So if I were Barack Obama...

What's the harm in calling McCain's bluff?

First of all, I don't think the responsible thing to do is to rush through some half-baked "aid" package which will increase the national debt by hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars. I work on the general assumption that neither McCain or Obama trusts the free market enough to let it sort itself out. I'll grant that most of the nation doesn't either.

McCain has tied the credibility of his campaign to the urgent (by definition rushed and poorly considered) passage of a bailout plan - ANY bailout plan. Well, more of an idea really, than a plan. He's reacting to a developing economic crisis as if it's part of the 24-hour news cycle. This isn't a media event that will be forgotten in a week. It needs to be carefully considered as though it will impact the largest economy in the world for the next ten years. And if it demands a response, then we should be very careful that the impacts of the response aren't deeper and longer-lasting than the original problem. You know, like the precedent of nationalizing large swaths of the financial sector.

But what if there wasn't a trillion dollar boondoggle solution before the election? How would that play out? There are only two ways that could happen, and both require large numbers of our congressmen to act more like statesmen, and less like politicians.

One would be for congressional republicans to recognize the value of waiting to more carefully consider any action until after the election. Perhaps a modest and narrowly focused aid bill in the short-term as a goodwill demonstration, with the promise to review the matter more fully when more facts are known. If enough democrats signed on to that idea, it could gain some momentum. Most importantly, it could allow a more carefully considered solution without anyone in congress feeling as though they had a gun to their head. McCain would be free then to declare his goal acheived and resume his campaign. Realistically, I think the majority party has enough leverage to prevent this from happening, and to force the congressional republicans to accept a broad, pork-filled package, stuffed to the gills with over-regulation.

The other possibility for a delayed financial package would be that congressional democrats would delay any bill themselves. They, too, could claim the wisdom of delaying action until more facts are known. They could follow John McCain's lead by holding hearings to show the nation how serious they are about getting to the bottom of the mess. They could abandon their own campaigns to call witness after witness to demonstrate how the rich have caused this problem, but it's the middle class Americans who are suffering for it. They could save the last five weeks worth of campaign funds and continue to add to their lead in public opinion polls, guaranteeing a continued lock on both houses of Congress. And John McCain's campaign would be faced with the no-win choice of sitting the campaign out to demonstrate his non-partisan concern for the economy or abandoning Senate deliberations he stressed the importance of in order to return to his campaign.

The right thing to do is not to react too quickly, and John McCain has unfortunately failed this test.

Really didn't want to talk about politics.

But I just couldn't resist.

I just can't help but be amazed at how FREAKED OUT the media are about McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate.

It's pretty much common knowledge now that just about the entire media establishment is in the tank for Obama. Maybe subconsciously, somewhere deep in the reptilian part of their brains, they have some fuzzy awareness that Obama's most excellent quality - his ability to speechify - might not be enough to carry him through to victory in November.

But her candidacy obviously scares them, or they wouldn't be offering up so many objections to her candidacy:

• Won't have time to care for her (too large) family and (special needs) baby. Never mind that Obama has a family of his own, and is running for a much more demanding job.
  
• Not experienced enough, or old enough. Of course, she's only a couple years younger than Obama, and as has been noted elsewhere, she has been governor of Alaska, which has a 40 billion dollar economy.
  
• Wasn't really vetted by the McCain campaign. Supposedly, this is because they were surprised by the news of her daughter's pregnancy, but somehow I think they would have brought that charge in any event after being surprised by her pick.
• Not even a very good parent, letting her teenage daughter get pregnant.
  

I think they've got a number of reasons for being so afraid of her. The popular assumption is that she'll carry the disgruntled Hillary voters (and that most of those voters women, and are only disgruntled because they won't get to pull the lever for a woman in November). It's a pretty shallow assumption of people, that they vote only based on how many things a candidate has physically in common with them: gender, skin color, what kind of adult beverage they drink, or what kind of car they drive. There may be a small percentage out there who will vote for another woman just because she's a woman (and maybe that will make the difference in another close election year). But I think Obama and his adoring fans in the MSM have much more to fear from Sarah Palin than her chromosomes.

