Of 56 Democrat Women in the House, Just 2 Voted For Stupak

Kathleen Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania and Marcy Kaptur of Ohio voted for the Stupak Amendment last November, but for the House healthcare bill. All the other women in the House Democrat Caucus, 54 of them, voted against the Stupak Amendment which prohibits federal funding of abortion.

Only Stephanie Herseth Sandlin of South Dakota, Suzanne Kosmas of Florida, and Betsy Markey of Colorado voted against the House healthcare bill.

Nancy Pelosi is whipping them all today, according to Roll Call:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is asking all female Democratic Members to attend a hastily called meeting Wednesday morning but isn’t saying what the meeting is about. . . .

The meeting comes as Democratic leaders enter the final stretch of health care reform — and as they scramble to address fractures in their Caucus over abortion and immigration provisions in the bill.

The full story is here.

Louise Slaughter's Rules Committee: Das Schlachthaus of the Constitution

Yes, noxious things indeed emanate out of the slaughterhouse of the constitution, Democrat Representative Louise Slaughter's (NY-28) Rules Committee [(202) 225-3615]. Do you remember the speech code she "updated" to protect the current president from hurtful epithets from the House floor?

Despite the code, people defiantly think their thoughts anyway, say about how Obama hides behind that woman's skirts. Or about how his subsequent indecorous remarks to the Supreme Court before Congress assembled just prove that he's a hypocrite himself when it comes to decorum, in addition to being a liar on healthcare. Read Paragraph 25 "References to Executive Officials" for yourself here and a summary here with video of the Rep. Wilson incident. Louise Slaughter is all about limiting free speech, to protect her man.

And now this tyrant of a woman is trying to slaughter the constitution itself by dispensing with the requirement to vote on legislation and send it to the president. In short she is in revolt against Article I, Section 7 of the constitution. But it's not just her in revolt. She's doing this for Obama, whom she serves. The truth is that it is Obama who is in revolt against the constitution. He's just organizing the Washington community to pull it off.

If the Senate healthcare bill is to become law as the president wants (after all he's a creature of the Senate, isn't he?), the constitution requires that "the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively." There are not enough votes in the House to pass the bill which passed in the Senate. So Slaughter instead wants the House to deem that this has already occurred in both Houses when it has in fact occurred in only one. It's like a lawyer stipulating to certain facts, except in this case there is no real fact in the House, only the desire, which the wrath of constituencies back home has up to this point thwarted from expressing itself successfully.

In other words, Slaughter wants the House to vote for something entirely new, something which pretends the Senate healthcare bill has already passed in the House when it has not. There will be no yeas and Nays recorded for the Senate healthcare bill as such anywhere except where they have been recorded already, in the Senate, and therefore there will be no healthcare legislation per se to send on to the president. All they will have is a Senate healthcare bill which has in fact stalled in the House, and what amounts to a new "let's pretend" bill.

Secondly (and this point is crucial but not at all appreciated so far) since no bill from the Senate will in fact have been passed in the House, if the House passes a bill which merely assumes that the Senate healthcare bill is passed and sends that on to the president for signature, the House will be guilty of violating the constitution because it did not first send it to the Senate to have the "let's pretend" bill ratified there, which it must also do, according to the constitution. Bills must have yeas and Nays recorded from both chambers, remember? In other words, the House is about to circumvent the constitution by by-passing the Senate and sending the "let's pretend" bill directly to the president, asserting, in desperation, that it has Senate approval by incorporation.

In effect the House leadership is playing a game of chicken with the Senate, knowing that because the executive branch has got their back, the Senate can do nothing and can be hung out to dry. There is no mechanism by which the Senate may intrude itself anymore since sending their bill to the House. The filibuster would only be a threat if a bill came back to the Senate, which explains why everything is happening the way it is happening: A bill must by all means be prevented from returning to the Senate, where it will die a death by a thousand cuts. The only mechanism which the Senate might naturally rely upon now in the event of House misbehavior would be the presidential veto, but the president is not going to veto the "let's pretend" bill. The president is conspiring with the House to get such a bill, and there is nothing the Senate can do about that anymore. And in point of fact, the majority in the Senate will be happy to see their bill become the law, despite the lawlessness that made it happen. A concluding note of irony might be that President Obama might delay his vacation until the "let's pretend" bill is presented to him, and then leave for ten days without signing the bill.

