Yesterday, House Republicans rejected a motion by Minority Leader John Boehner and new Minority Whip Eric Cantor to enact a short-term earmark moratorium only through February 16.  Unwilling to give up their pork just for three short months, Republicans can hardly try to pin the Big Spenders label on Dems, like they did earlier this […]

In this week’s US News and World Report, Grover Norquist babbles on under the title “Conservatives Will Rise Again” about how this has all been seen before (after Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush). After each defeat, conservatism was declared dead. Norquist believes it is only a matter of time before Americans again tire of big-government Democrats and their collectivist schemes and conservatism begins to rise again.

James Pethokoukis, on the other hand, thinks that if certain things come to pass, conservatism may indeed be dead. Interestingly he thinks that a particular Obama nomination may be the harbinger of that death - Tom Daschle:

He’ll be the guy shepherding President Barack Obama’s healthcare plan through Congress via his probable role as secretary of health and human services. At the core of Daschle’s thinking on the subject is the creation of a “Federal Health Board that would resemble our current Federal Reserve Board” and ensure “harmonization across public programs of health-care protocols, benefits, and transparency.” … And the subject of that “harmonization” would be a $100 billion to $150 billion a year plan that would let individuals (and small businesses) buy insurance from private companies or from a government plan.

The upcoming recession ends up being an opportunity instead of a problem for the targeting of health care reform under government auspices. That’s because, as Pethakoukus opines, shaken Americans are going to be looking toward any program that will give them some modicum of economic security. And it isn’t like struggling businesses wouldn’t love to shed the cost of paying for and administering health care as well. Apparently, the insurance companies are seeing the handwriting on the wall too:

The industry’s trade organization now says it would accept new rules requiring them to cover pre-existing conditions as long as there was a universal mandate for all Americans to have health insurance. On top of all that, Obama clearly wants to make healthcare reform a priority in his first term, as evidenced by the selection of a heavy hitter like Daschle. And even if he wasn’t interested, Congress sure is, with Max Baucus and Ted Kennedy readying a plan in the Senate.

The result of such a shift in the health care world as it pertains to government involvement? Two almost irreversable things would happen:

1) Passage would be a political gamechanger.

2) Shrinking government would get exponentially tougher.

Addressing the first bullet, it would be the tipping point.

Again, even after seeing the results elsewhere, conservatives (and Republicans) were unable to articulate a compelling narrative to point out why allowing government to involve itself in healthcare was both dangerous and not in the best interests of the public at large.

So if Democrats are able to actually pass their plan into law, the resulting sea-change will be such that, as Pethokoukis says, it is a “gamechanger”. Norman Markowitz describes how passage of National Health Care changed the UK forever - and few will argue, for the better:

“After the Labor Party established the National Health Service after World War II, supposedly conservative workers and low-income people under religious and other influences who tended to support the Conservatives were much more likely to vote for the Labor Party when health care, social welfare, education and pro-working class policies were enacted by labor-supported governments.”

The obvious point is that once the change is made, you’re staring bullet number two right in the face. The chance of ever shrinking government again, is mostly right out of the window (and the Republicans chance as a party, to ever get the opportunity, may be as well).

Republicans would face the same problem with healthcare that they currently do with Social Security, persuading people to trade one in the hand (the current system) for two in the bush (a reformed system) … And remember that fewer and fewer people are paying the incomes taxes that would help pay for increased government services. That breakage of the linkage between taxes and government “benefits” creates toxic incentives for more of both ? and an economy more shackled than ever by taxes, debt, and regulation.

It seems a bit silly to argue we can overcome this lurch to the left, given the experience of the rest of the world in this regard. As Pethokoukis points out, Social Security is an abysmal savings/retirement system, is technically a Ponzi scheme and is insolvent to boot but the chances of ’reforming’ it are slim and none. Just as we’ve learned from the financial crisis we’re now undergoing, government rarely reacts to such things until the problem has collapsed around its ears, and it then rides to the rescue claiming everything and everyone not connected with government are at fault for the failure.

