Immigration Ain't That Easy

I've got a window full of tabbed articles I will never have the time to write about. So you're going to get them in linked bullet points.

• First, a little bit of classic Mark Steyn. From 2003. His characterization of Democrats resonates and truly today as it did back then.

• This blogger's favorite columnist, Bret Stephens, had a piece in the latest Foreign Affairs magazine about President Obama's Middle East policy. It is fantastic, natch.

• Stephens also wrote a column about the importance of truthful history. As you can imagine, this one resonates with me.

• Public intellectual, Rush Limbaugh, wrote a piece for the WSJ wherein he defended the Tea Party movement against their media antagonists. Given liberal hysteria and hyperbole in response to AZ immigration law, this one is timely. (Mind you, I'm not saying I agree with AZ policy, just pointing out liberal hypocrisy.)

• Daniel Henninger documents the massive shift in public opinion away from Obama's vision of America and towards a more limited vision of the role of government. This shift has occurred in a very short period of time. Like, a year.

• This is the Bret Stephens show. This time he takes aim at the idea of "peace processes" which are, of course, a friggin' joke. Stephens (I think rightly) calls those who derive benefit therefrom "wicked."

• When it comes to immigration, I tend toward the WSJ line rather than the National Review one. Looks like Jonah Goldberg agrees. Also, Byron York does some good political reportage on the Arizona law particulars.

• Thomas Sowell, another favorite, on the misuse and abuse of history to serve political ends--in this instance, race and slavery.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Guy Fawkes Comes To The United States

"We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it."

We Will Remember from Republican Governors Association on Vimeo.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

"I'd Rather Be Ruled By The Tea Party Than By The Democrat Party, And I'd Rather Have Sarah Palin In The Oval Office Than Barack Obama"

I agree with Norman Podhoretz.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Post-ObamacareApocalypse: The Way Forward Weekend Edition

Taken in a vacuum, the liberal media's response to the right's response to Obamacare's passage might leave you thinking that no one before in American history has ever been so angry about so little.

They just do not get that something that will give government control over 1/6th of the American economy, expand the Nanny State, cost hundreds of billions of dollars, raise taxes, result in fewer doctors, the eventual rationing of care, reduced R&D (resulting in future lives lost), give access to medical records to a huge and whole new cadre of government bureaucrats, generally reduce liberty is something that would actually make people angry. And they say it as though they've never been angry over anything.

Well, fortunately we have Jonah Goldberg to point out their incredible hypocrisy.

On the scale of anger-to-actual-impact-of-legislation, progressives have got us angry conservatives (but I repeat myself, apparently) beat by a wide margin in their out and out hysteria over the passage of the Patriot Act. Yeah, remember that bill? It's the same one the One and the Democrats in Congress renewed this year, again.

Also, lybberty-approved (unless they are caught in some wrongdoing!) Congressmen Mike Pence and Paul Ryan had fantastic Op-Eds in the Wall Street Journal and New York Times respectively, yesterday. Give them both a read.

Stay angry, my conservative friends.

(image of 'angry conservatives' protesting the bill taken from Thinking The Wright Way)

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Post-ObamacareApocalypse: The Way Forward Thursday

7:00pm: Jonah Goldberg, one of my favorite conservative columnists and a good guy with whom to share a serving of nachos at Appleby's, writes of leftist consternation at the conservative response to the passing of Obamacare:

A lot of people on the left cannot come to grips with the conservative "overreaction" to Obamacare. I don't think it's an overreaction, and I can help liberals understand what's happening. Just consider the Patriot Act. Here was a law that affected a teeny-weeny number of people. Almost all of the horrible things it did never happened. Remember all that teeth-gnashing about searched libraries? Totally bogus.

And yet, people all over the country got their dresses over their heads about the Patriot Act. Why? Well, I would argue partly out of addlepated paranoia, ignorance, and Bush hatred. They would argue it was out of deep-seated principle. Let's compromise and say that for many, it was both, and for a few, it was all about principle.

Well, opposition to PPACA seems vastly more rational to me. By its very design it affects everyone. It costs them money. It will cost them freedom. It will cost our country money, medical innovation, and mounds of debt. It involves far, far more government intrusion into our lives than the Patriot Act. And yet, many of the same people who considered the Patriot Act an American Nuremburg Law think this is one of the greatest moments in American history.

Do you get it now, progressives, why we are so up-in-arms about this little piece of legislation? It really will cost us money, time, freedom, and innovation--which means lives. This is a bad bad bill. By the time its costs are fully calculated and comprehended(the next generation of economic historians), it may well surpass Smoot Hawley.

Like I've said, the Brits declined because the cost to support their welfare state forced withdrawal around the world. This is our future if this thing stands and expands into Euro-social welfare. American decline.

