Miscellany: 12/19/09

Senator Ben Nelson Joins the Unholy Partisan Alliance Against Authentic Health Care Reform


There are news reports that the Nebraska Democratic senator and former governor has finally caved on partisan pressure necessary to achieve the 60-vote threshold needed for Democrats to ensure they don't have to negotiate with Republicans on a legitimate, bipartisan basis. Nelson, a rare pro-life national Democrat, had been holding out to negotiate a compromise on taxpayer-funded/mandated abortions (as if the fees charged to kill an unborn child are a legitimate application of insurance in concept); he apparently won an agreement that states should be able to decide the abortion mandate, with at least one plan in each state not providing abortion coverage. (As a pro-life conservative, I say that's not good enough.)

I find it disturbing how a sham justification for health care reform to cover the uninsured and rein in costs (a Trojan horse for myopic progressive attempts to micromanage the health care sector) has evolved to the point we are discussing turf battles between state and national government on specific mandates beyond basic health care. As Tea Party participants have noted, this is not really about health care: it's about power.

Senator Lieberman: I Think the Liberals Doth Protest Too Much


I have an aunt (one of my mom's best friends) and uncle (my father's older brother by about 18 months) whom met at my folks' wedding. I hold great affection for them and my Connecticut cousins. But we've had a couple of minor annoyances in our relationship.

First, my uncle, for some reason, uses an anglicized version of our surname (probably an uncaught clerical error on his birth certificate):

When individuals came to the U.S., many names were anglicized. They were shortened. For example, Guillemette became Gilmet, Guilmette, etc.

I was really quite insulted when one of my cousins misspelled my last name her way. Of course, many people can't figure out how to pronounce a Franco-American name (e.g., "gwill-ee-met-tee"). My dad had dealt with it all his life; when we would check in at a restaurant, Dad would simply write our name down as "Gill met". It's rare to hear someone guess right (most hesitantly start out, hoping I'll bail them out); that's why I was stunned when this black guy I met in passing pronounced it perfectly on first try. When I expressed surprise, he explained that he was from Louisiana (there are a lot of Cajuns, our cultural cousins, in Louisiana).

Second, my paternal relatives tend to be typical New England liberal Democrats and probably still remember the time I worked as a volunteer in the first Jimmy Carter campaign. (I even motivated my late grandmother to go vote; I pray she has forgiven me....) I figure that young people had the same right to make and learn from a stupid, embarrassing mistake in supporting Obama last fall as I had years earlier. My aunt and I don't really discuss politics, but she'll sometimes hint surprise at my evolved views. I sometimes like to tease her; I'm fairly certain she is not a Lieberman fan and the thought crossed my mind I might annoy her by choosing Lieberman as my 2009 Man of the Year. In fact, I do admire his independent streak, his political courage in backing John McCain last year, his principled support of the War on Terror, and his ability to stand up to the progressive groupthink and Harry Reid's back room sausage making. But no, not my Man of the Year Award (which, plus $5, will get you a cup of Starbucks coffee).

I don't think the Democrats have reason to complain. They denied their former Vice Presidential candidate his own renomination to the Senate 6 years later, to a one-issue (anti-Iraq liberation) candidate, largely funded from out-of-state supporters, and even after he won election as an independent and agreed to caucus with the Democrats, there were retaliatory attempts to strip him of more prestigious posts, and whatever power Lieberman exercises as an independent largely reflects the Democrats' deliberate attempt to avoid bipartisan compromise and pass a partisan bill, strictly based on their 60-seat caucus to defeat a filibuster.

But regardless of whatever amusement we conservatives may feel seeing Democrats' squabbling over the design of their legislative Titanic's, the fact is that Joe Lieberman is much more a progressive than a conservative, and he has consistently voted against conservative interests (including the infamous stimulus bill). Lieberman's lifetime voting record, according to the American Conservative Union, is 16% (meaning Lieberman only votes 1 time in 10 contrary to the typical liberal Democratic senator); in contrast, even the liberal Republican Maine senators score near 50%.


Jerk of the Week: The Dishonorable "Senator in Name Only" Al Franken


I still haven't forgotten the suspicious circumstances under which Al Franken "won" his Senate seat, reversing a few hundred vote election night lead by incumbent Norm Coleman. (Coleman simply got outlawyered and had to face a hostile partisan Secretary of State whom ignored the fact that counties used disparate standards in dealing with disputed ballots, which on its face is unconstitutional. The Minnesota Supreme Court did not argue that Franken won but that Coleman's attorneys failed to make their case. Not to mention the fact that the Coleman campaign would have been better served by insisting on no recount of illegal ballots, period.)