Obviously, she gives McCain a way to connect with the conservative base of the republican party. Pro-life - and lives it. Also, it will be very hard for them to tar her with an anti-gay brush, when she's come out with essentially the same position Obama has. Also, it's going to be very hard for them to debate her without it looking like they're beating up on a girl.

But the biggest thing, in my mind, is that she's running against the supposed candidate of Hope and Change. Change, I get - sort of. Still struggling with the hope thing. But that could be a whole other post, and this one's already getting long. Anyway, he picks as his running mate a six-term senator who's never held a non-government job, and has been in Washington since January 1972. Palin has worked in and has experience owning a private business, and has never worked in Washington.

Change? Where? Oh wait, it looks like it just blew in from Alaska.

The Republicans in Congress haven't done a lot right in the last six years

But they did this much, at least.

Power Line: SCHIP veto override fails in House

Why don't we just tax the poor and give it to the middle class?

If a republican came up with that gem of an idea, he'd get the kind of press that... republicans usually get. But when a democratic congress comes up with it, they're courageous for standing up for the underprivileged. Yeah, right.

S-CHIP is the supposedly state-funded children's health insurance program. But the fact is it's supported very heavily by the federal government, and - I believe - administered by the states. The program is used to pay for health care for children whose families are above the poverty level but still have trouble buying insurance. The program has been around since 1997, and was authorized by Congress then as a 10-year program. But it's a program designed to make the states - and the citizens - increasingly dependent on Washington.

States receive a 2:1 (or better) match in federal funds for every dollar spent, encouraging them to spend the maximum in fat years and making it extremely painful to cut in lean years. This is a reasonable compromise for most people, when you consider two details:

• S-CHIP is capped by law, unlike Medicaid
  
• The program is meant to protect those left outside the safety net of Medicaid. Currently limited to children in families making 2x the federal poverty level
  

I don't mean to oversimplify. There's plenty to make everyone uncomfortable with the existing S-CHIP program. And certain provisions are just a joke. But the bill the President vetoed would raise the cap which makes the program palatable and expand the program beyond the group for whom it was intended. There's no doubt that this is the opening legislative salvo in the democrats' war for universal health coverage, and President Bush was right to take a stand here - for a host of reasons.

First, the bill more than doubles the federal budget for the program over ten years, to $60 billion. At the same time, it raises the income cap to 4x the federal poverty level, which would make a family of 4 making $82,500 eligible for government assistance.

That's not even the kicker. The plan is to add a 61-cent tax to a pack of cigarettes to pay for the increase, and the cost of that tax will be disproportionately borne by the poor. So the idea here - as I understand it - is to expand the program by making it available to people who are less needy and by raising taxes on the poor. I guess you can justify anything with the phrase "but it's for the children".

So a veto for this bill is exactly what it deserved as a matter of good fiscal policy and good politics. But as I said earlier, this is just the opening salvo in the war. The House vote was 15 republican votes short of overriding the veto, virtually guaranteeing that it will die - in which case the spin will be that the evil republicans killed a bill to give health care to people who don't have it, regardless of the details. And they will take that spin straight into the election season. If enough republicans cave to the pressure to pass the bill, then the narrative will be that The People overwhelmingly want government-provided health care, without regard for cost or quality.

Now is the time for the leading republican presidential candidates to begin laying down their specific plans as to how health care can be reformed without nationalizing more of it or over-regulating it. If they're not ready to do that, they might as well save their campaign money for 2012.

My personal favorite suggestion:

So Nancy Pelosi apparently has asked people to submit alternative neutral connotation words which could be substituted for earmarks.

Over at Captains Quarters, Ed Morrissey held a poll to determine the best word to convey the meaning, though something tells me Madam Speaker wouldn't have liked any of the alternatives the CQ readers had put forward.

The winner was Congressional Resource Allocation Protection (CRAP), but my vote went to Timely House Endorsed Payments Hidden from Taxpayers (THEPHT).

So just in case you're interested...

Congress is trying to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine (which ended by Presidential veto in 1987) this week. Why? Maybe because they're in the majority again and can't figure out how to compete economically with the strength of conservative talk radio.