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) [another federal accommodation of religion!] after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it . . ..

(Article I. Section 7.)

He could always claim he never signed the bill, just as the cowardly representatives in the House will claim, too. Those six little words, "as if he had signed it," at once the inspiration perhaps for the whole effort at "deeming," and for avoiding responsibility for the effort at the same time, used against the will of the American people.

It remains to be seen if Americans will just sit by and watch America burn to the ground like Dresden did in the novel Slaughterhouse Five. I fully expect them to. They voted for this guy. They do not want to think that Slaughter and the Left in this country are attempting a coup. They resemble no one so much as Billy Pilgrim, whose response to everything, good or evil, was "so it goes." At least a few people seem concerned, but not enough as Anthony Dick notes here. One can only hope that patriots in the House, if there are any left, will see Slaughter's Solution for what Dick rightly says it is: subterfuge. I'll call it by its other name: treason against the United States. Expelling Louise Slaughter, as Mark Levin calls for, doesn't begin to go far enough. Louise Slaughter should be arrested and put on trial. Tomorrow.

Contemptuous Dismissal of our Democracy, by Democrats

Abe Greenwald at Contentions doesn't mince words about the very serious assault being waged on our way of life by one of our own political parties:

For our current leaders, the mission goes forward. Plan B, it turns out, is as alien to the American experience as Plan A. Having failed to reshape our democracy through demagoguery, Obama is attempting to subvert it by decree. If he needs to dispense with the “we” in “yes we can,” so be it. The “our” in “our time is now”? Gone.

As the President and Nancy Pelosi have explained, they’re down to yes and now. Here’s how Pelosi recently described her health-care battle stance:

We will go through the gate. If the gate is closed, we will go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we will pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we will parachute in. But we are going to get health care reform passed for the American people for their own personal health and economic security and for the important role that it will play in reducing the deficit.

The barriers she cites are none other than the checks and balances, the procedural roadblocks, put in place centuries ago so that no lawmaker or executive could force policy upon the American people “for their own personal health and economic security.” Speaker Pelosi’s statement is not merely colorful evidence of tenacity and cunning. It is a contemptuous dismissal of democracy. Just as the plan for socialist annexation of one sixth of the economy is a dismissal of free-market capitalism.

Read the rest here.

Our Liberty Is Not Abstract, But Sensible

Tony Blankley zeroes in here on the distinctive American attachment to the tangible, a disposition we inherited more from Rome than from Athens, from Antiquity not Modernity, from tradition not innovation, from Burke not Johnson:

March 10, 2010

An American Obsession with Freedom

By Tony Blankley

The publishing of the Declaration of Independence 233 years ago by our Founders was responded to in London by two of the 18th century's greatest minds: Dr. Samuel Johnson (after whom a literary age was named) and Edmund Burke (the intellectual father of modern Anglo-American conservatism).

Dr. Johnson made the harsh assertion that our Declaration was "the delirious dream of republican fanaticism" that, if sincere, would "put the axe to the roots of all government." Moreover, he went on, it was the rankest hypocrisy for owners of slaves to shout for freedom, or, as Johnson put it: "Why is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty from the drivers of negroes?"

But it was Edmund Burke who had the more profound insight. He recognized that it wasn't despite being slaveholders that American Colonists felt so powerfully about liberty. Rather, being in the midst of the obvious evils of slavery, those men who were free more fully appreciated their freedom. "Those who are free are by far the most proud and jealous of rank and privilege," Burke argued. Or, as Jedediah Purdy (from whose historically rich and ingenious book "A Tolerable Anarchy" I have abstracted these observations) put it: "Slavery made masters uniquely sensitive to any invasion of their independence."