But I'm not writing this post to rehash the election story. Al Franken has, in fact, validated a variation of the Peter Principle--a mediocre comedian can rise through the ranks to become a national joke, a man lacking class, common sense and decency. What Al Franken did in cutting off Senator Lieberman in mid-sentence, refusing to let him finish is an unconscionable breach of protocol, worthy of Senate censure. Not allowing the senator a common courtesy using the sham defense of holding to the schedule was not only arbitrary and counterproductive (it's not exactly smart politics to alienate a swing voter on a key issue) but created an unnecessary, embarrassing kerfuffle that simply wasn't worth his time, effort, and professional reputation. The exchange and McCain's defense of his friend and colleague are included in this clip:



Political Cartoon

Well, personally, I take John Cole's chimney as a metaphor for Obama shoving this toxic waste down the nation's throat.

Christmas Music Interlude: Andy Williams' "The Most Wonderful Time of the Year"


I'm a huge fan of Andy Williams; one of the first albums I ever bought was an Andy Williams record. I faithfully watched his annual Christmas specials, and his then French-born wife, Claudine Longet, was one of my first crushes. His signature Christmas single perfectly captures the hustle and bustle of Christmas events and late holiday shopping in crowds...

Miscellany: 12/18/09

Ben Bernanke: Time Man of the Year 2009?


First of all, I'm sure Barack Obama is trying to figure out why the Time selection committee didn't announce their selection of him the day after inauguration, based on the promise he brought to the Presidency; after all, the Nobel Prize committee made the "right decision".

I've made it clear that I think the Fed under Ben Bernanke's leadership failed to anticipate last year's crisis, and I think the easy money policy is trashing the dollar, which all but invites inflation and a lower standard of living. I didn't think that Obama would nominate someone from the Chicago School, so Bernanke's renomination is probably the best we can hope for from this administration.

I'm sure my faithful readers are counting the minutes until I make my own announcement for the person of the year. I've already made my decision, and it's not on anyone else's list I've seen to date. HINT: It's not Obama or Bernanke.


George Will: "When the Charm Rubs Off"


The biggest compliment I can pay to another writer is to say, "I wish I had written that." I have mentioned in previous posts that George Will is a columnist I regularly read and respect. This article, of course, covers, among other things, Obama's pathetic Bush bashing, with all intellectual and moral integrity of stereotyping the Bush Administration as "8 years of basic neglect", "8 years of delay"... Obama's behavior is unworthy of a legitimate American President. How would Obama feel if I started talking about "11 months of incompetence", "11 months of unfocused, passive leadership; meandering, convoluted decisions; broken promises and dubious priorities", "11 months of insipid speeches, symbolic accomplishments, and narcissistic behavior"....? I don't have to take cheap shots at Obama behind his back; there are reasons his approval ratings are below 50%; people don't want to hear Obama complain that George W. Bush's dog Barney ate his homework. Real leaders accept responsibility and don't complain.

George Will does a great job critiquing the style of The One's Nobel Prize acceptance speech:

His televised Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech...was remarkable for 38 uses of the pronoun "I."And for disavowing a competence no one suspected him of. ("I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war." Note the superfluous adjective.) And for an unnecessary notification. ("Evil does exist in the world.") And for delayed utopianism. ("We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes." But in someone's.) And for solemnly announcing something undisputed. (There can be a just war.) And for intellectual applesauce that should get speechwriters fired and editors hired. ("We do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected." If the human "condition" can attain perfection anyway, human nature cannot be significantly imperfect.)

In a word: the speech was banal. It was short on substance and long on ethereal, predictable nonsense. Did anyone come to the speech wondering whether there's evil in the world and needing Obama's take on the topic?  I have repeated in several posts: Obama needs to choose his moments, words and battles carefully; his overexposure will lessen his credibility and impact.

I differ with Rush Limbaugh on his hoping for Obama's failure. Does this mean I've bought into Obama's social democratic agenda? Of course not; my posts have made that clear. But Obama at some point last year lost his initial charm, the promise of a consensus, post-partisan Washington. Instead we see an administration so bankrupt of new, fresh ideas and real accomplishments that they feel their only alternative is to distract attention from their own mediocrity by reinventing the Bush Administration as a bogeyman; their idea of bipartisan legislation is peeling off less than a handful of moderate or independent Republicans and ramming through partisan bills with zero input from the GOP by design. Obama hasn't figured out yet that the American people know the game he is playing, and there's more to bipartisanship than inviting a couple of token Republicans to a Super Bowl party at the White House.


Political Cartoon


Chip Bok notes the unwelcome visitor at a UN conference. He's also been banned from White House functions and Congressional back rooms. (After all, the Secret Service does recognize the REAL threats to Obama...)

Christmas Musical Interlude: "Do You Hear What I Hear?"

I bring two versions here: an earlier hit version by the incomparable Bing Crosby, making his second appearance in my Christmas countdown, and a live version by Whitney Houston, of a song which is part of an all-star compilation A Very Special Christmas (I own a copy of this CD). If you are interested in hearing Whitney's original recording, an extraordinary performance, one of her best ever,  click here to go to last.fm.

Miscellany: 12/17/09

Happy Birthday, Philip!


