I haven’t read it, but this book, an exploration of how free societies descend into tyranny, sounds like an idea whose time has come (hat tip: Instapundit).
Health care reform: ignoring the dangerous precedent of reconciliation
Today’s thoroughly excellent WSJ editorial on using reconciliation to pass health care reform makes the point that Democrats’ comparisons to previous transformative bills such as Social Security, Medicare, and welfare reform are inappropriate, because all those measures enjoyed significant bipartisan support. Health care reform not only lacks bipartisan votes (it threatens to make a real Republican out of Maine’s Olympia Snowe), but it is actually being resorted to because it lacks Democratic support as well. This is simply unprecedented.
Here’s some of the history:
Social Security passed when Democrats controlled both Congress and the White House, yet 64% of Senate Republicans and 79% of the House GOP voted for it. More than half of the Senate Republican caucus voted for Medicare in 1965…Democrats often point to welfare reform in 1996 as a reconciliation precedent, yet that bill passed the Senate with 78 votes, including Joe Biden and half of the Democratic caucus. The children’s health insurance program in 1997 was steered through Congress with reconciliation, but it, too, was built on strong (if misguided) bipartisan support. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that created Schip passed 85-15, including 43 Republicans. Even President Bush’s 2001 tax cuts, another case in reconciliation point, were endorsed by 12 Senate Democrats…
The only precedent within historical shouting distance is Ronald Reagan’s 1981 budget, which was controversial because it reshaped dozens of programs. But the Senate wasn’t the problem””it ultimately passed the budget 80 to 14. The real dogfight was in the Democratically controlled House, where majority rules have always obtained, yet Reagan convinced 29 Democrats to buck Speaker Tip O’Neill.
One sentence in the WSJ piece that struck me as especially important was this seemingly obvious one:
Historically, major social legislation has always been bipartisan, because it reflects a durable political consensus.
Ever since reconciliation has become a strong possibility for this bill, I have wondered at the Democrats’ willingness to ignore that principle. If such an unpopular measure is passed by a simple majority of both houses (and barely passed, at that), what’s to stop it from being repealed in similar fashion, once Republicans get control, as it is predicted they will? And if Obama’s veto would stop such a thing from happening in 2010, why would it not occur in 2012?
And then what’s to stop Republicans from doing something similar, using reconciliation to pass their agenda, whatever it may be? The rules that slow things down in the Senate favor both parties; it is to the advantage of a party temporarily in power to respect such brakes on their power because someday they may be the ones on the outside looking in. Otherwise, we will experience a series of wild and frequent oscillations, the passage of extreme legislation and the subsequent repeal of such legislation, as the electorate gets whiplash watching.
As this article observes [emphasis mine]:
[This sort of restriction] has been a virtue of the American republic since “The Federalist Papers” defended the Constitution’s original design as one intended to keep factions from moving too quickly to dominate politics for short times of abrupt change.
But today’s Democrats appear to have no ability to see beyond their immediate needs, and no sense that they actually will lose, and then it will be payback time.
There are no dearth of theories to explain this—the leading one being that they will cook the elections and then it will be moot. A more benign explanation is that the Democrats believe repeal will be difficult even if they lose power, because the Republicans will still lack either the votes or the courage to undo the bill. Some Democrats also appear to sincerely believe that the American people will love Obamacare once it is in place, and that the perks will outweigh the negatives. In this, the growing economic crisis and unemployment actually helps them, because it drives more people away from the protection of job-associated health insurance and into the arms of the government dole.
Latest step in the Obama administration’s ongoing war against Britain
It has become impossible to dismiss the idea that the Obama administration has decided that Britain is no longer to be treated as our ally. A series of disses, beginning with but hardly limited to the return of a bust of Churchill (one of the very first acts of the Obama presidency), the giving of a thoughtless and insulting gift to Prime Minister Brown, as well as inhospitable treatment on Brown’s visit to the US a year ago, have put the Brits on notice that they are no longer our special friends.
Now it’s become even more serious. Hillary Clinton—who, when I last checked, was still President Obama’s Secretary of State—has taken Argentina’s side in its long-lasting dispute with Britain over the Falkland Islands:
Argentina was celebrating a diplomatic coup yesterday in its attempt to force Britain to accept talks on the future of the Falkland Islands, after a two-hour meeting in Buenos Aires between Hillary Clinton and President Cristina Ferné¡ndez de Kirchner.
Responding to a request from Mrs Kirchner for “friendly mediation” between Britain and Argentina, Mrs Clinton, the US Secretary of State, said she agreed that talks were a sensible way forward and offered “to encourage both countries to sit down”.
Her intervention defied Britain’s longstanding position that there should be no negotiations unless the islands’ 3,000 inhabitants asked for them. It was hailed in Buenos Aires as a major diplomatic victory, but condemned in the Falklands.