These sensitivities -- sensibilities -- that Burke so shrewdly observed in 1775 continue to manifest themselves in American politics today as we fight over socializing health care, nationalizing industries, indebting our grandchildren, regulating and taxing energy creation and the other intrusions into what Americans have long considered not to be the government's business.

Burke would understand what Europeans (and many European-influenced Americans) in 2010 continue to scoff at as America's obsession with the slogan of freedom. Because although we Americans may talk about freedom as an abstraction -- and believe in freedom as an abstraction -- our politics come alive when we experience an intrusion into what John Adams called "the sensations of freedom."

As Burke explained: "Abstract liberty, like other abstractions, is not to be found. Liberty inheres in some sensible object; and every nation has formed to itself some favorite point which ... becomes the criterion of their happiness."

I believe that the rise of the Tea Party movement and the impassioned nature of American politics in 2009-10 is the result of the Obama administration's having, probably inadvertently, intruded into "some favorite points which becomes the criterion of (our) happiness."

That is to say, though the Democrats see their health care proposal as merely another step along a continuum of government action, a strong majority of the American people sense that the "quantity" of the intrusion has changed the "quality" of the intrusion.

What is seen, currently, as a basically private-sector health process with some government intervention has crossed over, in the Democrats' plans, into basically a government system. And, by being seen to have so crossed over, it is an attack on "some sensible object" (i.e. private-sector health care) in which our "Liberty inheres."

Similarly, the shift from less than $500 billion of annual deficit in the last George W. Bush year to a $1.5 trillion deficit in each of the first and second Obama years (and the proposed addition of almost $10 trillion of new public debt over the next decade) has -- by the increase in quantity -- changed the nature of public debt in such a way as to intrude into our sense of our fundamental liberty.

If the Chinese, by selling off our debt notes, can destroy our economy and way of life at a whim -- as the accumulating debt suggests is possible -- then what had been merely irresponsible, self-indulgent deficit spending by both Republicans and Democrats in the recent past has transformed into a fundamental threat to our liberty and our grandchildren's future.

The Obama administration and the Democrats crossed a line and touched a nerve in America's body politic. We sense our fundamental freedom endangered. And the response will be as remorseless as was our revolution against the British. Against all odds, the intrusion on those things around which our "liberty inheres" will be driven from our political midst. (It is not Waterloo, but Yorktown, that is likely to be the terminal point.)

The first hard step in that defense will be the election in November. The second, even harder step will be the rollback of already enacted debt and damage to our freedom. Defining the extent and detail of the rollback must be the agenda for the government's loyal opposition in this year's election. And the things to which we are loyal are our Constitution, our founding principles and the good institutions and social contrivances brought into being by those principles over our providential history.

Obama as Stalinist: The People Must Be In Error About Healthcare

It's all there if you really think about it, paler because it lacks a military face, but discernible nonetheless:

Obama's stated goal to transform the country rapidly;

the cult of personality which he has done nothing to discourage;

his enthusiasm for interfering with common liberties from fishing to private communications;

state-capitalism in the form of government ownership of industry;

enrichment of the unionized federal workforce at the expense of the unemployment-ravaged private sector;

and the co-opting of the radicals who supported him in the interest of promoting his own personal power.

All in all, an un-democratic man indeed, who flies under the cover of race.

And Jay Cost hopes "moderates" in the Democrat party can stop him? After what Obama did to a centrist like Representative Eric Massa (NY-29)? Moderation is hardly what is called for in a situation like this.

March 09, 2010

It's Time for Moderate House Democrats to Stand Up to Obama

Jay Cost

According to Gallup, Barack Obama entered the presidency with a net approval rating (i.e. percent approve minus percent disapprove) of 56%. This past weekend, he was at just +1%. No newly elected President has fallen so far so fast since polling began. Only Bill Clinton - in his difficult first year in office - came close.

Some pundits have an overly-reductionist take on Obama's fast-declining numbers, arguing that the precipitous drop is entirely due to the stagnant economy. They like to draw a comparison to Ronald Reagan, whose numbers fell quickly as he dealt with a recession early in his term. No doubt some of Obama's decline is related to the recession, but the 44th President - unlike the 40th - was elected when the economy was already contracting. This gives Obama political cover that Reagan did not have. Just 7% of Americans, according to a recent CBS News/New York Times poll, blame Obama for the recession.