On the face of it, that's bad enough. But the thing many people have found alarming is that there was an attempt to apply the rule to bloggers above a certain level of readership. So what's the big deal, right?

According to wikipedia, in 1969:

Although similar laws had been deemed unconstitutional when applied to newspapers, the Court ruled that radio stations could be regulated in this way because of the limited nature of the public airwave spectrum.

Is the blogosphere more limited than newspapers? On the contrary, most anyone who can use a computer can start a blog, and people are open to comment on whatever they wish. As long as the Fairness Doctrine remains a liberal fantasy, that is. So would that make the Fairness Doctrine supportive of the First Amendment or would it be more restrictive of our rights? You be the judge.

So as I said, there was an attempt to apply a resurrected Fairness Doctrine to bloggers. How did the vote go? The results are here. But how was the split?

Yea (favoring the amendment to scuttle the inclusion of bloggers) 55 (48 R, 7 D)
Nay (opposing the amendment) 43 (43 D, 2 Ind.)

So, which one would be the party of individual rights? And stepping on those rights helps whom? Just checking.

H/T: The Liberty Papers

Michael J Fox isn't the only celebrity with an opinion

And not all opinionated celebrities agree with each other.

When it comes to stem cell research, maybe people will give Fox's opinion more weight due to his illness. I have sympathy for the guy, but his situation doesn't change whether the the relative value of adult versus embryonic stem cell research.

The truth is that I'm not convinced whether one is more promising than the other. I also remain unconvinced that embryonic stem would be worth harvesting embryos, even if we were certain of the benefits. Even if the benefits were beyond our wildest dreams.

The other thing which disturbs me is the idea that somehow when a celebrity (any celebrity) enters the political arena as a spokesperson for a candidate or an issue they are somehow above the fray. It's late enough in the political season that I tend to sigh or groan almost anytime I hear a poltical ad, because I've heard the ads once, twice, three dozen times in just the last week and I'm aware of the spinning and the truth stretching and the attempts at damage control. Like everybody else, I get tired of the spin from all the candidates.

But celebrities aren't above the kind of behavior that makes the average citizen sour on politics. From Fox's ad for Claire McCaskill:

"Unfortunately Senator Jim Talent opposes expanding stem cell research," Fox claims. "Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us a chance for hope."

According to Lifenews:

Though the ad makes it appear Talent opposes all kinds of stem cell research, he has voted in favor of spending millions in federal funds for adult stem cell research, the only kind of research that has ever cured a single patient.

What Talent has opposed is forcing taxpayers to pay for studies using embryonic stem cells, which can only be obtained by destroying human life.

H/T: Michelle Malkin

That's disappointing...

And I'm in Ohio.

Eric Florack reports that the House Majority Leader is John Boehner. via Fox News

Tag: politics

An Appeal from Center-Right Bloggers

From N.Z. Bear.:

We are bloggers with boatloads of opinions, and none of us come close to agreeing with any other one of us all of the time. But we do agree on this: The new leadership in the House of Representatives needs to be thoroughly and transparently free of the taint of the Jack Abramoff scandals, and beyond that, of undue influence of K Street.

We are not naive about lobbying, and we know it can and has in fact advanced crucial issues and has often served to inform rather than simply influence Members.

But we are certain that the public is disgusted with excess and with privilege. We hope the Hastert-Dreier effort leads to sweeping reforms including the end of subsidized travel and other obvious influence operations. Just as importantly, we call for major changes to increase openness, transparency and accountability in Congressional operations and in the appropriations process.

As for the Republican leadership elections, we hope to see more candidates who will support these goals, and we therefore welcome the entry of Congressman John Shadegg to the race for Majority Leader. We hope every Congressman who is committed to ethical and transparent conduct supports a reform agenda and a reform candidate. And we hope all would-be members of the leadership make themselves available to new media to answer questions now and on a regular basis in the future.

Sign me on.

Tag: Politics

Surprise!

Saint Marcy joined most of her party to support the first amendment!