"We Can't Afford to Do Nothing"


I swear to God if I hear one more clueless liberal say this in terms of discussing Barack, Nancy, & Harry's Excellent Adventure; at last count, I saw nearly 3 million hits on this saying with respect to health care via Google search. I seriously want to require each national legislator to swear to a Founding Fathers' political version of the Hippocratic Oath: DO NO HARM!!! These progressives are economics-challenged, have never run a business, and have no idea what comes out of their Pandora's box of political malpractice.


I've written several posts on genuine health care reform, and there are a number of conservative or libertarian think tanks (Newt Gingrich's organizations, Heritage Foundation, CATO, etc.) whom identify more substantive policy approaches. 


We need to understand what the real problems are. Part of the problem in small business coverage is that it takes only one sick individual with an expensive health care bill (e.g., cancer treatments) to more than offset the providers' slim profit margins for servicing other participants and their families. The question is not provider "greed" but provider risk. (Heaven forbid that progressives should remember the lesson of last year of what happens when an insurance company, say, AIG, fails to establish proper reserves and price risk into its products...) The following quote, although 5 years old, is relevant:

The top 1% of spenders in the U.S. population accounted for 27% of healthcare expenditures in 1996, previous research has shown...Health insurance could become more available and less expensive for people who experience catastrophic medical expenses if the federal government were to provide reinsurance policies that spread those costs across a larger population. Health insurers traditionally have purchased reinsurance policies from the private market to cover the costs for individuals with very high medical expenses.

Because the cost of insurance is often prohibitively expensive in the individual and small-group market, the federal government [should] consider providing reinsurance for cases in the top 3% of the expenditure distribution in the individual market and for businesses with fewer than 100 employees.

America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the Washington, D.C., trade group representing health insurers, endorsed the concept of a government-subsidized reinsurance program for qualifying state high-risk pools to cover 75% of claims higher than $1 million for an individual enrollee.

Let's point out some critical elements in that discussion. First, note that the wider scope of eligibility, the higher the costs to the federal government; the study authors pointed out "universal" catastrophic coverage could cost the federal government almost 5 times as much as a more focused plan to high-risk individuals and small groups. Second, states are struggling to maintain high-risk pools that make individual/small group insurance more affordable; the federal government already shares certain costs with states (e.g., Medicaid).

It only makes sense under limited financial constraints to point out you can leverage federal assistance more effectively in addressing existing state/regional mechanisms, like high-risk pools, which focus on those individuals and small groups which find it difficult to obtain affordable coverage.

And although I have issues with some state regulators (e.g., Massachusetts) which create huge, anti-competitive barriers to entry by socializing a number of expensive special-interest mandates, I'm much more concerned with a central federal regulatory empire constituting a single point of corruption. I believe, by principle, we should be working towards a local/state implementation, leveraging regional experience and expertise in the delivery of medical products and services.

The big lie that liberals hope will stick if they repeat it enough to gullible people  is that conservatives are simply hypercritical and averse to change in the status quo. (I assure you that I hope for a change election next year...) I think we are simply more prudent about the nature, purpose and extent of the federal footprint and more wary about the effect of federal actions on individual liberty and core values (e.g., self-reliance, initiative, hard work, etc.) which are the foundation of our economy.

In my case, I'm a pro-business conservative--in particular, I'm strongly supportive of entrepreneurs and small businesses, and I realize they encounter challenges in obtaining competitively-priced benefits, key to recruiting and keeping talented people to grow the business. The government can take some of the risk out of the equation by spreading the risk fairly across 300 million Americans. That is a pro-competitive standpoint. A solution that imposes penalties or proportionately higher costs on small business, with limited financial resources, is anti-competitive.

More Bad Poll News for Dems

The latest WSJ/NBC News poll shows that Obama's popularity has dropped off more than either Clinton or Bush during the first year in office. For the first time, the poll shows Obama's approval numbers less than 50%, the Democrats losing their edge over Republicans in preferred Congressional leadership, and more people preferring nothing done on health care versus the Democrats' convoluted plan.

Political Cartoon. Steve Kelley has Santa Claus explain to Virginia that she won't be able to regift the Democrats' version of unwanted dried-out, nutty fruitcake which has been shelf for decades: health care "reform". Yes, Virginia, there is reality: she will be getting a bill to pay off Obama's contributions to the national debt each payday for the rest of her life. Santa Obama and his little elves Nancy and Harry have been in the workshop borrowing resources from future generations trying to cobble together a bill. Unfortunately, the instructions to designing reform require a basic understanding economics, so the bill is being assembled by seat of the pants.