If it's more than the economy, what else is it? Health care is a strong contender. Between Memorial Day and Labor Day of last year, Obama's net job approval rating in the RCP average declined by 63%. This was the period when House Democrats were beginning to divide openly over their reform proposals, and when the town hall protests started. As the debate has dragged on, his net approval has inched closer and closer to zero. Today, the country is essentially split in half over his tenure.

That split is not random. It breaks down along the typical cleavages. Obama is strong in the East; weak in the South. Young people like him; seniors do not. Democrats stand with him; Republicans and Independents don't. Blacks approve; whites do not. Single people support him; married people don't.

Yet the Democratic Party controls Congress today because in the last two election cycles it healed these divisions, at least partially. In 2008, House Democrats split the South. They won voters young and old. They won Independents. They held their own with whites. They split married voters. This is why they have a majority in the 110th House of Representatives.

If the current trends in public opinion continue, they will lose that majority because of President Obama's divisiveness. We have seen hints of things to come with GOP victories in Virginia, New Jersey, and most recently Massachusetts - as the difference-making voters for the Democrats in 2006 and 2008 turned to the Grand Old Party.

Either Mr. Obama and his advisors are blind to this, or they don't care, or both. I think it's both; call it willful blindness, a self-serving belief that 2008 was indeed a liberal realignment, and that the numbers will eventually reflect it. Regardless, House Democrats should know that the voters who have made them a majority party in recent cycles strongly oppose this health care bill; they have turned against President Obama; and they will eventually turn against them if they go along with the President. Moderates from the South and Midwest will be the first to go down to defeat as the party shrinks from a majority to a minority.

Yet such crassly selfish political considerations are not at the core of the debate moderate Democrats should be having. The real question is this: what is the Democratic Party all about? As I have argued before, the substance of this bill - with a mandate enforced by the Internal Revenue Service that all citizens buy a product from a private company as part of the terms of public citizenship - is antithetical to the historical spirit of the party.

But it's not just the substance. It's the process. The ever-obliging mainstream media have helpfully reduced the appropriateness of reconciliation to a merely legislative question, thus obscuring the bigger political reality: the Democrats must use reconciliation to pass health care because they no longer have a filibuster-proof majority; they no longer have a filibuster-proof majority in part because of health care. Their chosen strategy may pass muster with the Senate parliamentarian, but it suggests a blatant disregard for public opinion.

This is par for the course for the 44th President, who has made pretty clear his belief that, when he and the people disagree, the people must be in error. Democratic primary voters in small town Pennsylvania opposed him not because he was inexperienced, you see, but because their bitterness made them provincial. Now, Americans who don't support this bill simply don't understand it. They'll see things better after the Congress passes it.

Such arrogance makes for bad politics because it's un-democratic. Yet it's also un-Democratic. It's not unreasonable to expect the party of the people to respect the judgment of the people, especially on an issue that is so important and that has attracted so much attention. The public is as well informed about the health care debate as they ever are about anything. One would hope that the Democratic Party would acknowledge and respect this fact.

Progressives at liberal opinion journals and in the D.C. press corps have had trouble with this idea - and have ironically taken to employing fallacies of composition to suggest that public opposition is irrational. The people like the various elements of the bill, so the fact that they dislike the whole thing is a sign that they're not thinking clearly. If this argument was valid - if the whole was merely the sum of its parts - the Washington Redskins, an organization that likes to lure the best players from other teams rather than build from the ground up, would stand at the top of the National Football League.

The Democratic Party is broader than its progressive intellectuals and media cheerleaders. It has the majority not just because of San Francisco, California - but also Murfreesboro, Tennessee and Zanesville, Ohio. Those places voted Democratic in the 2008 House elections. Some progressives, especially in the blogosphere, see that as a problem - the "ConservaDems" they elect hold up true progress. But it's historically the greatest strength of the Democratic Party, whose appeal has long been much broader than the GOP's.