There is an answer to the health care insurance problem which I’ve talked about for years and the McCain campaign tried but failed to successfully put forward during the presidential campaign:

… [H]is plan would have smartly reduced healthcare costs by getting companies out of the healthcare benefits business and empowering individuals to buy insurance on their own. This would have helped fix what economist Arnold Kling calls the insurance vs. insulation problem: “Insulation relieves the patient of the stress of making decisions about treatment. The patient also does not have to worry about shopping around for the best price. The problem with insulation is that it is not a sustainable form of healthcare finance.”

In other words, just like every other insurance instrument in the world, you’d buy it, tailored to your needs, on a national market (and within a national pool) and forever eliminate portability as a problem.

But that is a more free market approach which helps preserve your liberty - and that is decidedly not where we are headed.

The question is, can we ever get back that part of our liberty?

We’re heading into at least a recession, this it the current picture, and we have a promise of an increase by the incoming administration:

You’ll notice what all the other entities listed have done in the intervening years. So, tell me again why US companies facing that future would want to stay here (and yes you’re right - the so-called “Republican Congress” could have cut them during this time and didn’t)?

[HT: High Plains Blogger]

Here’s a survival tip for you urban types, in case you find yourself forced to sleep in bear country without a dog to alert you and a rifle to protect yourself: you can define a reasonably protected perimeter—mark your territory if you will—and keep Teddy at bay by peeing around your campsite.

Here’s a caveat: it only works with male pee. While it saves our fair ladies the embarrassment of performing the duck-and-crawl routine around the tent, it means you’ll either have to be a male or carry one with you.

Here’s an extra tip: do not, under any circumstance, combine that strategy with this piece of gear. Consequences could be dire if nature calls for an extra layer of protection in the middle of the night.

Here’s another caveat: it only seems to work on bears and has no noticeable effect on other calamities, such as Socialists, bureaucrats and other tax collection agents.

Having said that, I’ll risk the bet that your Liberal neighbor might feel less inclined to come at your fence and gloat over President-elect B Hussein Obama once he’s witnessed you (or your hubby) taking a leak around the yard in broad daylight.

Might be worth a try.

[ Members have access to a larger selection of RSS feeds, including single language ones. Membership is free. Information here ]

Remember this?

In 1985, government officials claimed that Boston’s “Big Dig” highway project would cost $2.6 billion and be completed by 1998. The cost ballooned to $14.6 billion and the project is still not finished.

In 1988, Medicare’s new home health-care benefit was projected to cost $4 billion by 1993; the actual 1993 cost was $10 billion.

Why does this always happen? Back in 2002 a study took a look at that:

A study by Danish economists published in the Journal of the American Planning Assn. last year looked at 258 government projects in the U.S. and abroad. They found that cost overruns stem from government deceit, not honest errors.

Nine out of 10 projects in their sample had cost overruns, with an average overrun of 28%. The study concluded that intentional deception by public officials was the source of the problem: “Project promoters routinely ignore, hide or otherwise leave out important project costs and risks in order to make total costs appear low.” Politicians use “salami tactics” whereby costs are revealed to taxpayers one slice at a time in the hope that the project is too far along to turn back when true costs are revealed.

Another problem with federal spending is that the states compete with each other to secure federal dollars and are prone to exaggerate project benefits and minimize costs. When cost overruns occur, state officials seek to cover up poor contractor performance to conceal their own bad oversight.

Now, fast forward to today and Obama’s health care promises. He promised everyone would see their health care premiums cut by $2,500. Remember?

John Merline takes a look at those promises in today’s USA Today. And what he finds isn’t encouraging - however it does conform with what those Danish economists found a few years back. Part of the savings (200 billion a year) will supposedly come from injecting more information technology into the system:

The $2,500 figure comes from an estimate by unpaid Harvard University advisers to Obama’s campaign. They calculated that if you inject more information technology (IT) into health care, manage diseases better and cut extraneous paperwork, you could save about $200 billion a year in health spending ? or about $2,500 off the average family’s health insurance bill.