Well, that would be a surprise, but it's not what happenned.

Tags: politics, First Amendment

Well now that's done.

Harriet Miers has been withdrawn as nominee for the SC. Rightly so.

Looks like Charles Krauthammer was right. Powerline has the scoop, and Captain Ed has commentary.

Previously blogged here: here. Tags: Miers, politics

Porkbusting, V

As I wrote a week ago, I've written to all of my representatives in Congress regarding the need for fiscal responsibility in our nation's capital. Last week I got a response from Senator DeWine. Today I received a reply from my congresswoman, Marcy Kaptur (D, OH-9).

Anyone want to guess what form that reply took? Well, it came by snail mail, and it was neatly typed on her Congressional letterhead (which we paid for). If her correspondence had been intended to score style points, she would have won big. Since my interest was in fiscal responsibility, an e-mailed response would have been fine.

Fine, that is, if it had actually responded to the content of my remarks. From her first paragraph:

...The suggestions that I have received from my constituents are very valuable, and I am passing them on to the proper authorities.

As her letterhead so proudly proclaims, she sits on the House Appropriations Committee. If she isn't the proper authority, then who the heck is?

The second paragraph is mainly informative, on the appropriations bills already passed to provide assistance to victims of Katrina, along with a suggestion to check back at her website for more information on how to help those affected.

The third and fourth paragraph, though, are where she truly shines. They take up more than half the letter, and cover two main topics:

• mishandling of the disaster response by DHS and FEMA
• "unwarranted" higher energy prices, which she believes merit an investigation by the Attorney General and Federal Trade Commission

Never mind the content of those two items. She's right about the first one, the disaster was managed poorly by FEMA (which is part of DHS). Congress has the oversight responsibility to see that those mistakes are avoided in the future. Replacing the FEMA director was part of that. It came off as a big attempt to blame the administration in response to an e-mail (from me) which wasn't asking for any blame.

On the second item, energy prices, I disagree vehemently with her position but am not a whit surprised at the content of her statement - only the context. I didn't ask about gas prices or FEMA. I asked what she would propose we do to cut unnecessary spending to offset the costs of recovery in the South. From her completely off-topic response, it's clear to me her office didn't even bother to read my e-mail. Perhaps she thought I'd be so happy to get official congressional stationary that I wouldn't notice that her letter was filled with self-righteous finger-pointing instead of an honest interest in her constituent's input.

That's what you get when the same person has been in office for 20+ years and hasn't ever faced a challenger who could come within 30 points of her.

Update 10/31: I support the Fiscal Watch Team Offset Package. link



Tag: pork

Porkbusting, IV

So it has now been roughly four weeks since I contacted both Sen. DeWine, Sen. Voinovich, and Congresswoman Kaptur regarding the need for fiscal responsibility. I got an automatic response back from DeWine within about two days, saying he appreciated my input and that he'd like some time to look into my questions before responding.

Late this afternoon I received an e-mail back from his office which was cordial but didn't really answer the specific points I addressed. I had mentioned specific pork in my district, and asked:

If you do not agree that these programs are less important than either our obligation to those affected by Hurricane Katrina OR our budget deficit, then perhaps you could suggest another program which could be delayed or cancelled to help accommodate relief and rebuilding efforts.

In our church, we have no obligation to pass a balanced budget for the year (though we try). We also have no legal obligation to spend less than we receive in offering in a given year. However, when we see that there will be a shortfall, in our church as in our homes, we delay spending on items which are not necessary. It is frustrating beyond words that a majority of our elected representatives can not agree to do the same. Please consider what action you would be willing to take to reduce the looming increase in the deficit.

I don't know what is more frustrating: that in thirty days only one of my representatives has bothered to respond at all, or that it took him thirty days to completely avoid answering the question. The text of the response he sent is reprinted below in total (emphasis is mine):

Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns with the costs of the relief efforts in the Gulf states following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I appreciate knowing your views on this issue.