House Democrats should bear this in mind as they consider the current reforms. This bill would signal not just a major change in health care, but also in the Democratic Party itself. The end result will be a smaller, more narrowly liberal party that is less trusted by the mass public to respect its collective judgment. The party will keep San Francisco and The New Republic, but sooner or later they'll lose Murfreesboro and Zanesville.

Mr. Obama has indicated that he is all right with this. But in our system of separated powers, his opinion is insufficient. Ultimately, the decision rests with Southern and Midwestern House Democrats. They must make the final choice. They can vote with the President on a bill whose substance and process reflect little of the grandest traditions of the Democratic Party. Or they can stand up to him, and tell him that they have had enough of his condescending attitude and strong-arm tactics.

What moderate House Democrats should not do is assume that, if they vote with him on this one, President Obama will stop here. This President talked during the campaign about building a broad consensus for change. Yet when push comes to shove, he cares much more about change than consensus. He plans to tackle immigration reform, and there's no doubt he's still eyeing cap-and-trade. He has promised the Congressional Progressive Caucus that they can revisit health care later. If their constituents ultimately disapprove, moderate House Democrats shouldn't expect Barack Obama to give a damn. That's not his style. He likes to give lip service to consensus - but when you read the fine print, he inevitably defines any divergent viewpoints as out-of-bounds. He did it on the stimulus. He's doing it on health care. If moderate House Democrats don't stand up to him now, he'll do it on cap-and-trade, immigration reform, and who knows what else. Sooner or later, their constituents will elect representatives who will stand up to the President.

And those new representatives will probably be Republicans.

BOMBSHELL: Democrat Rep. Eric Massa Says He Was Set Up

One of thirty-nine Democrats to vote against the House healthcare bill last November now believes ethics allegations lodged against him recently were designed to get rid of him before he could vote no again. Hotline On Call at National Journal, among others, has the story:

Massa Implicates Emanuel, Dem Leaders

March 8, 2010 9:06 AM

By Reid Wilson

Embattled Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) lashed out in an emotional radio appearance Sunday, accusing Dem leaders of what he suggested was an orchestrated campaign to force his resignation.

"There's a reason that this has all happened, frankly one that I had not realized," Massa said on WKPQ radio on Sunday. "Mine is now the deciding vote on the health care bill, and this administration and this House leadership have said, quote unquote, they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill. And now they've gotten rid of me and it'll pass."

Massa addressed rumors circulating on blogs about his personal behavior, including incidents during an informal Navy ceremony in '83 on the USS New Jersey and one that occurred in a state room later during his Navy career. He insisted he had done nothing uncommon, insisting his sin was foul language.

A complaint before the House ethics committee, he said, stemmed from a wedding Massa attended over New Years, when he made an inappropriate comment to an aide, according to Roll Call, which first reported the radio program.

Massa maintained his comments were inappropriate, but he blamed "political correctness" and accused Dems of a setup. Massa voted against health care legislation in Nov., and he has not been a reliable vote for Dem leadership. That, he said, has put a target on his back.

"When I voted against the cap and trade bill, the phone rang and it was the chief of staff to the president of the United States of America, Rahm Emanuel, and he started swearing at me in terms and words that I hadn't heard since that crossing the line ceremony on the USS New Jersey in 1983," Massa said. "And I gave it right back to him, in terms and words that I know are physically impossible."

"If Rahm Emanuel wants to come after me, maybe he ought to hold himself to the same standards I'm holding myself to and he should resign," Massa said.

Massa slammed House Maj. Leader Steny Hoyer for discussing a House ethics committee inquiry, accusing Hoyer of lying in an effort to eliminate an opponent of health care. Hoyer said last week he heard in early Feb. about allegations against Massa, and that he told Massa's office to report the allegations to the ethics committee.

"Steny Hoyer has never said a single word to me at all, never, not once," Massa said. "Never before in the history of the House of Representatives has a sitting leader of the Democratic Party discussed allegations of House investigations publicly, before findings of fact. Ever."