Christmas Musical Interlude: Mannheim Steamroller's "Joy to the World"


Chip Davis, founder of Mannheim Steamroller, gives media conservative Rush Limbaugh a lot of credit for giving the group a key big break in terms of exposure to a wide audience. In fact, in the early 90's when I lived in Irving, Texas, I watched Rush's half-hour syndicated television show. (I never knew whom Rush was until I was working as an IBM subcontractor in Irving; one of my male co-workers was listening through earphones and occasionally would break out laughing. (On my part, I was listening on the last day of an adult contemporary station before a musical format change, and the DJ's were protesting by putting the Eagles' "Hotel California" on auto-repeat. The song begins to lose its charm after the first dozen consecutive times you hear it; I was actually pining for a commercial break...) My colleague was more of a pro-abortion choice libertarian whom did not share Rush's opinion on a number of issues; I asked him why he listened to Rush, and he simply replied that he thought Rush was very entertaining. I noticed that Rush had a syndicated TV program and started to watch it, and Rush had his moments: I recall at the time Rush had a book on the NY Times bestseller list and pop music diva Madonna had just released a book reportedly containing nude pictures of herself. Rush would make some amusing comment about being on top of Madonna.)

So when Rush introduced Mannheim Steamroller music, I was intrigued: Chip Davis and company put an inventive, brassy spin on traditional Christmas song instrumentals, and I bought copies of their first few albums. I guess my enthusiasm for Mannheim Steamroller became so well known to my family I started getting new Mannheim Steamroller CD's and collections as gifts. Their version of "Joy to the World", one of my favorite Christmas carols, is a classic introduction to their material.

Miscellany: 12/16/09

The Federal Worker: Time to Tighten Belts


I remember when I worked as a NASA-Clear Lake City (Houston) contractor years ago that some federal employees were phenomenal workers while others occasionally worked between times at the water cooler and trips to the gym. A common perception of federal wages was that they were lower than in the private sector, but the tradeoff was higher job security and very generous benefits. My goodness, times have changed... The security and generous benefits are still there, but have you read about federal worker wages lately? Especially those of us in the private sector? For example, compared to my salary range in 2000 (over multiple offers), I have not gotten a subsequent offer in the same range since then, despite 9 years more experience and outstanding technical performance.

Projected average pay at the federal level this year had been estimated as high as $75,419. But whichever figure is more accurate, a single line from a December 10 USA Today report says it all:

The growth in six-figure salaries has pushed the average federal worker's pay to $71,206, compared with $40,331 in the private sector.

Guess why I put that quote in red ink...

There are a variety of reasons for this, including the fact that many higher-level salaries are tied to the top. The following quote is telling:

When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.

Ask federal workers like Jessica Klement, and they'll insist that it's a reflection of their higher-skilled workforce and that they still make more than 25% less than comparable private-sector workers.

That's called a state of denial. Ask the Obama people and they'll insist they are only asking for a 2% increase, the lowest since 1975. This is misleading, given the fact that workers also have tenure-related step increases, a number of salaries are pegged to the top official's (cf. Transportation Department example), and there's a new federal pay system including "merit raises".

Obama is totally clueless. If he was a CEO raising salaries while federal revenues fell off a cliff like they have, the shareholders would have fired him. He would have to find his own federal bailout--but where he go when he IS the federal government? Oh, that's right: he got a shiny new toy when he took over the White House; it's called a Treasury printing press.

I wish I could tell you while I was working long hours as the National Archives subcontractor DBA managing the infrastructure behind the military records application, that the civil servants I met in 2004 were worth the extra money, but they were too busy watching and laughing at JibJab cartoons mocking George W. Bush on the Internet (on the taxpayers' nickel, of course) and shooting the breeze on how they would drag their feet on initiatives until President Kerry was elected.


Mandate for Obama?


I usually have a tolerance range for progressive nonsense, but when I hear progressives on the Sunday talk shows start arguing about Obama's mandate for wild-card health care "reform", they lose my diminishing respect.

Anyone saying the political grab bags of Pelosi-Reid legislation were what the American people voted for, when in fact the participants in the process can't tell you what the final bills will look like is out of touch.

Obama won 53% of the vote but not a landslide. There were a number of reasons for his election--principally, an economic crisis which normally favors the challenging party, a huge funding advantage and better get-out-the-vote organization, and critical mistakes by McCain in his handling of the TARP situation and his counterproductive selection of Sarah Palin, which undermined his experience argument over Barack Obama. Whatever the voters voted for was NOT ideological agreement with a liberal  progressive program; only 1 in 4 voters is a liberal or progressive. And make no mistake--the agenda we've been this year is not a centrist program, but a spending spree and a couple of issues (climate change and health care insurance) which were not significant concerns of the electorate. Tell me, if what Obama and the Congressional Democrat leadership were doing "what the American people voted for", why has Obama's net approval among independents virtually melted away and why do the majority of those polled indicate the country is STILL going in the wrong direction? Why did Republicans recapture the Virginia and New Jersey governor mansions for the first time in years?

I do think a number of voters bought into Obama's post-partisan rhetoric and wanted to give the Democrats a fair chance to do what they could under the circumstances. They now realize that they made a big mistake, and I've seen one recent poll suggesting that Bush's popularity is on the rise relative to Obama.... (Of course, Obama's constant one-sided Bush-bashing may finally be having an effect, but not the one he intends. Some folks just don't like people attacking other people behind their backs.)