As you know, the combined force of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita resulted in one of the largest national disasters in our Nation. I am committed to providing the full amount necessary for a comprehensive recovery effort that meets the short- and long-term needs of the Gulf region and its residents. I agree that as stewards of your taxpayer dollars, Congress must take steps to manage relief funding efforts in a fiscally responsible manner. I also feel that it is important that we have a team of inspectors general to evaluate all funding provided for the relief effort to make sure that the money is spent wisely and efficiently.

In addition, I am extremely proud of the National Guard troops, government workers, Red Cross volunteers, and citizens who have generously provided their assistance in the rescue and recovery efforts. I commend their efforts and keep all of the victims and their families in my thoughts and prayers.

Again, thank you for contacting me. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me anytime.

The thing is while he believes "Congress must takes steps to manage relief funding efforts in a fiscally responsible manner", he didn't say what sort of steps he would endorse. He said only that there should be a watchdog group "to make sure that the money is spent wisely and efficiently". Only an idiot would disagree with that. The man took 30 days to completely ignore the specifics of my request. Why would I expect anything better?

Update: To give DeWine the benefit of the doubt, he did vote in favor of Sen. Coburn's Amendment No. 2165 to kill the bridge.

• Jon Henke writes that one problem with our system is that it rewards tax cuts and spending.


• John Hinderaker covers the defeat (82-15) of Senator Coburn's attempt to kill the Bridge to Nowhere (Ketchikan, Alaska).

My other posts on this topic are here, here, and here.

Tag: pork

What's in it for the maverick?

Ramesh Ponnuru notes on the Corner, that John McCain has endorsed Ken Blackwell for Ohio governor in 2006. Blackwell's site mentions a list of other politicos who've also endorsed him, including Zell Miller and Steve Forbes.

Blackwell was instrumental in Bush's campaign here in the Buckeye State, and it's a sure bet McCain is looking to secure his support for 2008.

Tag: politics

Porkbusting, III

I got an e-mail yesterday from the office of Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) with some additional options (aside from cutting pork) to offset the cost of rebuilding the areas affected by Katrina. I'm not personally that knowledgeable about Senator Coburn, but a quick google gives some good MSM references. He appears to be conservative and a budget hawk.

At any rate, since the e-mail was more or less a press release, and I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere else, here's the gist:

Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK), Jim DeMint (R-SC), John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John Ensign (R-NV), and John Sununu (R-NH) announced at a press conference earlier today that they plan to produce a legislative proposal to find savings and called on the president to work with Congress to help those in need without passing the fiscal burden on to future generations.

Savings Options Compared to Congressional Budget Office Baseline Estimates

Significant savings can be found if the federal government curbs its lavish spending habits. The following table shows the differences, in billions of dollars, between the August 2005 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) "baseline" spending estimates and different spending scenarios.

Option	1-Year Cum. Savings	2-Year Cum. Savings	5-Year Cum. Savings
Freeze non-defense, non-homeland security discretionary spending at 2005 level for next 5 years.	$17.3	$37.5	$138.1
Reduce non-defense, non-homeland security discretionary spending by 5% for one year and maintain that level thereafter.	$38.9	$80.7	$246.1

There's more in the file, and I'd be happy to pass it along if you e-mail me.

Update 9/26: Contacted Senator Coburn's office, and found there isn't currently a copy of the document hosted anywhere else, so I'm reposting the bits I liked below.

Examples of Wasteful Washington Spending
The following examples of wasteful spending were uncovered by the Senate subcommittee on federal financial management, chaired by Senator Tom Coburn.

At least $45 billion each year is being wasted in improper payments by the federal government and that amount only covers a limited number of federal agencies. If the 3.9% rate of known improper payments is applied to the entire federal government, elimination of these improper payments could save taxpayers at least $100 billion each year.

The General Services Administration, the chief procurement agency for the entire federal government, charges middle-man fees of almost $20 billion to purchase $66 billion worth of goods and services for the government. That equals a middle-man fee of nearly 30%, even though the private sector usually charges less than 5% for the same services.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the nations accounting watchdog, has seen cost overruns of $47 million on its building projects. The SECs building project costs, estimated to total $22 million, have instead tripled to $69 million.