BTW, you really should subscribe to Jonah's "Goldberg File." It's a real treat.

2:28pm: Over at Hot Air, Ed Morrissey has a post up with some great quotes and video of Charles Krauthammer, doctor-genius, and Dan Mitchell, Cato Institute, warning about the coming debate about a VAT. If you don't know what a VAT is, I recommend you click the link and read the wiki entry. A VAT might be okay if it were to take the place of existing taxes like payroll taxes, but it won't be. It will be just another revenue stream for the feds to shove big government down your throat.

Meanwhile at Reason.com (free minds and free markets!) Jacob Sullum explains why this healthcare mandate is not exactly, you know, constitutional and why a legal challenge just may be successful.

There's hope yet.

Finally (for the time being), if you are pro-life and thought there was a home for you in the Democrat party, well, sorry, you're wrong. William McGurn explains how Obamacare exposes the Democrat Party as the Party of Death (also, you'll note, the title of a book by Ramesh Ponnuru).

1:37pm BST: The Dark Lord, Karl Rove, provided a good roadmap to electoral victory in his column today. I love the fact that we conservatives love this guy while leftists think he is the devil incarnate. Don't they know? This just makes us love him all the more.

Democrats claim they've rallied their left-wing base. But that base isn't big enough to carry the fall elections, particularly after the party alienated independents and seniors. The only way Democrats win a base election this year will be if opponents of this law stay home.

To keep that from happening, Republican candidates must focus on ObamaCare's weaknesses. It will cost $2.6 trillion in its first decade of operation and is built on Madoff-style financing. For example, it double counts Social Security payroll taxes, long-term care premiums, and Medicare savings in order to make it appear more fiscally responsible. In reality, ObamaCare isn't $143 billion in the black, as Democrats have claimed, but $618 billion in the red. And giving the IRS $10 billion to hire about 16,000 agents to enforce the new taxes and fees in ObamaCare will drive small business owners crazy.

Republicans have a powerful rallying cry in "repeal, replace and reform." Few voters will want to keep onerous mandates that hit individuals and taxes that hobble economic growth. Rather than spending a trillion dollars on subsidies for insurance companies and Medicaid expansion, as ObamaCare does, Republicans should push for giving individuals the same health-insurance tax break businesses get, which would cost less.

Republicans must also continue to press for curbing junk lawsuits, enabling people to buy insurance across state lines, increasing the amount of money they can sock away tax free for medical expenses, and permitting small businesses to pool risk.

Opponents of ObamaCare have decisively won the battle for public opinion. As voters start to feel the pain of this new program, Republicans will be in a stronger position if they stay in the fight, make a principled case, and lay out a competing vision.

This is as good a place as any to point out something that frequently gets forgotten.

I'm really really tired of people talking and acting as though the left wing of the Democrat party is on par with the right wing of the Republican party.

When the country breaks down 40% conservative, 40% moderate, and 20% liberal, the left wing of the Democrat party is not only a hell of a lot smaller than the right wing of the Republican party, it is a hell of a lot further from the natural ideological center of this country.

So all you self-styled post-partisan centrist moderates, who keep trying to say, "well, they're both extremes and bad" and like to pound on conservative wingers as being as "damaging" and as far out of the mainstream as liberal wingers, you're wrong.

Did anyone (besides me) happen to watch the Obamacare debate (limited, though it was) Sunday night on CSPAN? I think Dan Henninger's characterization of the Republicans and Democrats that night is spot on:

Spring renewal and baseball's new season are upon us, so let's quote the optimism of Yogi: It isn't over until it's over. I thought 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. Sunday night in Washington was the Republican Party's finest hour in a long time. When the voting stopped, the screen said the number of Republicans voting for Mr. Obama's bill was zero. Not one. Nobody.

Pristine opposition is being spun as a Republican liability. It looks to me like a Republican resurrection. The party hasn't yet discovered what it should be, but this clearly was a party discovering what it cannot be.

Put it this way: If you produce a bill that Olympia Snowe of Maine cannot vote for, you have not produced legislation "for the generations." You have not even produced legislation that is liberal. You have produced legislation from the left. You have produced once-in-a-lifetime legislation that no Republican from any constituency across America could vote for.

Watching Paul Ryan, John Boehner, and Mike Pence I was as happy with Republican leadership as I have been in a long time. Finally some backbone. Finally some principle. Finally they stood up to the Democrats and exposed them as the out-of-touch, tax and spend statists that they are. As Henninger points out, this whole debate puts liberals who aren't employed by the government in a tough spot.