Political Cartoon


Scott Stantis points out something that all of us creative types already know: mediocre minds try to intimidate challenges to the status quo: they cite authority, they raise ad hominem attacks, they engage in various logical fallacies (e.g., of presumption), etc.

I gave an example in a prior post where I attempted to publish a critical note regarding a popular computer user satisfaction measure; I have no doubt, given the defensive, personal reactions in the reviews, that the assigned reviewers had a vested interest. My intent was not sabotage the measure or other people's research but I had done research in scale development and validation, and the literature had not published any criticisms of the widely-referenced measure. Real scientists know theories are subject to confirmatory tests, which are objective in nature; the criticisms I had to make were legitimate, and an arbitrary rejection is more an indictment of the process than my critique.

What's disconcerting is when disingenuous politicians like Al Gore or Barack Obama, who have not done any meaningful original research, treat scientific matters as if the truth is some sort of political issue to be decided by a scientific poll. One scientist armed with the truth defeats millions of scientists armed with political correctness. I remember when I decided to pursue an academic career, I had this notion that academics would decide disputes with a Leibnizian exhortation to "Come! Let us calculate!" My mentors chuckled at my naivete.

Christmas Musical Interlude: The Moody Blues' "What Child Is This?"


The Moody Blues are one of my favorite all-time groups, in my opinion the best of  the "art rock" bands. They are perhaps best known for their classic hit, "Nights in White Satin" (I will list my own favorite of theirs in a post-Christmas interlude). Until recently, I never knew they did a version of one of my favorite traditional Christmas songs from childhood; this has already become my favorite performance of the song; the beautiful arrangement doesn't get in the way of Justin Hayward's tender, respectful vocals and flawless interpretation. I could listen to this version on auto-repeat and never tire of it.

Miscellany: 12/15/09

Some Post Updates

• Obama Moves to Acquire "Gitmo North". In my November 17 post, I pointed out GOP Senate candidate Mark Kirk's valiant battle against relocating a disproportionate number of Guantanamo Bay detainees in northern Illinois. The New York Times late Monday reports Obama is going ahead with the acquisition, despite the home district Congressman Manzullo's opposition. For Democratic Governor Pat Quinn (Blago's replacement) and Obama, the deal is a win-win: Illinois sells off a $120M white elephant unused prison, and Obama gets to import foreign terrorists.
• Annisse Park Becomes First Openly Gay Mayor. In last Thursday's post, I mentioned a lesbian mayoral candidate in Houston, whom has served as the city controller and on the the city council, was attracting some negative attacks by certain social conservatives (I suspect motivated by Park's enthusiastic support from gay and lesbian groups). One of the things I like about Barack Obama and Annisse Park is the fact that they are focusing on substantive policies, not identity politics. I think that's actually very astute politics: you speak to the average person's concerns, which are not identity politics but policies (the economy, public safety, etc.) Differences (cultural, ethnic, religious, sexual orientation, etc.) tend to be minimized once that confidence-building bridge has been established. Polarizing, in-your-face, condescending confrontations are counterproductive.
• Senate Dems May Drop the Medicare Expansion and/or Public Option. The New York Times Monday reported that independent Democrat Joe Lieberman may get his way on stripping some of the more controversial aspects of the Senate Health Care Reform bill. Progressives are reportedly furious, but Joe Lieberman, by stripping these controversial, extraordinarily expensive provisions from an unpopular bill as is, is probably saving the Democrats from themselves. Runaway costs with a health plan, never mind any controversial provisions or shortcomings, passed with no meaningful GOP support leaves the Democrats exposed and politically vulnerable.

Obama Gives Himself a B+


I don't even bother to keep up with Obama's ubiquitous appearances in the media (he had yet another 60 Minutes appearance this past weekend) Someone from the White House Propaganda New Media Office needs to remind him of the old saying "familiarity breeds contempt". There is much to be said for being accessible--the issue has more to do with more the nature and extent of that accessibility, knowing when to pick one's moments and what message to send.


Obama, in addition to giving himself a solid B+, also told tough interviewer Oprah Winfrey (after all, just the fact that she backed him with an unprecedented endorsement, fundraising, etc., during  last year's primary and general election doesn't mean anything) if he pulls off health reform, he deserves an A-.

I think the President has lost touch with reality. The exaggeration of the hand that he was initially dealt--something he is repetitively asserting time and again, which has been publicly rebuked on several occasions--is ludicrous. The "misery index"--inflation and unemployment--that Reagan inherited from Carter was nearly triple what Obama inherited, and the relevant unemployment rate reached 10.8% during the 1981-82 recession. Unemployment was under 8% when Obama took office, and I've repeatedly noted that Obama publicly pushed the so-called stimulus, promising it would cap unemployment at 8% (even though less than 25% of the money would be disbursed within 6 months of passage). It was much more difficult for individuals and businesses to get affordable loans when interest rates reach 20%. Certainly Obama has had to deal with a dysfunctional automobile sector, but even a surface review of the facts show that Obama vacillated, initially offering more loans (stating bankruptcy meant death of the industry) and then pursuing bankruptcy (at bondholder expense).