"I was set up for this from the very, very beginning," he added. "The leadership of the Democratic Party have become exactly what they said they were running against."

Massa bemoaned the state of the nation's politics, which he said is perpetuated by the constant need for money to run for re-election. And, he said, he has been made an example by Dem leadership.

"There is not a single member of the Democratic freshman class which is going to vote against this health care bill now that they've got me," he said. "Eric Massa's probably not going to go back to Congress, because the only way I would go back there would be as an independent. A pox on both parties."

Massa has held the radio program, in which he took calls from constituents, during his 14 months in office. He said yesterday's episode would be his last as an incumbent.

College Education Does Almost Nothing To Improve Knowledge of American Civics

From Joe Wolverton, II at the New American:

Report Finds College Students Fail Basic Civics Test

Written by Joe Wolverton, II

Friday, 26 February 2010

“Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it” is one of the most oft-quoted aphorisms of Edmund Burke, an 18th-century Irish-born member of the British Parliament and fearless friend of liberty. Judging from the results of a recent survey conducted by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), most of the 14,000 college students who participated sadly will be repeating history.

Considering that most of the 14,000 students who completed the exam (7,000 seniors and 7,000 freshmen) scored an F on the portion of the test covering basic American history and institutions, not only will they be repeating history, but with test scores like that, they’ll be repeating history class, as well.

ISI, a conservative non-profit educational organization, has recently published the results of this sweeping survey in a 32-page report entitled “The Shaping of the American Mind: The Diverging Influences of the College Degree and Civic Learning on American Beliefs.” Sit down before you read this report because the data will knock you off your feet.

In 2007, ISI administered a 60-question test to 14,000 students at 50 colleges nationwide. The questions were designed to measure the students’ aptitude in four areas: basic American history, government, foreign affairs, and economics. In a companion study, in 2008 ISI administered a shorter exam (33 questions) to a random sample of 2,508 Americans without a college degree in order to have a standard level against which the impact of a college education on a threshold level of familiarity with basic American institutions could be determined.

Here are a few frightening figures certain to keep you up at night:

71% of Americans failed the civics knowledge test;

51% of Americans could not name the three branches of government;

The average score for college seniors on the civics knowledge test was 54.2% (an “F” by any standard);

The average student’s test score improved only 3.8 points from freshman to senior year;

Freshmen at Cornell, Yale, Princeton, and Duke scored better than seniors on the civics knowledge test;

79% of elected officials that took the civics knowledge quiz did not know the Bill of Rights expressly prohibits the government from establishing a religion;

30% of office holders did not know that “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are the inalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence;

27% of politicians could not name even one right or freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment;

43% did not know the purpose of the Electoral College;

39% of lawmakers believe the power of declaring war belongs to the president;

The average score for college professors who took the civics knowledge quiz was 55%.

So, while our nation’s most elite colleges are not imbuing our children with a knowledge of our history and our government, the study makes it clear that those universities are becoming round the clock factories churning out poorly instructed liberals with little civic knowledge and even less faith and less devotion to principles of liberty than those Americans who didn’t go to college.

It’s not just ignorance of the founding and the structure of government that is being fostered at these so-called institutions of higher learning. The classrooms are becoming hothouses of left-wing opinions, as well. For example, according to the findings published by ISI, college graduates are more likely than non-graduates to favor legalizing same-sex marriage and abortion on demand. By contrast, college graduates are less likely to believe that the Bible is the word of God and that hard work and perseverance can make the American Dream come true.

Similarly, the study’s findings revealed that regardless of one’s formal education, one’s knowledge of basic American civics determined one’s faith in America and trust in the tenets of liberty upon which it was established. This shift is evident in the fact that non-college graduates who scored higher on the civics knowledge quiz than college graduates were less likely to believe that “America’s founding documents are obsolete.” Furthermore, the learned, though not college educated respondents are correspondingly less likely to agree that “the Ten Commandments are irrelevant” to the world today.