Obama’s advisers figure that more IT would save $77 billion, based on a report from the RAND Corp., a prominent research organization. Makes sense. After all, IT saves money in the private sector by improving efficiency. But when the Congressional Budget Office looked at the RAND report, it found serious problems, including that researchers had excluded studies, even those published in peer-reviewed journals, “that failed to find favorable results” from adding more IT in health care.

Meantime, a comprehensive look at ways to cut health care costs by the independent Commonwealth Fund pegged annual savings from IT at just $29 billion ? and not until 2017.

So IT isn’t going to save us as much as projected and when it does save us some money, if it does, it won’t be until 2017.

But wait, there’s more:

Obama’s experts also claim that $46 billion a year could be saved by cutting administrative overhead. Anyone who has come in contact with the health care system knows it’s paperwork heavy. Administrative costs today eat up about 14% of benefits.

Even so, whether Obama’s health plan, which also adds multiple layers of regulation on the insurance industry, will cut that paperwork load is debatable. Increased government intrusion into private markets rarely, if ever, cuts paperwork costs.

The point? Every “savings” plan politicians put forward claim they’ll reap the benefits of cutting administrative costs. But we’re talking about increasing the government bureaucracy and intrusion when government involves itself more deeply in health care. That has never brought greater administrative efficiency or lower cost.

The rest of Obama’s savings ? $81 billion ? come from efforts aimed at improving disease management, care coordination and the like. Such savings are possible, but making them a reality will be difficult.

The best example of this is the fact that free pre-natal care is available throughout the US, yet we still suffer from a large number of low birth weight babies because those without insurance (and many with insurance) don’t avail themselves of the service. Perhaps an intensive media campaign to educate the public will change that, but usually Americans don’t go to the doctor unless they need too - and that’s especially true of younger Americans.

So, what are we really looking at?

Even if Obama did save all this money, he’d still be hard-pressed to deliver those premium cuts, because other parts of his plan would almost certainly drive up costs.

Simply expanding insurance coverage, which is the main goal of Obama’s plan, would boost spending. A study published in the journal Health Affairs calculates that covering all the uninsured would increase the amount they spend on health care by $122.6 billion a year because people with insurance buy more health care.

Absent some form of price controls, this sharp increase in demand for medical service would push up costs for everyone.

Costs go up for everyone? Price controls?

Any guess which an Obama administration would do? Any guess at the unintended consequences?

Last but not least:

Obama also proposes to end the insurance industry’s practice of restricting coverage based on pre-existing conditions. But a study by actuarial Milliman Inc. found that when several states implemented “guaranteed issue” ? the formal name for Obama’s reform ? insurance premiums rose.

See Hawaii. See Tennessee.

Again, we’re going to see the Danish economist’s study validated. And the coming health care debacle is going to make the “Big Dig” look like the most efficient and cost effective project the government ever has ever undertaken.

If you believe Sunday’s state and local elections will be free and fair election, then, according to some, Chavez could see a bit of a set-back:

According to the latest polls, the government of Hugo Chavez, the outspoken anti-US president, may lose up to a third of the states ? undermining any attempts to push forward a major constitutional reform again to allow Mr Chavez to seek re- election in 2012, a measure voters narrowly rejected last year.

“Beware, Chavez’s destiny is even at play,” he said at a rally this week in his increasingly desperate quest to turn the elections into a plebiscite on his rule.

Of course since he’s ruled as a populist, it makes perfect sense to make a populist appeal. According to some polls, Chavez maintains a 60% popularity level (although I’d guess some of those polled might be reluctant to claim anything else), but the opposition to his rule has been growing over the last few years. Unfortunately, as the article points out, the opposition isn’t united and has put some pretty “shady” and “unpopular” candidates in some key states.

I’m a bit skeptical given the control Chavez has gained over the whole electoral process since coming to power. Nevertheless, it will be quite interesting to see the results of these elections come Monday.