But how does Obama define success? How about the fact he promised a post-partisan environment, but the reality is that the Democrats, with large majorities in both houses of Congress, have refused to bargain with Republicans and as a result have pushed highly partisan bills that were too expensive and questionably effective. He promised change--but his two most important appointments (the Defense Secretary and chairman of the Federal Reserve) were initially appointed by George W. Bush. We've been told Afghanistan is continuing to deteriorate to the point Obama finally agreed to a smaller-scale surge. We are seeing counterproductive messages on new energy taxes (climate change), health care taxes/penalties, and job creator tax hikes, none of which encourages business or job growth. Obama has failed to keep the lid on federal spending, broke a key campaign promise to stop earmarks, and didn't address high-priority entitlement spending solvency issues. This deficit is a key issue, especially if foreign investors fail to purchase US debt, which will add to interest rates, inflation, and their crippling effects on economic growth; interest payments will crowd out what we can spend operationally on defense and domestic programs.

But also, just in terms of individual performance, how involved has Obama been in pushing his specific ideas and programs in Congress? From any casual observer, Obama has practiced passive leadership, merely delegating and cheering on Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid, as they wheel-and-deal convoluted, incoherent pieces of legislation that bear no relationship to Obama's high-sounding rhetoric.

The fact that Obama gives himself such high marks in the fact of the highest employment rate in over 25 years and the highest federal deficit ever and rapidly sinking approval numbers reflects a state of denial and a certain narcissism.


Political Cartoon


Eric Allie also should remind people that the Democrats are paying for make-believe jobs with make-believe money.

Christmas Musical Interlude: "The Soldier's Christmas Poem"

Just a reminder that during the holidays, some of our nation's finest young men and women will be working, away from their loving and beloved families, to protect and make this country and the rest of the world a better place. I remember how I felt about my dad spending a year in Southeast Asia where many young men were paying the ultimate sacrifice; I also remember hearing my 2-year-old niece and goddaughter cry, missing her daddy, while he was serving in the Gulf Region. Keep in your thoughts and prayers the ones left behind whom count the minutes until their loved ones' return.

Miscellany: 12/14/09

Moderate Senate Democratic Pushback on Lowering Medicare Age Eligibility 


Moderate Democratic Senators McCaskill, Nelson, and Lieberman on the Sunday talk shows expressed some caution about the Medicare expansion quid pro quo in place of the public option. There was a lot of lip service to CBO cost estimates, discussion of Medicare "cost savings" paying for the federal health care expansion bill, but let's talk about the elephant in the room (no, of course I'm not talking about the GOP--Reid has not allowed them in the back room at all). First, any federal expansion in health care will increase aggregate costs; even if you manage some process reforms to mitigate certain costs, federal costs correlate with the number of insured, and the newly insured will use medical products and services not already factored into the status quo. Second, it is highly probable that any policyholders added to a government plan will require subsidies, i.e., the ones most likely attracted to a public plan would be motivated by socializing their own risk-based cost burden. Third, there is only so far the government can shift its cost burden at the expense of doctors and hospitals, which have to subsidize the care of their below-cost federal program patients through other business (i.e., through private-sector insurance programs and patient reimbursements).

You would think some Democratic senators would be out there talking about the folly of increasing the Medicare program at the same time the program already has about $36T in unfunded mandates... But then what can you say about the Democrats putting a higher priority on  expanding the insured population than addressing the far more salient Medicare funding crisis, which is already on their plate? Why doesn't any Democrat question why we need universal health insurance, but not universal life insurance, auto insurance, property insurance, etc.?  Why doesn't any Democrat question why we are discussing government-run health plans, but not government-run supermarkets to promote "price competition"?  What do you say when any and all Democratic alternatives to date refuse to look at the fundamental problems underlying within-state health insurance competition (e.g., barriers to entry) but instead make a conceptual leap to a government-run solution? Doesn't this really reflect a fundamental lack of confidence by Democrats in the free market system?

There are all sorts of unintended consequences once the federal government lowers the eligibility age for Medicare; for example, businesses might simply dump the health care plans for their older workers onto the federal government. or older workers may find few private-sector providers whom can or will compete with below-cost government premiums.

I'm hopeful that the Democrats will reconsider a conservative idea of high risk pools, with guaranteed acceptance and program costs are partially subsidized on an equitable basic (e.g., a value-added tax across state/regional premiums and/or state/regional tax revenues). I would also be open to seeing other creative solutions offered--say, for example, permanent eligibility for enrollment in former employer COBRA programs (with cost incentives for retaining continuous coverage).