This research is, according to the organization’s website, the fourth such study conducted by ISI in an attempt to scientifically measure the impact of a college education on civic knowledge and citizenship. Unremarkably, the results have not changed much over the years and once the numbers are crunched it is irrefutable that having a college education does almost nothing to buttress one’s overall knowledge of the fundamental history and composition of American government.

In contrast, what a formal education at one of America’s university does so effectively, however, is engender doubt in the American way of life, incubate irreverence for the pillars of liberty upon which the nation was built, and perhaps most disturbingly, sap the faith in God and the institutions of religious worship.

The various interesting findings of the study, including the questions asked and the results, as well as the scientific analysis thereof, can be found here.

And, if you’re brave, test your own knowledge of America’s history, government, foreign policy, and economics by taking the quiz posted online here. Good luck! And remember, eyes on your own paper. Judging by the results of this study, many of you college graduates might be tempted to cheat!

The Color of Debt is BLUE, Not Red

But you already knew that.

You can see it in pictures at the original here, with lots of useful links, in Neil Weinberg's "Political Litmus Test: Bluest States Spilling The Most Red Ink," where he asks

Want to know which states are in the worst financial condition? One telling indicator that might not immediately come to mind is whether most of its citizens identify themselves as Democrats.

The five states in the worst financial condition--Illinois, New York, Connecticut, California and New Jersey--are all among the bluest of blue states. The five most fiscally fit states are more of a mix. Three--Utah, Nebraska and Texas--boast Republican majorities and two--New Hampshire and Virginia--skew Democratic. ...

Why do Democratic states appear to be struggling more than Republican ones? It comes down to stronger unions and a larger appetite for public programs, according to Kent Redfield, professor emeritus of political studies and public affairs at the University of Illinois' Center for State Policy and Leadership. ...

Of the 10 states in the worst financial condition, eight are among a total of 23 defined by Gallup as "solidly Democratic," meaning the Democrats enjoy an advantage of 10 percentage points or greater in party affiliation. These states include the ones listed above as making up the bottom five, plus Massachusetts, Ohio and Wisconsin.

There's much more at the link.

Neither Obama Nor Congress Understand Real Health Insurance

Michael Tanner of The Cato Institute hits one out of the park with this article, which appeared here:

March 1, 2010

The Case for High-Deductible Health Insurance

By Michael Tanner

If President Obama's health care summit showed anything it is that when it comes to controlling health care costs there is bipartisan agreement in favor of looking for the easy solution. Both sides dragged out the traditional villains, "fraud, waste, and abuse." There was the usual search for silver bullets. Republicans dwelled at length on medical malpractice. Democrats talked about pooling and the advantages of comparative shopping through the exchanges. Everyone was in favor of preventive care.

But both sides seem curiously unwilling to address the most important participant in the health care equation - the consumer.

Democrats appear to see consumers only as a class needing protection. Their focus is almost exclusively on government action.

Republicans at least give lip service to a consumer-focused health care system, but seem reluctant to really endorse proposals that shift more risk and responsibility to those consumers.

Perhaps that is because in the long-run, the only way to spend less on health care is to consume less health care. Someone, sometime, has to say no. But the incentives under our current health care system perversely encourage everyone to say "yes."

Essentially, we all want to live forever. This makes health care a very desirable good. At the same time, the normal restraints imposed by price are frequently lacking. Today, of every dollar spent on health care in this country, just 13 cents is paid for by the person actually consuming the goods or services. Roughly half is paid for by government, and the remainder is covered by private insurance. And, as long as someone else is paying, consumers have every reason to consume as much health care as is available.

On the other, when consumers share in the cost of their health care purchasing decisions, they are more likely to make those decisions based on price and value. Take just one example. If everyone were to receive a CT brain scan every year as part of their annual physical, we would undoubtedly discover a small number of brain cancers much earlier than we otherwise would, perhaps early enough to save the patient's life.

But given the cost of such a scan, adding it to everyone's annual physical would quickly bankrupt the nation. But, if they are spending their own money, consumers will make their own rationing decisions based on price and value. That CT scan that looked so desirable when someone else was paying, may not be so desirable if you have to pay for it yourself. The consumer himself becomes the one who says no.