The U.S. Agency on International Development spent less than 10% of its $90 million malaria budget to purchase products that treat or prevent malaria. The agency spent less than 1% of its malaria budget on drugs to prevent or treat a curable disease that is the leading killer of children in Africa.

SAVINGS OPTIONS

Freeze non-defense, non-homeland security discretionary spending at FY2005 level for the next five years.

• 1-YEAR SAVINGS: $17 billion
• 2-YEAR SAVINGS: $38 billion
• 5-YEAR SAVINGS: 138 billion

Reduce non-defense, non-homeland security discretionary spending by 5% for one year and maintain that spending level thereafter.

• 1-YEAR SAVINGS: $39 billion
• 2-YEAR SAVINGS: $81 billion
• 5-YEAR SAVINGS: 246 billion

Implement the February 2005 Office of Management and Budget proposal to reduce or eliminatespending in over 150 federal programs.

• 1-YEAR SAVINGS: $15 billion
• 5-YEAR SAVINGS: $77 billion

Reduce or eliminate "pork projects" and earmarks from the highway bill

• 5-YEAR SAVINGS: $24 billion

Tags:Pork

Porkbusting, II

VOA News - Republicans Suggest Spending Cuts To Offset Katrina Costs

That speaks for itself. The article doesn't say which Republicans, except that they are members of Congress, and that they definitely do not include Tom DeLay.

See my original post and the Porkbusting home page here.

Update: Instapundit reports Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana is leading an effort to have spending cuts offset the cost of rebuilding.

   According to WISH-TV in Indianapolis, some Democrats are asking for tax increases to offset the cost. Haven't seen any names attached to that yet, but some Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, at least, are outdoing some Republicans (like DeLay and Alaska's Don Young).

Technorati tags:Pork

Porkbusting

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit, has put forward the challenge to the blogging comunity to come up with a list of congressional pork which could be cut to fund the Katrina relief effort. Lets just say I'm happy to do my part. Took me all of 5 minutes to find this local gem.

1. The first item is local - mostly intra-city - public transportation.


2. The second item includes $2 million to rehabilitate a bridge which crosses the river into downtown Toledo. Not that the bridge doesn't need it, but why is that not the city's responsibility? It's not really clear from her press release or the final version of the bill what the remaining 6.4 million was for.


3. The third item listed on her press release is reconstructing a major highway interchange, at a cost of $2.4 million, but it appears to have been increased to $5 million by the time the bill cleared the Senate.


4. The last item is for a safety upgrade to US 24, which has been overburdened with traffic due to poor management of the Ohio Turnpike (I-80) by the turnpike commission.

I'll accept the need for federal funding to support the infrastructure that faciiltates interstate commerce. Why does the city of Toledo need federal funding to rebuild a city-owned bridge? Are you happy about paying for it?

How about TARTA? Most people in Toledo don't ride TARTA buses, let alone the rest of Congresswoman Kaptur's district. Let alone the rest of the country!

Bottom line: I could understand an argument that some of that money should come from the federal government. But I'd like to see Congresswoman Kaptur and Senators Voinovich and DeWine argue that the money would be better spent here than in NOLA. Total pork from NW Ohio: up to $17.9 million.

Update: Well, since posting this, I've gotten a brief hit from senate.gov. Hopefully some senate staffer has read this and passed it along. The idea is definitely getting some inside-the-beltway attention.

Technorati tags:Pork

Nuclear Option

The NY Times has a story up now, saying senate Democrats are frustrated over Roberts' confirmation hearings and unsure how to vote.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the New York Democrat whose vote will be among the most closely watched in the Senate because of her possible White House bid in 2008, agreed.

"I have found it is very difficult for Democrats to influence this White House on anything, and so I don't count on them paying attention to our legitimate concerns," Mrs. Clinton said, adding, "They will do what they think is in their interest, however they define it."

I think they've still got a tiny sense of what's in their best interest, but it sure would be entertaining to watch them try to filibuster.

It's really sad that this has become about picking a justice who will give the kind of decisions they agree with, rather than someone who understands their duty to interpret the law with respect to the Constitution.

Technorati tags: Politics, SCOTUS, Roberts