Possible reasons for the Obama/Hillary stance include:
(1) Obama’s oft-repeated love of dialogue and talks without any preconditions or regard for the negative consequences.
(2) The desire to suck up to still another leftist leader of a Latin American country.
(3) Female-power bonding.
I am not completely joking about number three, either. Back during our own 2008 primaries, when Hillary was still officially running for president, I had prepared a draft of an article on Argentina’s President Cristina Kirchner, known at the time as “the Argentine Hillary.” I never did post it—too many more important events and subjects seemed to intervene—and I finally deleted it from my drafts folder, so it’s gone now. But I was reminded again of the similarities between the two when I saw this photo (powerful husband who has been in the number one spot, leftist sympathies, see this for more):
The Falklands may be small and relatively insignificant compared to all the other problems areas of the world. In fact, the 74-day 1982 Falklands War was treated almost as a joke by many people who heard of it. But it was certainly no comedy to the “255 British and 649 Argentine soldiers, sailors, and airmen, and three civilian Falklanders” who died during the conflict. And to the inhabitants of the Falklands, who overwhelmingly wish to remain British, it is also no laughing matter:
In the Falklands, reaction to the meeting ranged from dismay to fury. “It’s outrageous after all the support we have given the United States,” said Hattie Kilmartin, a sheepfarmer’s wife. “They are not looking at the people who are actually living here and what they want, and it’s crazy that they are even contemplating going against us.”
Yes Mrs. Kilmartin, get used to our outrageous and crazy president, who couldn’t care less about you and your neighbors, or even the over-two-hundred-year special relationship between the US and Great Britain.
This is no accident, either. It is part of Obama’s carefully planned program of topsy-turvy diplomacy. As far as I’m concerned, 2012 cannot come fast enough. How much damage will be done by then?
Advancing the “Emanuel the reasonable” meme
This WaPO piece is another in a series of recent articles about how Rahm Emanuel is the only voice of practicality, incremental change, and reason in the Obama White House (I wrote about an earlier piece here).
I’m not at all sure why this particular meme is being pushed right now. Anger of the press at the other members of Obama’s Gang of Four (Gibbs, Jarrett, and Axelrod)? I doubt it’s love for Emanuel, who seems universally disliked for abrasiveness. But whatever the reason—and I invite you all to do the requisite Machiavellian speculation—I happen to think that the gist of it is the truth—although probably not the whole truth and nothing but.
Consdier that Emanuel has by far the most national and legislative experience of anyone in Obama’s inner circle, and that includes the president himself. Say what you will about Rahm, but he was actually a member of the House of Representatives from 2003-2009. He also served as a strategist in the Bill Clinton White House from 1993-1998, an administration ultimately known for a more incremental, poll-driven approach to policy and governing. Later, as the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, he helped craft the Democrats’ congressional comeback of 2006. After that he was even considered for the post of Majority Whip.
Compare this experience to that of David Axelrod, whose entire background is in journalism, media, and campaign communication and organization. Or to Robert Gibbs, likewise, and Valerie Jarrett, a lawyer whose previous experience was limited to local Chicago politics as an aide to Mayors Washington and then Daley, and Chicago business.
These three are not just Obama’s consultants on campaigning; they appear to be his main advisors on nearly everything. I’m not surprised that they have given Obama poor advice, and that his agenda has been hampered as a result, or that he failed to listen to the cannier Emanuel. I have come to see Obama as a committed “progressive” socialist ideologue as well as a man who only listens to his inner Chicago circle of old and trusted advisers, to which Emanuel is a relative newcomer.
[ADDENDUM: Here’s more.]
What to do about long-term unemployment?
I am not an expert in economics or business, nor do I play one on TV. But when Megan McArdle, who is both of those things, writes that there’s not much that government can do for the long-term unemployed, I both agree and disagree.
I agree with McArdle that stimulus money gives little bang for a huge buck that we can’t afford. In addition, as she points out, direct hiring by government, as in Roosevelt’s New Deal, would not do the trick now due to a changed workforce and atmosphere (more unions, less manual labor). And McArdle doesn’t even mention that it’s not at all clear that this latter effort was actually a significant factor in getting us out of that first Depression, although it did temporarily ease the plight of a significant number of workers in the meantime.
It seems to me that government can do one important thing, however: convince business that it’s their friend. The only way government can help to lower unemployment significantly is to encourage an economic climate in which businesses want to expand rather than contract. And it also seems to me that, if the Obama administration had wanted to design an approach that did the exact opposite, they could hardly have done better than they have during this past year.
Instead, they have added to the uncertainty and fear—not the least of it, fear of what the federal government will do to raise taxes and hamper business growth. They have mounted vigorous verbal attacks on the entire idea of business and profit, combined with halfhearted and unconvincing backtracks about how this administration is not hostile but is actually a friend to business and to capitalism.