Liberals in the private sector have to come to grips with the fact that what they do for a living is an abstraction to the people they are sending to Washington. Nobody at the top of the party is much interested in them anymore. House and Senate Democrats hammered insurance, pharma and medical-device makers with taxes and intimidation. It wasn't just politics. It was belief. With this bill, the party made the transition from market unionism to Alinskyism, from a politics tempered by the marketplace to one that milks the marketplace.

Count Henninger and myself among those who think "Repeal!" is a good rallying cry in the run-up to the 2010 election. First repeal the Democrats in Congress, then in 2012 the Democrat in the White House then, once he's gone, Obamacare will quickly follow him out the door.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

"America's Comeback"

I like the emphasis on state and local solutions to the problems we face.

This is the perfect answer to the Democrat Party's takeover of 1/6th of the economy through the healthcare monstrosity.

(via Hot Air)

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Sen. Tom Coburn's Message To Democrats Selling Their Healthcare Votes For A Mess Of Pottage

Especially all those fake pro-lifers--these guys, so principled.

This health care debate and vote is a perfect example of why a "bad" Republican is different and superior to a "good" Democrat.

(via Nice Deb)

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Education: More Evidence Vouchers Work

Today's WSJ op-ed has a column on the success of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program.

A report released last week by School Choice Wisconsin, an advocacy group, finds that between 2003 and 2008 students in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program had a significantly higher graduation rate than students in Milwaukee Public Schools.

"Had MPS graduation rates equalled those for MPCP students in the classes of 2003 through 2008, the number of MPS graduates would have been about 18 percent higher," writes John Robert Warren of the University of Minnesota. "That higher rate would have resulted in 3,352 more MPS graduates during the 2003-2008 years."

In 2008 the graduation rate for voucher students was 77% versus 65% for the nonvoucher students, though the latter receives $14,000 per pupil in taxpayer support, or more than double the $6,400 per pupil that voucher students receive in public funding.

The Milwaukee voucher program serves more than 21,000 children in 111 private schools, so nearly 20% more graduates mean a lot fewer kids destined for failure without the credential of a high school diploma. The finding is all the more significant because students who receive vouchers must, by law, come from low-income families, while their counterparts in public schools come from a broader range of economic backgrounds.

Expansion of vouchers and broader choice in education could literally transform this country. Students in areas with failing schools would no longer be locked into a losing future. The dynamism brought on by increased choice would bring higher graduation rates to those our current system consistently fails.

Central planners, teachers' unions, and their Democratic enablers will continue to clamor for more money for failed programs or tweaked versions of ones that have failed in the past. Vouchers and choice and increased competition in education (as in everything) would bring higher quality and lower prices and this means more children would be better educated.

Those opposed to choice in education should be ashamed.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

On Obama's 'Partisan, Condescending' State Of The Union Speech

Marc Thiessen was lead writer on President Bush's last two SOTU speeches. He offered his critique of Obama's speech at The Corner and in today's WaPo.

Listening to President Obama's speech, I could not help wondering how different this night would have been had Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's bomb not malfunctioned. Four weeks ago our country was the target of a catastrophic terrorist attack. But for the grace of God, Northwest Flight 253 would have crashed into downtown Detroit, killing thousands. Yet just a month later, it is an afterthought for this president. His only mention of the failed attack was a passing reference that he was responding with "better airline security."

Worse, the president's brief discussion of terrorism focused not on what he was doing to defend the country but was, rather, a vigorous defense of himself. His first words on the subject were a chastisement of those who would dare criticize his handling of terrorism, declaring that "all of us love this country" and warning his Republican critics to "put aside the schoolyard taunts about who is tough." It's all about him. No acknowledgement of how close we came to disaster or praise for the brave passengers who subdued the terrorist. No, only this message for his critics: If you question the wisdom of telling a captured terrorist "you have the right to remain silent," you are really questioning the president's patriotism and engaging in childish taunts.

The fact is, the American people have real concerns about Obama's approach to terrorism. They do question the wisdom of eliminating CIA interrogations, closing Guantanamo Bay, bringing the terrorists held there to this country, putting Khalid Shiekh Mohammed and his cohorts on trial in civilian courts, and giving captured terrorists Miranda rights after 50 minutes of questioning. Instead of acknowledging these concerns, Obama dismissed them. It was strange, defensive, arrogant -- and un-presidential.

I'm also bothered that Iraq & Afghanistan get such short shrift from this President. I read a lot of military blogs and try and keep on top of what's happening in those places. One of the things that comes across a lot is how frustrated members of the military are with the fact that many Americans both don't know and don't seem to care about what's happening to them wherever they are.

Part of the reason for this has got to be the complete lack of attention given to them by President Obama and the Democrat party. And this was reflected in Obama's SOTU last night.

Ps. Yes, I am also annoyed by the arrogant, lecturing tilt of his head when he speaks.