Proponents of funneling another twenty-five to fifty billion of taxpayer dollars to the failing U.S. auto industry justify their support by carping about potential job losses that would follow Chapter 11 filings.  Thankfully, people like Dartmouth associate dean and professor Matthew Slaughter understand that a short-sighted bailout would be far more harmful to our economy long-term, likely result […]

Here’s a survival tip for you urban types, in case you find yourself forced to sleep in bear country without a dog to alert you and a rifle to protect yourself: you can define a reasonably protected perimeter—mark your territory if you will—and keep Teddy at bay by peeing around your campsite.

Here’s a caveat: it only works with male pee. While it saves our fair ladies the embarrassment of performing the duck-and-crawl routine around the tent, it means you’ll either have to be a male or carry one with you.

Here’s an extra tip: do not, under any circumstance, combine that strategy with this piece of gear. Consequences could be dire if nature calls for an extra layer of protection in the middle of the night.

Here’s another caveat: it only seems to work on bears and has no noticeable effect on other calamities, such as Socialists, bureaucrats and other tax collection agents.

Having said that, I’ll risk the bet that your Liberal neighbor might feel less inclined to come at your fence and gloat over President-elect B Hussein Obama once he’s witnessed you (or your hubby) taking a leak around the yard in broad daylight.

Might be worth a try.

[ Members have access to a larger selection of RSS feeds, including single language ones. Membership is free. Information here ]

Don’t you dare to utter something which might offend another or you’re in for a visit from “student facilitators”.

Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario is enacting some rules to control speech. As with all of these rules, they’re arbitrary, addressing only that speech which is found “offensive” to groups presently enjoying cultural favor - at the moment.

A sampling of some behaviour that could warrant attention from university-appointed student facilitators, tasked with policing students’ offensive language at Queen’s:

If a student uses the phrase “That’s so gay” in conversation.

If a student calls someone or something “retarded.”

If a student writes a homophobic, racist or other derogatory remark in a public space, such as on a residence poster or classmate’s door.

If a student avoids a classmate’s birthday party for faith-based reasons.

Most of us would call “university-appointed student facilitators” the “language police” in the real world. But the college campus rarely reflects the real world. And, dominated by the left, each seems to try to create it’s own utopia by controlling more and more aspects of a student’s life.

Imagine - you can’t “avoid a classmate’s birthday party for faith-based reasons.”

Says who and by what right? Hmmm.

Of course these highly trained facilitators will certainly handle this with skill and aplomb. They’ve had an “intensive” 11 course you see.

If that’s not Orwellian enough how about this?

But Mr. Laker said the new “intergroup dialogue program” focuses on respectful, non-confrontational discussions that don’t impede freedoms.

I sometimes wonder if people like Mr. Laker every really think about what they say. How can monitoring speech and stepping in to “facilitate” conversations which will essentially stifle it not “impede freedoms”?

Whatever happened to “I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”?

Apparently, given their “human rights commissions”, that doesn’t apply in Canada.

This young attorney will go far in her career.

I’m not sure if the following is more indicative of the economic climate, or of the ridiculous things that qualify as art these days. Either way, Mr. Thorne seems to have discovered a “creative” way to keep bill collectors at bay:

From: Jane Gilles
Date: Wednesday 8 Oct 2008 12.19pm
To: David Thorne
Subject: Overdue account

Dear David,
Our records indicate that your account is overdue by the amount of $233.95. If you have already made this payment please contact us within the next 7 days to confirm payment has been applied to your account and is no longer outstanding.

Yours sincerely, Jane Gilles

From: David Thorne
Date: Wednesday 8 Oct 2008 12.37pm
To: Jane Gilles
Subject: Re: Overdue account

Dear Jane,
I do not have any money so am sending you this drawing I did of a spider instead. I value the drawing at $233.95 so trust that this settles the matter.

Regards, David.

From: Jane Gilles
Date: Thursday 9 Oct 2008 10.07am
To: David Thorne
Subject: Overdue account

Dear David,
Thankyou for contacting us. Unfortunately we are unable to accept drawings as payment and your account remains in arrears of $233.95. Please contact us within the next 7 days to confirm payment has been applied to your account and is no longer outstanding.