They have focused huge amounts of energy on a series of health care reform bills that are likely to hamper (and then ultimately dismantle, years down the road) one of the perks of job ownership—private health insurance—by burdening it with further taxes and regulations that promise to cost businesses more, not less. And this is true even though a president and Congressional leaders whom business has come to profoundly distrust attempt to say otherwise.
In such an atmosphere, who would take a chance and hire?
Comparing the Chilean and Haitian earthquakes
Time magazine’s Tim Padgett writes an entire piece comparing the damage in the Chilean and Haitian earthquakes without ever once mentioning one huge difference: the Chilean earthquake, although stronger, was deeper and further away from population centers.
The Time piece—and this one by Anne Applebaum in the Washington Post—speak of the quakes as though preparedness and building codes were the only factors differentiating the two. Yes, such things are very important. And yes, they almost certainly contributed a great deal to the relatively fewer deaths in Chile as compared to Haiti. But preparedness can only protect so much.
This Salon article also talks a great deal about building codes and the like. But at least it manages to factor in the following important additional facts:
The U.S. Geological Survey says eight Haitian cities and towns — including this capital of 3 million — suffered “violent” to “extreme” shaking in last month’s 7-magnitude quake, which Haiti’s government estimates killed some 220,000 people and left about 1.2 homeless. Chile’s death toll was in the hundreds.
By contrast, no Chilean urban area suffered more than “severe” shaking — the third most serious level — Saturday in it’s [sic] 8.8-magnitude disaster, by USGS measure. The quake was centered 200 miles (325 kms) away from the capital and largest city, Santiago.
In terms of energy released at the epicenter, said Calais, the Chilean quake was 900 times stronger. But energy dissipates rather quickly as distances grow from epicenters — and the ground beneath Port-au-Prince is less stable by comparison and “shakes like jelly,” says University of Miami geologist Tim Dixon.
And yet the WaPo’s Anne Applebaum ignores that reality in order to make her pre-determined point:
Despite a stronger earthquake and more damaging aftershocks, Chile will return to normal faster than Haiti. Luck has nothing to do with it.
Haiti is a poverty-stricken mess of a dictatorship. Chile is a richer country, and a democracy. These things do matter, very much. But it is hubris to leave out the elements of luck and chance, and imagine that we are able to control even more than we can when disaster strikes.
Pelosi to Americans: you’ll take your health care reform medicine, orally or otherwise
This Politico piece calls Nancy Pelosi “one of the strongest speakers in modern history.” I suppose that depends on what you mean by the word “strong.” If you’re thinking Nurse Ratched strong rather than the greater strength that comes from wisdom and integrity, I suppose you’d be right.
The article goes on to call Pelosi “an authoritarian figure,” and I would be the last one to argue with that. But when it states that, as far as the voting public goes, “The electoral winds that were at Pelosi’s back in the past two cycles thanks to having George W. Bush in the White House are blowing this year in Democrats’ faces,” I almost had to laugh at the notion that the change represents some arbitrary weather fluctuation.
On the contrary. It’s not that those winds have suddenly and inexplicably reversed direction. It’s that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have stopped walking with them, and instead have turned to face the other way to walk against the prevailing winds of public opinion. And then they’ve spit at the American voters. And you know what happens when you spit into the wind.
But that’s for the next election cycle. What will happen in the meantime on health care reform? Reconciliation, of course; but is it a bluff? Can Republicans stall the process effectively by amendments? Would reconciliation only apply to budgetary elements of the bill rather than the whole?
No one really knows, because are in unexplored territory here, and rightly so. Never before has a major bill that affects every American so deeply and personally (and threatens to destroy the economy rather than fix it) been pushed through against the will of the American people, not only lacking bipartisan support, but lacking the support of some of the majority party as well. The Democratic leadership has now given up on convincing moderate Republicans to cross over; their goal now is to get enough moderate Democrats on board to pass this unwanted monstrosity, through any means they can devise.
But reconciliation is only for the Senate. Will there be enough votes in the House under Nurse Pelosi to force Americans to take their medicine? The answer seems to be “not yet, but maybe,” despite public expressions of near-certainty that the votes are there. Is this bravado? Or, as the Politico article states, will Pelosi somehow muster those votes because of her legendary ruthlessness and iron control? As one unnamed “Democratic insider” is quoted as saying (and this was meant to be some sort of compliment), “[Pelosi] will put a bullet in the head of anyone she needs to.” Metaphorically speaking, of course.
Yesterday Nancy Pelosi made two revealing statements. Here’s the first, a prime example of the trademark Pelosi wit and wisdom:
[Republicans have] had plenty of opportunity to make their voices heard,” she said on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday morning. “Bipartisanship is a two-way street. A bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes. Republicans have left their imprint.”