UPDATE 2:34pm GMT: If you need a palate cleanser, here's President Ronald Reagan's SOTU in 1988. (via Orin Kerr @ The Volokh Conspiracy)

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Obama's Spending Spree

Remember back when Democrats used the deficit and the rhetoric of fiscal responsibility to pound on President Bush?

Like their late-found opposition to the Iraq War and the Patriot Act (etc.), that was an act of complete intellectual dishonesty.

Behold, Obama's fiscal responsibility:

This, ladies and gentlemen, is what hypocrisy looks like.

And no, Republicans & Democrats aren't just the same.

(via DrewM @ Ace, natch)

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

'Public Service Unions Are Bleeding This Country Dry'

Daniel Henninger has the best interpretation and clearest analysis of the Scott Brown win of anyone I've read so far.

The central battle in our time is over political primacy. It is a competition between the public sector and the private sector over who defines the work and the institutions that make a nation thrive and grow.

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy planted the seeds that grew the modern Democratic Party. That year, JFK signed executive order 10988 allowing the unionization of the federal work force. This changed everything in the American political system. Kennedy's order swung open the door for the inexorable rise of a unionized public work force in many states and cities.

This in turn led to the fantastic growth in membership of the public employee unions—The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the teachers' National Education Association.

They broke the public's bank. More than that, they entrenched a system of taking money from members' dues and spending it on political campaigns. Over time, this transformed the Democratic Party into a public-sector dependency.

I strongly dislike unions. They stand in the way of free trade, choice in education, and myriad other good, liberty-oriented, market-based reforms that could improve the quality of life of everyone in the world.

I do not read the history of labor unions the same way that some people do. I do not think they ever served a useful role.

Many conservatives look at American history and, based on the what they were taught about the "robber barons" by their unionized high school teacher, think that they (unions) were an important push-back against the "exploitative" kings of capitalism.

Here's what they really did: They waged often violent battles to keep other workers (ofttimes new immigrants) out of and away from doing their jobs for cheaper or better and forced their wages up, which in turn raised the costs of everything produced from, for example, steel.

Teachers' unions are to blame for the poor state of American education. Public unions are to blame for the spiraling-out-of-control budgets in states from California to New York.

And because they contribute so much to Democrat Party campaigns, they get special exceptions to rules all the rest of us have to follow.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

24 November Links Round-Up

David Colley writes in the NYT (h/t Scott L.) that Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower missed an opportunity to end WWII early.

What he doesn't point out is that if Allied armies had pushed further, faster, into Germany and other Nazi occupied parts, they might have changed the course of the Cold War too.

Meanwhile in this week's Global View, Bret Stephens makes some scary comparisons between President Obama and Jimmy Carter. We should be so fortunate to have a one & done from Obama.

The WSJ's Review & Outlook editorial examines the revealing emails written by climate scientist-hacks in England and other parts and draws the obvious conclusions--that scientists are not a-political and they have an agenda.

And finally, William McGurn writes about my favorite Democrat, Joe Lieberman. Senator Lieberman stood tall on Iraq, and won re-election in 2006 against a Democrat & a Republican as an Independent. And now he's standing tall against Obamacare--specifically the public option.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Want To Lower Healthcare Costs, Thereby Making Insurance More Affordable For Everyone? Try Tort Reform

From the WSJ:

Never mind that reducing medical lawsuits is a rare reform provision that really would reduce health-care costs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the savings at $54 billion over a decade. Consulting firm Tillinghast Towers-Perrin has suggested the direct cost of medical tort litigation is more like $30 billion annually. PriceWaterhouseCoopers estimates that last year $240 billion in health expenditures were the result of doctors ordering unnecessary procedures to protect against the risk of lawsuits.

This is another one of those things President Obama said he would do & didn't. As in, he said he would introduce tort reform as one piece of his overall healthcare reform, but the legislation leaving the House includes, per the article above, a proviso that will actually undermine existing state tort law.

I get it. I really do. Obama and his Democrat friends are just paying back one of their biggest campaign cash cows--trial lawyers.

Kind of like with Card Check and the Unions.

And cap & trade and the Climate-Industrial Complex.

And I don't even really blame my friends in the legal profession who are opposed to tort reform. I understand that by opposing any check on their ability to litigate, they are only acting in their self interest.

Don't blame Obama, Democrats, & trial lawyers, blame the system.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

There Is An Alternative To Obamacare

Several, actually.

Republicans have done more this summer than just take pot shots at the economy-reorganizing plans coming out of Democrat controlled committees.

From the Chicago Tribune (h/t Scott L.), hardly a bastion of conservative, Republican-friendly commentary:

Over the summer and fall, Republicans in the House and Senate have introduced six -- yes, six -- health care reform proposals. You didn't hear? Well, those plans didn't produce much of a ripple because Democrats dominate the Congress.