Yours sincerely, Jane Gilles

From: David Thorne
Date: Thursday 9 Oct 2008 10.32am
To: Jane Gilles
Subject: Re: Overdue account

Dear Jane,
Can I have my drawing of a spider back then please.

Regards, David.

From: Jane Gilles
Date: Thursday 9 Oct 2008 11.42am
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Overdue account

Dear David,
You emailed the drawing to me. Do you want me to email it back to you?

Yours sincerely, Jane Gilles

From: David Thorne
Date: Thursday 9 Oct 2008 11.56am
To: Jane Gilles
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Overdue account

Dear Jane,

Yes please.

Regards, David.

From: Jane Gilles
Date: Thursday 9 Oct 2008 12.14pm
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Overdue account

Attached

From: David Thorne
Date: Friday 10 Oct 2008 09.22am
To: Jane Gilles
Subject: Whose spider is that?

Dear Jane,
Are you sure this drawing of a spider is the one I sent you? This spider only has seven legs and I do not feel I would have made such an elementary mistake when I drew it.

Regards, David.

From: Jane Gilles
Date: Friday 10 Oct 2008 11.03am
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Whose spider is that?

Dear David,
Yes it is the same drawing. I copied and pasted it from the email you sent me on the 8th. David your account is still overdue by the amount of $233.95. Please make this payment as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely, Jane Gilles

From: David Thorne
Date: Friday 10 Oct 2008 11.05am
To: Jane Gilles
Subject: Automated Out of Office Response

Thankyou for contacting me. I am currently away on leave, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Regards, David.

From: David Thorne
Date: Friday 10 Oct 2008 11.08am
To: Jane Gilles
Subject: Re: Re: Whose spider is that?

Hello, I am back and have read through your emails and accept that despite missing a leg, that drawing of a spider may indeed be the one I sent you. I realise with hindsight that it is possible you rejected the drawing of a spider due to this obvious limb ommission but did not point it out in an effort to avoid hurting my feelings. As such, I am sending you a revised drawing with the correct number of legs as full payment for any amount outstanding. I trust this will bring the matter to a conclusion.

Regards, David.

From: Jane Gilles
Date: Monday 13 Oct 2008 2.51pm
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Whose spider is that?

Dear David,
As I have stated, we do not accept drawings in lei of money for accounts outstanding. We accept cheque, bank cheque, money order or cash. Please make a payment this week to avoid incurring any additional fees.

Yours sincerely, Jane Gilles

From: David Thorne
Date: Monday 13 Oct 2008 3.17pm
To: Jane Gilles
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whose spider is that?

I understand and will definately make a payment this week if I remember. As you have not accepted my second drawing as payment, please return the drawing to me as soon as possible. It was silly of me to assume I could provide you with something of completely no value whatsoever, waste your time and then attach such a large amount to it.

Regards, David.

From: Jane Gilles
Date: Tuesday 14 Oct 2008 11.18am
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whose spider is that?

Attached

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has an important decision to make. He can either continue the Republican Party’s policy of offering slightly less government than the Democrats. Or, he can decide to bring in a conservative reformer into a key position on the powerful Senate Finance Committee.
Conservative star Jim DeMint of South Carolina has announced […]

?A Better Country: Why America Was Right To Confront Iraq?. Arthur Borden, 88 pages, Hamilton Books, 2008.

Arthur Borden is a Democrat, World War II veteran and attorney, who, in 2002, became appalled at the opposition his party was mounting to the looming war in Iraq. He started the book, ?A Better Country? back then and over the years closely monitored and documented the evidence and arguments pertaining to our entry into the war as well as the ensuing years.

Unsurprisingly, much of what was said and presented by Democrats during that time both shocked and saddened him. He believes part of the problem dates back to the cultural divide that established itself during the Vietnam War and continues to this day. That, coupled with the belief that Democrats were unjustly denied the presidency in 2000, has combined to create hatred for George W Bush and ?Bush?s War? that is almost pathological. Borden found the unrelenting and untoward criticism by Democrats of President Bush to be not only unjustified but in many cases irresponsible.

