that Politics is a process by which groups of people make decisions, even if not governmental. So with the President accusing the Republicans of "being political" we have a legitimate tautology. The plain fact is, anytime the members of government debate decisions, the debate is political. 

The fact is, however, that President Obama knows that he is at risk of this plan does not get passed quickly, it is a serious risk. This is a complex issue, with may opinions about how it should be addressed. The complexity is obvious when the bill takes a thousand pages to define the proposals. There is no doubt that when the "devil is found on the details," the debate gets cloudy. The fast approval is not going to happen, and that means that the reform efforts could come to a halt. Clearly, the public in general is not unhappy with their health care and their health insurance. Couple that fact with the plain fact that the current proposals are a huge expansion of government that is clearly the creation of "socialized medicine" and the public is not generally in favor of the changes. Once the recess in Congress opens up the legislators to their constituents, the pressure will be intense to no make the changes. 

President Clinton could always leave the failure to create a health care reform at his wife's doorstep; President Obama does not have that option,. This is his bill; even if he and the White House left the writing to the Congress. Failure on this major initiative will be a serious defeat...BUT, this is not a President who will walk away. He will return, and so will his proposals. Health care will not be his Waterloo because the the "Blue Dog Democrats" are likely to find a way to get on board with reform unless their constituents sound loud alarms. The recess buys opponents time; but is is not the end of the fight.: It is just the beginning. 

The key if for the opponents to shift the debate from health care reform to health care insurance reform. We do not need to reform Health care, we need to reform the process of providing and paying for care. Once that becomes the focus, then we can have a serious discussion of what causes the increases in costs. We do not need to throw out the health care we already have, just to solve the cost problems. Reducing the negative impact of the plaintiff's bar, allowing cost effective health insurance options to be available to all, reforming the Medicare and Medicaid systems and find ways to place ownership of health on the back of the consumer instead of the employers. The administration and Congress have assumed that government is the solution, the opposition must make the case that government is already a major part of the problem, and that the solution can be found in the private sector by having government create incentives and eliminating barriers to cost effective options. 

Obama - The Racial Paranoiac

Yes, that may be a rather harsh judgment, but i think last night President Obama showed the country just how racially focused he really is. I am of the opinion that his performance last night in "defense of the Health care overhaul" was a pathetic example of just how shallow and ideological this man is. His passion for "transforming this nation" is driving dramatic change that if implemented will transform us from a nation of the grandeur of the individual to a nation that thrives on the grandeur of the state. This is a transformation that flies in the face of the majority of Americans, and it must be an agenda that is resisted at every turn.

That said, President Obama proved , once and for all, that he is a black with a paranoia about his blackness. This man is not a "post racial President" he is a President who is driven by racial concerns. His comments in the "health care reform legislation press conference" on the situation in Boston with respect to Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. evidence his obsession with racial matters. It is a pathetic mistake for him to have commented on that incident, not just because he simply did not have all the facts, but that he simply positioned himself as completely biased about blacks and police activity. I truly do not have all the facts, and I have no idea what the real "story" is, but I know this, because I do not have the facts, I have no right to take a position on the issue. Obama is the President of all the citizens, not just the blacks in Boston, yet he gave the police officers no credit for having done their job properly. President Obama made a huge mistake, and if he were half the legal scholar he claims to be, he would never have opened his mouth on the topic. 

This slip of his conscious thinking is very telling, and in my view clearly demonstrates that the Reverend Wright influence is profoundly present in the deep recesses of Barack Obama's mind. This racial bias, if expressed by a white would be called "racist." When Barack Obama says it, the press simply lets him ramble on and questions nothing of the comments. Sorry, but I think Barack Obama last night proved to one and all...he is probably a black racist, just like his mentor Rev. Wright. These comments infuriate me, not because I have a position on the incident, but because they were wholly inappropriate for the Chief Executive Officer of the country. 

Health Care Reform - YES!...Obama Care NO!!!

There is no doubt that there are needed reforms in health care. These include: tort reform on liability; Medicare and Medicaid reform; flexibility in insurance options available; create individual responsibility for the cost of health care; pharmaceutical reform and the empowerment of medical professionals to reconnect with their patients.

These must be the agenda, not the Obama Care proposals. 

Several Posts ago I made the point that I truly believed that the Obama administration was now on the defensive. I was not only right then, I am even more right now. President Obama may not have met his "Waterloo" but he is clearly on the defensive. Waxman can-celled today's Markup session, and then proceeded to cancel tomorrow. They simply do not have the votes for this debacle.