We don't agree with everything in these bills. But the GOP proposals contain smart ideas to increase choice and competition in the health insurance market -- a powerful Republican counterpoint to the Democrats' expensive plans. The ideas include:

--Let insurers sell policies across state lines. That would loosen the strangling state-by-state regulations and unleash competition to drive premium prices down.

--Give people who buy insurance in the private market the same tax breaks as those who get it through employers. Now, employers that offer coverage get a tax break on the premiums they pay for employees. And employees don't pay taxes on the value of the coverage they receive. People who want to buy insurance in the individual market should get the same tax breaks. That would help millions of people acquire coverage.

--Expand the ability of small businesses, trade associations and other groups to set up insurance pools to offer coverage at more attractive rates.

--Control health costs in part by reining in the medical malpractice system that raises insurance premiums and forces doctors to order tests to protect themselves from lawsuits. Limiting certain kinds of damage awards would reduce spending on health care by about $11 billion in 2009, or about one-half of 1 percent, the Congressional Budget Office estimates. Think about that in human terms: Reform would save millions of patients the expense and trauma of unnecessary tests and procedures.

These excellent ideas could expand coverage for the uninsured without cratering the federal budget or curbing the competition and innovation that drive the U.S. health care system. Republicans should keep pushing them -- and ruling Democrats need to give them a full and fair hearing.

Look, if leftist Democrats' real goal were to insure health care for the 5% of the US population that remains uninsured and to lower the costs for the remaining 95%, they would at least consider the Republican plans.

But it's patently not their goal.

Some of them, maybe, are open to conservative, non-socialist solutions.

A few more don't care about the relative efficiency of the system or the inherence loss of liberty in a government-run plan.

The ones who really bother me are those who want more power and more control over their fellow Americans. These are the ones to whom I frequently refer whose condescending attitude knows no bounds.

They think they know better. Yet, they willfully ignore the lessons of the failure of the command & control economies of the 20th century (USSR, &c.). For these leftists, the plan always failed because the right people weren't in control or because the plan just needed to be tweaked or given more money.

But that's the problem with these grand social plans: The right people don't exist and eventually you run out of other people's money.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Harry Reid's Nuts 5

A report on the contraction, not the possessive.

"What'd he do this time," you may be asking yourself. Oh, pick a fight with his hometown newspaper when he's already trailing 2 no-name Republicans in the most recent polling of his Senate race next year.

The WSJ Political Diary's John Fund has the story:

Majority Leader Harry Reid meant to make some news at last week's Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce luncheon, but not the kind that subsequently filled the local media.

Mr. Reid came to the forum to reveal his plans on the Senate health care debate. He told the business leaders he would give bipartisanship a two-week trial period after the Senate returns on September 8. If Republicans refuse to pass a bill, Mr. Reid pledged to use "reconciliation," a set of budget rules that would allow him to muscle government-run health care through with a bare majority rather than the 60 votes required to beat a filibuster.

His speech didn't sit well with many members, who questioned if the reordering of one-seventh of the nation's economy should be done by turning Senate rules into a pretzel. But the real explosion came when his home state's largest newspaper, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, accused Mr. Reid of using "bully threats" against the paper in his speech and in private remarks to one of the paper's executives.

Sherman Frederick, publisher of the Review-Journal, says that before Mr. Reid's speech last Wednesday, Mr. Reid in a receiving line met the paper's director of advertising, Bob Brown, and bluntly told him: "I hope you go out of business." Mr. Brown says he was flummoxed because while his paper's editorials have been critical of Mr. Reid's voting record, the paper's advertising director has nothing to do with its opinion pages.

But Mr. Reid wasn't finished. In his public speech, Mr. Reid told the audience that the only reason he wanted the Review-Journal to continue selling any ads was that the more liberal Las Vegas Sun was delivered as a supplement inside it.

Mr. Frederick, the paper's publisher, responded in a column on Sunday. He said he always thought that Mr. Reid "was elected to office to protect Nevadans, not sound like he's shaking them down. . . . I can only imagine how he pressures businesses and individuals who don't have the wherewithal of the Review-Journal." The column then laid down what amounted to a declaration of war from the paper: "We won't allow you to bully us. And if you try it with anyone else, count on going through us first. It's a promise to our readers, not to you, Sen. Reid."

No doubt Mr. Reid didn't intend to stir up such a ruckus, and it's entirely possible Mr. Frederick is exaggerating what the notoriously ill-tempered and peevish Mr. Reid really was trying to convey. But on the other hand, Mr. Reid isn't either apologizing or explaining away his remarks.

Mr. Reid already trails two largely unknown Republicans in published polls in his re-election battle next year. The last thing he needs is a newspaper that's convinced itself that either he goes or its economic independence is in jeopardy.