The good news is that some of the 60 Democratic/independent senators see the political risk inherent in ignoring public anxiety over whether reforms will affect their own policies (despite Obama's lip service otherwise) and mounting concerns over an escalating national debt--and climbing interest payments which crowd out other federal spending. Without any meaningful GOP support, the Democrats will pay an unambiguous political price for any taxpayer dissatisfaction with whatever emerges--e.g., costs far above budget, which has repeatedly happened at the state level.

Congressional Obsession with Organized Sports

George Will wrote a column Sunday titled "Congress Out of It League on BCS". He takes on Republican Congressman Joe Barton's attempt to intervene in the existing college football playoff system. He notes how the BCS system was almost thrown into chaos when unbeaten Texas came within a second of losing; Alabama would have likely be facing one of 3 second-tier, unbeaten teams.

[As a UT alumnus, I watched the game in stunned disbelief as Texas, 2 points behind with the ball on the Nebraska 29 yard line (i.e., within winning field goal range), had quarterback Colt McCoy scrambling on the ground with final seconds ticking off the clock. (I blame both the coach and the quarterback for an inexcusable mental lapse that almost cost them the game. My only guess is that they wanted to minimize any possibility of a possible Nebraska counter-score (unlikely given Nebraska's offensive and special-team performance throughout the contest) and McCoy thought he had more time than he did.)

(I myself never played high school football (and as a result found myself blackballed from the National Honor Society by the football coaches until just before graduation). Let's just say the football coach respected the way in PE that I,  playing defense deep instead of on the line as usual (I was trying to catch my breath), unintentionally was party to one of the most violent collisions ever in the history of flag or touch football (if not football in general), which resulted in my landing on my wrist, spraining it, and the other guy knocked out cold. The coach subsequently pressured me to go out for football, but I lacked the size or speed to land a college football scholarship and couldn't afford give up my only college savings income, newspaper delivery. For people who have never been to Texas, Texas high school football is an integral part of the culture, and not taking advantage of  an opportunity to join the high school football team is the ultimate sacrilege.)

I am not a football expert, but I would have probably would have set up for the field goal on the disputed play, as a hedge against a fumbled snap. By any other objective standard, Texas outplayed Nebraska, which gained only 106 yards the whole game, managed just 5 first downs, and kicked 4 field goals. (Well, hats off to Nebraska defensive tackle Ndamukong Suh, whom repeatedly shredded the Texas offensive line and sacked McCoy 4.5 times.)]

I understand, in terms of the culture, why Barton might be motivated to intervene on behalf of  football fans, but I have to say I am not a fan of politicians getting involved in organized sports of any kind; George Will's piece doesn't talk about one of his own passions, major league baseball, or other sports/entertainment, but, for example, I believed that the steroids controversy in baseball and pro wrestling entertainment was more about political grandstanding than substance. (I certainly discourage steroid usage; I don't believe in substitutions for hard work and discipline, including exercising to build or tone one's muscles.) I also think that Jimmy Carter's using the 1980 Moscow Olympics as a political response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a mistake; the only thing it accomplished was deprive hard-training American athletes of perhaps their only opportunity to earn a coveted Olympic medal.

We have several pressing problems: persistent energy, budget and trade deficits, entitlement solvency, the falling dollar, increasingly unmanageable federal government with redundancy and inadequate inter-agency coordination, modern threats to our national defense, etc. Does the Congress really need to micromanage professional and collegiate sports? College football and other organized sports have their own incentives to ensure they adopt a championship process respected by their participants and fans


Political Cartoon


Gary Varvel reminds us that the national debt is out of sight, with Democratic pie in the sky government program cost estimates, ivory tower economic projections, and space cadet political leadership.

Christmas Musical Interlude: Kelly Clarkson's "My Grown-Up Christmas List"

The first and most commercially-successful American Idol winner remakes the song introduced by Natalie Cole and popularized by other artists as well (e.g., Amy Grant).

Miscellany: 12/13/09

Democratic Slogan: "Running Up the Deficit is Job #1"


The Associated Press reported Saturday that Majority Leader Harry Reid and other Senate Democrats defeated a GOP filibuster 60-34 over a $1.1T bill mostly covering domestic and entitlement spending. My faithful readers will be delighted to know that in a struggling economy with an official unemployment rate of 10% (and many others underemployed or no longer counted in statistics) and families, businesses and state and local governments having to make sacrifices to live within their budgets, Congressional Democrats are "profiles in courage", writing America's grandchildren an IOU to bump up program spending an average of around 10%, and to vote raises for federal employees and funding for nearly 5000 earmark projects.

You may ask yourself, what about the national defense budget? Well, the crafty Senator Reid is holding that back as a political chip to be used in raising the national debt ceiling above $12.1T, daring the Republicans to vote against defense spending.