Now is the true test of the Republicans. In my view the test is ...will they stand fast and hold to the principles of doing what is required to stop this socialized medicine option? The plain fact is, they must hold to their principles, and they MUST NOT accept the compromise game that the Obama administration is about to start playing. They must insist on a total rewrite of the plan, not to make small changes to buy votes. Once the Republicans accept this structure, they are now forced to play on the field defined by the Democrats. This must not happen! The Republicans need to take control of the agenda and force the Democrats and Obama to accept a new structure. They need to let the Democrats fall on their sword if that is what is required to cause the process to get back to rational approaches that can legitimately "reform health care" rather than to create a whole new system 

The core premise of Obama is that government can save money and provide equal or better care at a lower cost. The facts from current programs simply prove that is not true. Medicare and Medicaid are insolvent, and the process is grossly inefficient. There is absolutely no evidence that any of the cost savings that they are promising will actually save the society money, let alone reduce the cost to the consumer. the CBO agrees.

The key is that the Republicans must come up with an alternative plan, and start a major promotional campaign to offer up a completely optional plan. I for one believe that we must have a requirement for all US citizens to have a minimum "catastrophic plan" that covers the really big health events. Then the plan can impose this required plan, paid for by all citizens, and then a supplemental set of programs can increase health insurance as the individual can afford and use. We need to deal with Malpractice law suit control and create a greater responsibility for costs by making the cost of health care insurance a more taxable event for all employees. Whatever the right program, the Republicans must not accept using the Obama 1100 pages of socialized medicine. They must propose their own plan. 

President Obama: One Simple Question

Given that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are all essentially bankrupt, why would anybody want to add to the financial drain on our economy by creating more deficits to socialize all medicine. 

What makes you think that adding more insurance to these three government debacles will allow us to find a health care solution that is financially viable? 

This type of idiocy is precisely why I am convinced that the Obama administration has a socialism objective that completely ignores the costs to the society. This agenda will drive our economy from the driving economic engine of the world, to a socialist state that makes Europe look like it is the beacon of capitalism. China will be more capitalist than the US!

Poor Hilary

Ok, let me say to begin with, I am not a Hilary Clinton supporter. Indeed, I am also quite anxious to make the point that I always thought  that Hilary was much farther left than her husband. She is an opportunist who used a failed marriage to a charismatic President as a virtual "reverse carpetbagger" strategy which got her the Senate seat in New York. That said, I actually have a great deal of sympathy for her.

This is a woman who got "beaten" at the disadvantaged candidate game by Barack Obama. Her feminine credentials lost to his black credentials. Her credentials as a legislator were far more real than Obama's, and her legal experience was far superior to his "community organizer work." In short, she was far better qualified than he to be President. Yet, the community organizer beat her by using the core principles of charisma, eloquent speech making and the "Rules for Radicals" principles. 

Yes, Hilary lost to Barack, but her nomination loss is nothing compared to the brilliance of his next move. He managed to convince Hilary that she would be better off being the powerful Secretary of State than a junior Senator from New York. She bought that argument probably because she convinced herself that the platform was a "no lose" proposition. Indeed, I thought that this was a smart move by each of them He got her close to him (keep your friends close, and your enemies closer) and she got the international platform. I concluded that it was a win win for each.

My mistake was that I did not think deeply enough about the principle "marginalize your enemies." Barack Obama "giveth and he taketh away." He gave her the platform and then took away the power by putting her into the "Cabinet Box." Yes, the Cabinet Box is what I wrote about the other day when I talked about the Czars. With 30 plus Czars, Obama has put al the intellectual and policy clout into the White House staff, and left the Cabinet Secretaries devoid of real policy influence. Hilary's "most powerful" Secretary of State job has become almost invisible. Where is Hilary? She is marginalized. Another victory for Obama. 

A Farewell to Harms

The piling on process that is attempting to continue the marginalization of Sarah Palin reached an all time high, or should I say...low, with the Op Ed piece by Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal. 

Let me start with a premise; I really do not have a firm view of the merits of Sarah Palin's capabilities for national office. She clearly was plucked out of Alaska by John McCain to hopefully energize a generally moribund and virtually doomed campaign. McCain was so out of touch with the modern day election dynamics, and so completely over his head as a campaigner on the national stage, that his maverick image did not help with the press that switched immediately their loyalty to Obama, nor did it help with the conservative base who never really trusted him anyhow, nor did it help with the moderates because he never seemed to be able to break through the "old man, old mind" image. 

Further, Palin was not, and still is not, steeped in national political issues. She was a very popular Governor of a very distant state, and that gives you no real connection to the main stream issues on the mainland, lower 48. In a very personal anecdotal observation; I live in Hawaii for almost seven years, and no matter hard hard you try to stay connected to the mainland, the average citizen of that state, even those of us who got there by way of the mainland, slowly end up being very parochial about the issues that dominate your thinking. As much of a political junkie as I am; I assure you my thinking was dominated by Hawaii issues because when you live that far away from the "mainland or the lower 48," you really are isolated. To ask Sarah Palin to become a national and global "policy wonk" in ten days, was absurd.