That Senator Reid has risen to become Democratic Senate Majority leader is, I think, a sad commentary on the state of the Democrat party.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Democrats Don't Want Health Care Reform, They Want Socialized Medicine

And nothing else will do.

According to health care economists (h/t Matt L.), 90% of Americans are insured. Of the remaining 10%, better than 25% are young & healthy and feel no need to subsidize the health care costs of the old & sick and thus, go uninsured. Shall we force them?

About another 25% of the remaining 10% are of sufficient means that they feel they are able to burden the risk of going uninsured and pay for their own care. Shall we take away their liberty?

Roughly 25% more are illegal aliens. Um, yeah.

The remaining 25% of the 10% of Americans who are uninsured are financially or medically (pre-existing conditions, etc.) or some combination thereof, unable to get insurance.

Democrats want to scrap the whole system--the best system in the world--to cover about 2.5% of the population.

There are better, cheaper ways to enable these people to get access to health care. And contrary to Obama, Reid, Pelosi & co., Republicans have made a number of proposals which would make health care cheaper & better for everyone.

To wit, Jim DeMint on ABC's "This Week" with George Stephanopolous:

Republicans, including me, have introduced lots of health care reform proposals. I introduced a tax equity, which would allow people to deduct the cost of their health insurance. The president and Senator Conrad voted against it. I had a proposal that would allow people to buy health insurance in any state, not just a single state monopoly. The president and the Democrats voted it down. I had a proposal that would allow individuals to use their health savings account to pay for a premium. They voted it down. They even voted against allowing small businesses to come together and buy their health insurance . . . . So, George, what we've seen is that Republicans do want reform that will make health insurance more affordable and available. But the only proposals we're getting from Democrats is more government control of health care.

[emphasis added]

The point, for Democrats, is not about finding a way to make health care cheaper & better for Americans, it is about putting everyone into a scheme over which they, in their infinite wisdom, have complete control.

(see also Cap & Trade)

via Political Diary

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

The Democrat Party: Bought & Paid For By Wall Street

I know, I know, as opposed to all the other special interests that own that party. (subscription required)

The Republicans’ loss of Wall Street magnifies an ancient fissure in the party, a conservative contradiction: the misalignment of incentives between the party’s free-enterprise wing and its entrenched business interests.

“The problem with socialism is socialism,” Willi Schlamm famously observed. “The problem with capitalism is capitalists.” From Wall Street to Detroit, businessmen have had at best a marriage of convenience with free-market principles, a fact that often puts the Republican party in the impossible position of mediating between philosophical purists and parochial business interests that profit from expansive government, protectionism, and regulations that smother competition. Republicans have long thought of themselves as the party of Big Business and free enterprise but, as Wall Street sends its money and votes to Democrats and snuggles up in an ever-cozier relationship with the government, Republicans face the choice of being the party of Big Business or the party of free enterprise — the party of capitalists or the party of capitalism.

The Democrats have already decided which party they are. Which is to say, the Democrats have figured out that they can keep Wall Street in their coalition by offering them easygoing social liberalism, a few sweet tax breaks, and good access to government revenue streams. Republicans are not above the same deal-cutting and back-scratching, obviously, but they have a knottier coalitional contradiction to resolve: The capitalists don’t want capitalism, and neither do a lot of mid-American social conservatives. Even as Reagan talked about the miracle of the invisible hand, the blue-collar social conservatives who put him in office indulged in a near-paranoid loathing of Japan — an economic phobia that is still very much alive in Republican heartland attitudes toward trade with China and India. George W. Bush talked up free trade — except on steel, sugar, and most agricultural commodities. The Republicans’ philosophy is informed by free-market idealists who celebrate the wonders of Schumpeterian “creative destruction,” but the guys flying business class would much rather sink into a nice warm bailout and let capitalism creatively destroy somebody else’s money — the taxpayers’ money, for instance. The bankers are the last guys who want free markets right now, and so it’s no surprise to find them writing big checks to the Democrats. But against all evidence, Republicans remain the party of Wall Street in the public imagination.

Obvious & easy jabs at Democrats aside, this is an interesting quandary for the Republican party.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Milwaukee School Vouchers: Democrat Party Kowtows To Another Special Interest

I know lots of teachers. Many of my friends are teachers. They know I am a friend to good teachers everywhere.

I am also, however, an enemy of unions generally and teachers' unions specifically. Their goal is not the improvement of education, but the guarantee of employment and ever-increasing pay and benefits for all teachers, regardless of performance. Additionally, these folks see their union positions as opportunity to exert political influence.