Orwell, anyone?
The second came just after her assertion that Democrats in Congress should commit political suicide in order to pass Obamacare. Pelosi then added, “We’re not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress, we’re here to do the job for the American people.”
So, even if the American people will throw the Democrats out of office for this vote, the politicians are nobly sacrificing themselves. Doing the job for the American people? Or to the American people? I can think of no better example of power-hungry condescension and contempt, masquerading as platitudinous solicitude.
Except, perhaps, for this:
If Mr. McMurphy doesn’t want to take his medication orally, I’m sure we can arrange that he can have it some other way. But I don’t think that he would like it.
[ADDENDUM: Some detailed speculation on how the votes might be accomplished—or not.]
Mr. and Mrs. Spambot of the day
Togetherness:
Many thanks. Yet a typical extraordinary thread, definitely why My spouse and I come back for a weblog generally!!
Andy McCarthy on what is different about this administration and this Congress
The “it” is what we’ve been saying on this blog for what seems like a long, long, time: that Obama and the Democratic leaders in Congress are playing a very different game with very different rules. They don’t care about re-election; they care about the transformation of our government, economy, and way of life.
There are only two questions, as McCarthy indicates. The first is whether, as he says, “there are enough Democrats who are conventional politicians and who care about being reelected, such that they will deny the leadership the numbers it needs.” The second is whether, if there are not enough, there will be enough Republicans to take power in the next election cycle to undo the harm that has been done, by what mechanism this might be accomplished, and how quickly. In other words, will the changes be irrevocable?
[NOTE: For earlier posts that speculate somewhat along these same lines, see this and this.]
Health care reform, Prohibition: legislation vs. constitutional amendment
I was thinking what a huge and personal set of changes would result from the passage of the contemplated comprehensive health care reform bill, and how close the vote will be either way. If we dodge it, it will be by the skin of our teeth. And if it’s passed, it will be by the skin of Congress’s.
Many have observed that this is the first time a bill of such scope has been pushed by Congress without the legislation enjoying fairly large—and at least somewhat bipartisan—majorities. The reason is practical; it would ordinarily be political suicide to try to pass a transformative and unpopular (or even only marginally popular) bill. But that is exactly what the Democrats are poised to do—at least, if we believe their rhetoric, which may be mere bombast but which we must take seriously.
Our founding fathers were concerned with the possibility of tyranny of the majority, and they put certain safeguards in our government’s design in an attempt to protect against it. But there’s a limit to what they could do to prevent it if a majority was bound and determined to defy the will of the people. Our government has checks and balances, but in the end it relies on a certain basic agreement and cooperation. Both sides must respect the system in some general way in order for it to function.
For example, I was thinking back to Prohibition, another big piece of legislation (although nowhere near as big as this one) that affected people’s lives in a rather intimate fashion. But the mechanism by which it was passed was a constitutional amendment (the Eighteenth), along with the Volstead Act, through which Congress defined alcoholic beverages. The process by which an amendment is passed is much more difficult, and requires much larger majorities, than a mere act of Congress. So why did they bother?
You might answer that Prohibition had to be done that way because it was a federal ban on what was until then a function only states were allowed to prohibit—the intrastate (as opposed to interstate) sale, manufacture, and transport of liquor for consumption. Previously, many states had already had such a ban, but now it was made national.
But although that is true, it is not the whole answer. For example, in Obamacare there is a nationwide requirement that individuals purchase health insurance or face a penalty. This is unprecedented, and could certainly be considered an unconstitutional overreach by Congress. And yet there is no move to require Congress to pass this sort of bill through the amendment process rather than by the usual path for legislation, and I would hazard a guess that if it were passed and there was a constitutional challenge, the Supreme Court might refuse to hear the case, or be very reluctant to rule against Congress because of the separation of powers.
Congress can contemplate this sort of thing now because they have less fear of the consequences than they did back in 1920, when Prohibition was passed. That’s the big secret the Obama administration and this Congress has discovered (or perhaps rediscovered): if it has the power to do something, why not go for it? If they don’t care about re-election (for whatever reason), and if they don’t fear the Supreme Court—nothing can stop them.
Audacity, indeed.
Power update
Still no power. This time I’m sitting with my laptap in a public library, having managed to snare one of the few empty desks and unused outlets. Never have I seen such a large crowd at the library before!
After I’m finished, I will go to stay with my son, who’s got power galore as well as wifi and an extra bed. So, no biggie—as long I don’t wear out my welcome (hey, after all I’ve done for you)….
Have fun with this one
Not having read the research, I can’t say. But my strong hunch is that it’s garbage in, garbage out. It is notoriously difficult to design unbiased research on such a subject.