Further, Sarah Palin has "No" credible academic or national stage credentials. She attend several colleges and Universities, and just got a degree. She has not advanced her intellectual stature with a graduate degree; has not attended Oxford; has not lived in a major metropolitan city where she could build a resume of national or global pro bono or NGO activities. She has not been a force in national party activities; prior to her nomination, she was virtually unknown in the "lower 48" and had a blank slate reputation. In essence, she had no "resume" and went from virtual unknown, to  a national presence, literally overnight.

So, all those women who have been "paying their dues" in the elite capitals of the US and the globe, saw this "nobody" come on the scene, and they were appalled with her lack of resume. They also saw this very attractive woman who, to them, seemed totally "out of date." Her hair style was from the 50's, her speech patterns were more like "Joe six pack" than a sophisticated politician; her views on the role of faith violated the core values of the vast number of "secular thinking women;" her views on abortion and the child with a serious developmental deficiency, violated the "right to chose" supporters. All in all, Sarah Palin had not paid her dues, and her views were antithetical to many of the "liberated woman" in the media and in the great eastern establishment. 

In my view that is what is comical about the Peggy Noonan account. She could not admit that any of that applied to her and her eastern establishment colleagues, so she had to state those reasons and then, disparage them. Noonan holds herself out as a moderate Republican, but on balance, she really is not a conservative. Irrespective of your convictions about Sarah Palin's intellectual clout, or "gravitas," Palin is a conservative, both fiscal and cultural. 

Candidly, I remain appalled at the trashing of this woman. The treatment she has taken from the likes of Letterman is crude and unquestionably inappropriate. For Noonan to even suggest that she should "make up" with Letterman like McCain did, is absurd on its face. If any of these comments were made by any Republican or conservative talk show host about a liberal woman; the liberals would be having apoplectic fits. The commentators would be called misogynistic and the hosts would be getting calls for resignation or firing. The double standard is simply breathtaking.

Now, let's talk about substance. Noonan's piece attempts to mask her core disdain for Palin in the cloak of a need for gravitas and depth of thinking. In short, Noonan thinks that the Republican's need a thoughtful, bright "adult" who can challenge the brilliant cadre lead by Barack Obama. Well, I am afraid I have nothing but disdain for the core values, principles and policies of Obama, so I am afraid I do not think that they should be the standard. 

We need Republican's who can articulate a well reasoned argument in favor of conservative values. Unfortunately, far too few politicians who claim to be Republican's are actually sufficiently passionate about conservative vales and principles to "hang tough." The irony is that the liberals have passion for their causes, and they use that passion to sell the populist agenda to the many. When Republicans stray from the core values of individual liberty, fiscal responsibility, economic development through encouraging innovation and entrepreneurship and private enterprise and providing a strong national security interests, they simply become welfare state liberals. This happens mostly because they abandon these principles in order to pander to what they perceive to be a "liberal voter base." The irony is, the US remains a center right society, so if they would just operate with those principles, they would win most of the time. It is when they try to out spend the tax and spend liberals, that they drift away and ultimately lose. Witness the drug benefit decision by George Bush. What value did that have for him when it was time to be reelected? The AARP hated Bush and hates the Republicans. 

Sarah Palin may not be the intellectual equal of Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama, but she is Obama's equal on passion and far superior than Hilary. What she says she believes, and what she believes is very close to the core beliefs of "middle America." The core issue is, can she gain stature, presence and "gravitas" required to be the leader of the party. I would probably bet she can not be the leader, but I do believe that she can, and will be, a very effective spokesperson for the values that I believe in. I am a political and fiscal conservative and a very conservative economist. I believe that Obama is taking us so far left that we may never be able to reverse the trend, but I am not willing to go down without a big fight for preserving the principles that in my personal view are what made this country great. 

I would make another bet: Sarah Palin will grow dramatically in substance and depth, and she will also continue to be a lightening rod for the liberal left, as well as the moderate right. The Nancy Noonans of the US establishment will never like Sarah Palin; she is simply too simple. But, the elite establishment is losing its ability to make the country theirs. Actually, Barack Obama proved that in the last election. He did it through adherence to the Rules for Radicals lessons he learned on the streets of Chicago as a Community Organizer. Our next President will win because he or she will better connect with the large number of people who believe that they are not represented by the political establishment in Washington. Right now, Sarah Palin has their ear. It may not continue, but whoever gets elected will have that appeal to the massive middle right population. 