Brendan Miniter called school choice "the new Civil Rights struggle." Indeed, it is. Given the disintegration of low-income families--especially minority families--school choice and the opportunities a good education affords may be the best chance many of these children have.

Democrats and teachers' unions want to kill every voucher, scholarship, school choice program they can. They already did away with the one in Washington DC--a program that helped thousands of low-income students avoid failing schools. Milwaukee's wildly successful voucher program is next on their list.

At the National Press Club last week, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said that he opposed school choice: “Let me explain why. Vouchers usually serve 1 to 2 percent of the children in a community. . . . But I don’t want to save 1 or 2 percent of children and let 98, 99 percent down.” It was a bizarre statement: Why not simply let more than 1 or 2 percent enjoy the benefits of school choice? In Milwaukee, they actually do. It’s the largest urban school-choice program in the country, dwarfing the size of the one in Washington, D.C., whose de-funding by congressional Democrats has drawn so much criticism. Roughly one in five of Milwaukee’s school-age children receive vouchers. All of them must fall below an income threshold. Researchers say that the program is beginning to show systemic effects. In other words, it doesn’t merely help its participants. It also gives a lift to non-voucher students because the pressure of competition has forced public schools to improve.

The principle is choice--liberty, really--applied to education. When I speak to union-enthusiast teaching friends of mine, they talk endlessly about some new initiative or program that will make public education better.

The point of adding choice and competition to education is that these things will introduce the flexibility and incentive into education that will empower teachers and administrators and parents and students to find the education that best suits them.

One-size-fits-all public education doesn't achieve the egalitarian utopia in which its adherents believe, it holds the smart kids back and leaves those who need extra or specialized attention behind.

If the Democrat party really were, as it says, "for the children," it would resist the influence of campaign contributions from teachers' unions and wholeheartedly endorse choice in education.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

'A Heroic Climb': Goldberg & Steyn On The GOP

Continuing the theme from last week, here are a couple of good articles on the state of the Republican party & conservatism generally. I probably just should have referred you all to these pieces in the first part rather than rambling on myself. Oh well.

First, Jonah Goldberg:

The mainstream perception that conservatives are close-minded and dogmatic while liberals are open-minded and free-thinking has it almost exactly backward. Liberal dogma is settled: The government should do good, where it can, whenever it can. That is President Obama’s idea of pragmatism and bipartisanship: He’s open to all ideas, from either side of the aisle, about how best to expand government and get the state more involved in our lives. Meanwhile, conservatism’s dogma remains forever in flux. We constantly debate the trade-offs between freedom and virtue, the conflicts between liberty and order.

Yup. Conservatives are the dogmatic ones. But wait, there's more:

Also, partisans like to believe that whenever their guy wins, it’s because their ideas have been ratified by the American people, and whenever the other guy loses, they pronounce that the American people have resoundingly rejected this or that idea. Sometimes this is obviously true, but not nearly as often as we like to think. Obama, after all, promised over and over that his administration would provide a “net spending cut.” How’s that going?

When you repeatedly state during your campaign that you want to "cut taxes for 95% of Americans," is that really a mandate to govern as an extreme liberal?

Mark Steyn writes about everything that interests me and does so in the exact manner I would do it--if only I were as witty:

the GOP’s tent has many poles: It has social conservatives, libertarians, fiscal conservatives, national-security hawks. These groups do not always agree: The so-cons resent the libertarians’ insouciance on gay marriage and abortion. The libertarians don’t get the warhawks’ obsession with thankless nation-building in Islamist hellholes. A lot of the hawks can’t see why the fiscal cons are so hung up on footling matters like bloated government spending at a time of war. It requires a lot of effort to align these various poles sufficiently to hold up the big tent. And by the 2006 electoral cycle, between the money-no-object Congress at home and a war that seemed to have dwindled down to an endless, half-hearted, semi-colonial policing operation, the GOP poles were tilting badly. The Republican coalition is like a permanent loveless marriage: There are bad times and worse times. And, while social conservatism and libertarianism can be principled to a fault, the vagaries of electoral politics mean they often wind up being represented in office by either unprincipled opportunists like Arlen Specter or unprincipled squishes like Lincoln Chafee.

In the Democrat party....

Meanwhile, over in the other tent, they celebrate diversity with ruthless singlemindedness: In the Democrats’ parade, whatever your bugbear, government is the answer. Government is the means, government is the end, government is the whole magilla. That gives them a unity of purpose the GOP can never match.

Once the Democrats are ensconced in government glory, the infinity sided caged deathmatch of lobbying, favor giving, spoils dividing, etc., etc., takes place the & winners--as happens when the Democrat party gets its way--are chosen by the government. We've already seen some of this--ACORN payoffs in the 2010 census, the liberal grab bag that was the spendulous, er, stimulus, the Orwellianly-named "Employee Free Choice Act" (Orwellian because it aims to do exactly the opposite of what the name implies), and will continue with the cap & trade that will no doubt put money in the pockets of "green" people (not martians) who helped get Obama elected. Ditto healthcare.