Given the penchant of Barack Obama and 2009 Jackass of the Year winner Alan Grayson to issue apologies, I have one of my own to make: I apologize to young Americans that we have elected clueless politicians of both parties whom subordinate the long-term economic interests of the United States to their reelection campaigns, leaving as their legacy a mountain of debt, a weak currency which will almost certainly result in inflation and a lower standard of living, actuarially unsound, rapidly growing entitlement programs (and inevitable rationing), and unsustainable, unmanageable, obtrusive government expansion, both expensive and ineffective.

I also apologize to the Founding Fathers and to the millions whom have sacrificed their lives and health in service to this country, for betrayed their memories and trust by electing unworthy individuals whom are more interested in class warfare than in shared sacrifice and have abandoned traditional American values that have built this country (e.g., hard work, self-reliance, integrity, thrift, and initiative), substituting moral hazards and unintended consequences in the process of adapting the framework of a European-style nanny state, where paternalistic government bureaucracy trumps individual freedom.

The Tiger Woods Kerfuffle

I have been deliberately silent about this scandal, along with recent news of Jenny Sanford's decision to divorce South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, once considered a rising star in the GOP. I feel very badly about the wives of politicians whom have often stood by the side of their disgraced spouses, e.g., Dina McGreevey, Silda Spitzer, Suzanne Craig, Wendy Vitter, Darlene Ensign, and Patti Blagojevich (to name a few).  It's bad enough to face these challenges in their private lives--but to have to share the burden of public humiliation due to her husband's irresponsible sexual or political indiscretions? It brings to mind the example of Hillary Clinton before Bill's election to the White House, whom notoriously said, given allegations of  Bill's affairs, that she "wasn't some little woman 'standing by my man' like Tammy Wynette."

Tiger Woods has impressed me in a manner similar to Barack Obama: both are mixed-race gentlemen whose immense talents and achievements seem to embody the ideals of the great American melting pot and the American dream. I have no doubt that each individual has dealt with prejudice in ways none of us will never know or experience; they are remarkably articulate, personable and not defensive.

I have played golf only on a few occasions (the last time years ago with a brother and some brothers-in-law). Golf is a difficult sport to master; just ask Michael Jordan, the most gifted basketball player ever. I usually don't watch golf very often (except an occasional major championship). I do recall Tiger Woods' first Master's tournament in 1997 at the age of 21, when he became the youngest winner, set a tournament record and also won the 12 strokes over the rest of the veteran field (a huge margin), one of the most extraordinary achievements in sports history: you knew from the get-go Tiger was something special and would rewrite record books. His mere participation in a tournament guarantees monster crowds and television ratings. And he has been handsomely rewarded for his talent, pulling in tens of millions of dollars per year for various product or service endorsements.

Then, earlier this month, Tiger Woods' personal life came crashing down with news reports of a bizarre auto accident (not involving another auto) near his home in the early hours of the morning. Tiger Woods until that time understandably had always insisted on leaving his family life out of the public spotlight. But rumors soon spread over a marital dispute over alleged infidelities; Tiger Woods sought to put a lid on the emerging scandal, demanding privacy, but it was like bleeding in shark-infested waters; Tiger's purported affairs seemed to be coming out of the woodwork. This was Tiger's worst nightmare come to life--Bill Clinton to this day still gets late-night jokes over the Monica Lewinsky affair. This image he has carefully cultivated of a solid family man, ambassador to the sport and role model to millions of young boys and girls is gone forever.

Why did he do it? The answer I give is, because he thought he could get away with it. You can ask the same question about why Martha Stewart did what she did about her ImClone holdings, why Bill Clinton couldn't keep his pants zipped up in the White House or why some of the students I caught cheating were among the most capable in class. I'm not a psychologist; maybe it was a false sense of security that they wouldn't get caught (that they had managed to get away with it for some time); they liked flirting with danger of exposure or pulling one over other people; or they thought the same rules didn't apply to them, that  nobody would believe the other party if the truth ever did surface.

The fallout will be considerable. Accenture, an IT services company which has heavily invested in their relationship with Tiger Woods, has just pulled its relevant promotional activities. I have little doubt that Tiger Woods is consulting with public relations gurus and lawyers, and the recently announced hiatus from the sport is a deliberate part of his journey to rehabilitate his public image. His image, though, stands in stark contrast to fellow superstar golfer Phil Mickelson, whom earlier this year suspended his PGA tour schedule indefinitely to be with his wife Amy after her breast cancer diagnosis.

I do hope that Tiger Woods takes time to go beyond rehabilitating his public image and rediscovers his true legacy--his family: his beautiful wife and their two children. I believe with God, all things are possible, including forgiveness and redemption.


Political Cartoon

Michael Ramirez gets it. No word yet on whether Cracker Jacks has managed to license the right to call its little prizes at the bottom of the box "Nobel" so everyone who thinks he or she has potential can get one of  his very own and complete a collection! (No doubt Obama wants one for literature given his two autobiographies by the time he turned 46. Expect a third autobiography in 2013.)

Christmas Musical Interlude: 
Trans-Siberian Orchestra, "Christmas Eve in Sarajevo/Carol of the Bells"


Making their second appearance in my countdown...