Cheney at Risk

The latest disclosures about a program that was "kept from the Congress" could be the mistake that the Democrats have been looking for. On the surface, the few facts that have come out seem very suspect and it could be Cheney's "waterloo." Leon Panetta, the CIA Director has been pretty careful not to allow the agency to be discredited unfairly, but this incident has been exposed by him, so it needs careful review. This is coupled with news yesterday that the Bush administration had much deeper and extensive counterintelligence surveillance than was previously understood.It is worrisome that maybe the Bush administration may have gone a "step too far" in threatening privacy and individual liberty as they attempted to prevent another 9/11. I certainly hope that is not the case, but the facts are beginning to add up to a condition that requires further investigation. 

Also, yesterday there was a report that the Attorney General, Eric Holder, is actually still considering prosecution of participants in the "interrogation practices" of the Bush administration. Although the Obama administration seems to be playing a "good cop-bad cop" game with this issue, it is very worrisome that Holder is still thinking about this. That said, if we look at the developing Cheney story and couple that with this "torture" story, we can see a pattern of the Obama administration attempting to hold the previous administration accountable for their decisions. This would be an unprecedented event, and one that would put public service in a totally different light, especially for lawyers who seem to be the target of the Holder inquiry. 

It is clear that lawyers are not just analysts of the law, they are also advocates who must be expected to construct arguments that are logical and based on the core legal principles involved in any inquiry. If they are unable to make those arguments without fear of reprisal later, there is going to be a massive reluctance to serve as counsel in the White House or Justice Department. 

Administration is on the Run

It is now very clear to me, and I am convinced eventually will be clear to other observers, that the Obama administration has pushed the "agenda envelope" too far and too fast, and may be seeing that the polls are moving against them much faster than they had expected. The agenda may not yet appear in trouble, but the Cap and Trade and Health Care initiatives are now being "negotiated" even though the theoretical "filibuster proof votes" are there to pass the legislation. In my view, this is the first sign of a weakened President. I know that I may sound like a Pollyanna, but I am convinced that they are now, more on defense than offense.  

I am certain that the Obama team decided that most Presidential goals get accomplished in the first year of the Presidency, hence they decided to be very aggressive. They probably concluded the only strategy that would get the social re-engineering accomplished would be to capitalize on the President's popularity quickly and to then use the economic downturn as the rationale for implementing the radical change. They fully, and in my view naively, expected that the "stimulus plans" would kick in faster and therefore they would have the "air-cover" to then be able to pass the Health and energy legislation. The Trillions building in the deficit have caused the voters to start to recoil from "mortgaging our future." As an economist, I certainly believe that the rampant spending will bring about rampant inflation (and potentially serious stagnation) which I then believe is going to even further weaken the dollar. Talk by the Chinese, and now others, about a potential replacement of the dollar as the world standard, should give everybody a serious concern. 

The further concern that I have is that the Republicans will see this weakening as an opportunity to capitalize on, but will not see just how strong their position can be. They will see the weakness as an opportunity to negotiate a "weaker health bill" rather than to defeat the one on the table and push for the reforms that they believe in, or at least, claim to believe in. As an example, anything that open the door to a single payer plan will eventually become a wide open door to full socialized medicine. They must not give an inch. Instead, they must work on creating reforms in the existing health insurance care plans that are already bankrupt: Medicare and Medicaid. To create a new health initiative that moves in that direction will simply amplify the already impossible problem with those plans. 

Further, I fully believe that the "stimulus" spending plans can be changed. So much of that pork will have no impact on growth in the economy, and certainly will not generate jobs. The private sector must be encouraged and that can not be done by having the public sector spend money which then gets funded through substantially higher taxes on the wealth creators. The worn out Keynesian solutions, are the wrong tactics. Stimulating aggregate demand is the buzz word, but the solution of using further deficit spending by government is a disaster, not unlike the years of the New Deal. W can not let Barack Obama become Franklin; we can not afford the financial markets to fall apart over a badly weakened dollar, and that is what Trillions of added deficit will do. 

This administration and the democrats in Congress are planning to fund all these initiatives with added taxes, and they will impact the broad middle class as well. These tax increases must be the primary focus of the minority concerns. Taxes are the one issue that can rally conservatives and moderates alike. Cap and Trade is an enormous tax on energy and will hit every consumer's pocket. There must be a full court press to stop that legislation, and I am convinced that making certain that it is seen as "a tax," is a crucial component of that fight. 

It is my strong conviction that the Republicans are now in the best position they have been in some time to actually brandish their fiscal conservative principles and to hold the Administration and the Congress to fiscal restraint. That is not easy for the traditional Beltway gang, but if they want to ever have a chance to have control again, they need to stand up and be counted. In my view, the Congress and the administration are "running scared." They are afraid that the economy will not turn around fast enough and that the pressure for "doing more" will increase. Even they know, that doing more may be completely irrational, but is they do more, they will not be able to avoid doing some of the programs that the Republicans wanted...like tax cuts. That would be a devastating blow to their previous rhetoric. 

In short, Republicans...stand up and be counted! Make this your fiscal policy stand, and do it now!