One last quote from Steyn on Colin Powell:

Consider this cooing profile of Secretary Powell from Todd Purdum in the New York Times back in 2002: “Mr. Powell’s approach to almost all issues — foreign or domestic — is pragmatic and nonideological. He is internationalist, multilateralist and moderate. He has supported abortion rights and affirmative action.”

So supporting “internationalism,” “multilateralism,” abortion, and racial quotas means you’re “moderate” and “nonideological”? And anyone who feels differently is an extreme ideologue? Absolutely. The aim of a large swathe of the Left is not to win the debate but to get it canceled before it starts. You can do that in any number of ways: busting up campus appearances by conservatives, “hate speech” prohibitions, activist judges’ more imaginative court decisions, or merely, as the Times does, by declaring your side of every issue to be the “moderate” and “nonideological” position — even when, in many cases, the “extreme” position is supported by a majority of voters. Likewise, to Colin Powell, it’s Ann Coulter who’s “vicious,” not Michael Moore, who compares the jihadists who blow up Western troops in Iraq to America’s Minutemen and gets rewarded with a seat next to Jimmy Carter in the presidential box at the Democratic convention.

Steyn has got some great recommendations on the way forward..... but you're going to have to click the link & read the article to find out.

I'll give you one hint: He's a Happy Warrior; he's optimistic about our chances.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

The Marginalization Of The Republican Party & Other Poppycock

The MSM continues to spin the Specter defection & too many supposedly smart people continue to believe them.

Once again, the problem with the Republican party is not that it has become or is becoming too right-wing, too conservative, too rigid, too doctrinaire, and therefore unpalatable to most Americans. The solution to what ails Republicans is not to become more liberal.

Some interesting info from former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum's latest column highlights all of this:

According to Specter and a herd of commentators - many in The Inquirer's pages - the senator's switcheroo is proof of far more than Specter's brute survival instinct; it's proof that the Republican Party is narrow and rigid.

Keep spinning. The fact is that, prior to the stimulus vote, conservative former Rep. Pat Toomey was telling supporters that the chances he would challenge Specter in the 2010 Republican primary were 50-50 at best. The Senate's most liberal Republican would have been the heavy favorite to win the nomination again.

So now we're to understand that Specter has left the small-tent GOP for the broad-minded, tolerant Democratic Party? Alas, voting records tell a different story.

According to the American Conservative Union, in 2008, only two of the 51 Senate Democrats had conservative ratings above 25 percent. But 21 of the 49 Republican senators had conservative ratings of 75 percent or less. Furthermore, 12 Democrats had a conservative rating of zero, while an additional 25 scored under 10 percent. By contrast, only one Republican scored a perfect 100, and a scant seven others scored above 90 percent. (Note that Pennsylvania's other "moderate" senator has a conservative rating of 8 percent.)

Which party has greater ideological diversity? Sorry, but the facts just don't fit the media's fantasy.

I spent 12 years in the Senate. It has one doctrinaire, narrow, intolerant caucus, and Specter just joined it.

The Democratic caucus is a reflection of the leftist special interests that control the Democrat Party. From 1994 to 2004, those interests supported liberal candidates who were too far out of the mainstream to win in competitive states and districts. They regained power in Pennsylvania and elsewhere because Democratic candidates ran as moderates or conservatives, and Republicans abandoned the principled positions that had helped them win.

The public can tell when it's being conned, so it chose to throw out the party that had lost its way. The result: the most hard-left Congress in U.S. history (see previously mentioned ratings).

(emphasis added)

Sorry, Republican-nay-sayers, the facts do not fit your narrative. Republicans did not get tossed out on their ears because they were too conservative or too rigidly right-wing. The fact that Republicans aren't the majority party is not because they supposedly became hostile to moderates & centrists.

The Republican party is far more centrist & moderate in its makeup than the Democrat party. This isn't even debatable. The Republican party is home to more diversity of opinion on all of the controversial questions that divide Americans.

For every pro-life Democrat, I'll find you two pro-choice Republicans. For every traditional marriage Democrat, I'll find you two gay marriage Republicans. For every hawkish Democrat, I'll find you two dovish Republicans. I could do this all day.

I don't point this out as a badge of honor. Sure, I like the healthy debate in the Republican party, but I wish the conservative viewpoint on any given issue would win out more consistently. I think Republicans would still be a majority party if they were more consistently conservative.

I only do this to point out that all the things of which pundits accuse Republicans & blame for their downfall--of all these things, the Democrats are guilty.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.