Think of it this way. If every time you went to the grocery store, someone else paid 87 percent of your bill, not only would you eat a lot more steak and a lot less hamburger - but so would your dog. And food costs would go up for everyone.

The RAND Health Insurance Experiment, the largest study ever done of consumer health purchasing behavior, provides ample evidence that consumers can make informed cost-value decisions about their health care. Under the experiment, insurance deductibles were varied from zero to $1,000. Those with no out-of-pocket costs consumed substantially more health care than those who had to share in the cost of care. Yet, with a few exceptions, the effect on outcomes was minimal.

And, in the real world, we have seen far smaller increases in the cost of those services, like Lasik eye surgery or dental care, that are not generally covered by insurance, than for those procedures that are insured.

In fact, a study by Amy Finklestein of MIT suggests that nearly half of the per capita increasing health care spending is due to increased health insurance coverage.

No one is suggesting that people shouldn't have insurance. But insurance is ultimately meant to spread the risk of catastrophic events, not to simply prepay your health care. Your homeowners insurance covers you if your house burns down. It doesn't pay to mow your lawn or paint the fence.

Unfortunately, rather than getting consumers more engaged in their health care decisions, Congress appears ready to move in the other direction.

The president actually denounced high-deductible insurance and greater consumer cost sharing as "not real insurance." Both the House and Senate versions of health reform reduce co-payments and all but eliminate policies with high-deductibles. No co-payments at all are allowed for a wide variety of broadly-defined "preventive" services. The consumer share of health spending will actually decline to just ten cents of every dollar by 2019.

This all but guarantees that health care costs and spending will continue their unsustainable path. And that is a path leading to more debt, higher taxes, fewer jobs and a reduced standard of living for all Americans.

Health care reform cannot just be about giving more stuff to more people. It should be about actually "reforming" the system. That means scrapping the current bills, and crafting the type of reform that makes consumers responsible for their health care decisions.

Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and coauthor of Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It.

Epic Warning Signals Echo 1931

The "Keynesian" prescription aside, the depth of appreciation for the problem posed by mounting debt stands in stark contrast to much American reporting on the subject. The whole country is starting to resemble Illinois. What a shock.

The article, "Don't Go Wobbly On Us Now, Ben Bernanke" by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, originally appeared here, appended by vigorous and juicy comments, many of which recognize the need for governments to slash, not cut, spending, meaning, for starters, fat public sector union employees must take a haircut just like the rest of us.

Some excerpts follow:

Barack Obama's home state of Illinois is near the point of fiscal disintegration. "The state is in utter crisis," said Representative Suzie Bassi. "We are next to bankruptcy. We have a $13bn hole in a $28bn budget." ...

The Economic Policy Institute says states face a shortfall of $156bn in fiscal 2010. Most are banned by law from running deficits, so they must retrench. Washington has provided $68bn in federal aid, but that depletes the Obama stimulus package. ...

Bank loans in the US have fallen at a 14pc rate this year, caused in part by Basel III rules pushing banks to raise capital ratios.

The M3 money supply has fallen at a 5.6pc rate since September. The Fed's Monetary Multiplier dropped to an all-time low of 0.809 last week.

The contraction of eurozone bank credit to firms accelerated to 2.7pc in January, while M3 fell by a further €55bn. Japan's GDP deflator has dropped to a record low of -3pc.

These are epic warning signals, with echoes of 1931. ...

Don't go wobbly on us now, Ben. If the governments of America, Europe, and Japan are to retrench – as they must – their central banks must stay super-loose to cushion the blow.

Otherwise we will all sink into deflationary quicksand.

Follow the link for more.

America's Coming For You, Congress!

Come To Think Of It, An Even More Original "Party of No"

Do not have any other gods before me.

You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me.

You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.

You shall not murder.

You shall not commit adultery.

You shall not steal.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

On Gays in the Military

"When I joined the military it was illegal to be homosexual, then it became optional. I'm getting out before it becomes mandatory."

MSGT Harry T. Serres, USAF Ret.

h/t Theo