Written in the compact style of a lawyer, Borden lays out a compelling case for the war in Iraq being a necessary one. Reaching back to the Carter doctrine, he ably argues that Bush?s actions, and President Clinton?s, were simply extensions of this well-known doctrine. Jimmy Carter declared that the free flow of oil was critical to our nation and its economic survival and we, as a country, would do what is necessary to ensure it. Every president since Carter has honored and enforced that doctrine.

The middle of the book is where Borden delves into the various charges and accusations leveled against George W Bush and his administration by the Democratic opposition. He addresses the fact that WMD weren?t found and why that isn?t a particularly strong argument in opposition to the war.

He outlines the containment argument and discusses why that wasn?t a valid for Iraq. Borden also talks about the various other claims that those in opposition to the war used to attack Bush - the claim the administration addressed Iraq as an ?imminent threat?; the assertion that war supporters believed there was a link between al Qaeda, Iraq and 9/11; the aluminum tubes and yellow cake ?lie? and the general charge that Bush ?lied? to get us into war. For readers of this blog, those questions have all been examined and rejected. But with Borden?s book, they?re all included within its pages, extensively documented and well argued.

In the last portion of the book, Borden addresses all of the various and sundry attempts by the Democratic opposition to delegitimize the war. It is the most important part of the book in my opinion. His analysis of the Democrat?s opposition to the war and their conduct is invaluable in understanding how destructive it has been. It would be an understatement to conclude Borden found their conduct to be less than becoming. In fact, he found it shameful.

As a historical counterpoint, Borden relates the story of Wendell Willkie, the Republican nominee for president who ran against FDR in 1940 and refused to exploit the war during the campaign. After losing Willkie stepped forward and backed the president as he prepared the nation for war. While Willkie upheld the opposition?s right to ?criticize the policies of the government?, he said that meant being ?a vigorous, loyal and public-spirited party? and not one that would ?fall into the partisan error of opposing things just for the sake of opposition?.

In the case of the Iraq war, as Borden documents, Democrats committed the partisan error Willkie warned against, to their everlasting shame. For the most part, they have not been the ?loyal opposition?.

The book is highly recommended to those who are tired of having to accept the conventional wisdom that has been crafted over the years and want something solid with which to fire back. Arthur Borden?s ?A Better Country? delivers the necessary ammo.

Just hide and watch. They don’t want the failure of a major industry to happen as the Obama administration takes office:

It’s really up to Bush’s team to act, he said.

“I don’t believe we need the legislation,” Reid said. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson can tap the financial industry bailout money to help auto companies, Reid said, but “he just doesn’t want to do it.”

Not our responsibility, countered the White House.

“If Congress leaves for a two-month vacation without having addressed this important issue … then the Congress will bear responsibility for anything that happens in the next couple of months during their long vacation,” said Dana Perino, the White House press secretary.

She said there was “no appetite” in the administration for using the financial industry bailout money to help auto companies.

For those who want the bailout, there are two options immediately available. One - use a portion of the $700 billion already passed by Congress. Two - the $25 billion fuel-efficiency fund already set aside by Congress to help auto makers switch to vehicles that burn less gasoline.

Republicans are against option one. Democrats are against option two - at least at the moment.

Various Democrats are trying to work a deal where the fuel-efficiency fund would be immediately be replenished in the next Congress. Additionally others are looking at a scaled down 5-8 billion dollar package to help auto makers survive the end of the year (the implicit assurance there is there’d be more to come after they got rid of the pesky Republican administration).

My sense is they’re going to get something. In good times, the Democrats would have a very tough time with their own members passing something like this. However with all the hopeychangitude euphoria, they don’t want a downer like the car industry crashing and millions being put out of work (which, of course is the absolute worst case scenario and unlikely, but precisely how it is going to be presented) just as the Obama administration comes into power.

They’ll find some way to ignore or skirt their own laws and bail these dinosaur industries out - or should I say, prop them up. Bankruptcy, reorganization and the birth of a new, restructured and profitable domestic auto industry is the key. Instead, we’re going to get the hopeychangitude auto industry that will continue to bleed red and ask for handouts while holding union jobs as ransom against a Democratic government.