Tag: Barack Obama

Co-ops: A ‘Public Option’ By Another Name

Politico reports that the so-called “public option” provision could be dropped from the highly controversial health care bill currently being debated throughout the country:

President Barack Obama and his top aides are signaling that they’re prepared to drop a government insurance option from a final health-reform deal if that’s what’s needed to strike a compromise on Obama’s top legislative priority…. Obama and his aides continue to emphasize having some competitor to private insurers, perhaps nonprofit insurance cooperatives, but they are using stronger language to downplay the importance that it be a government plan.

As I have said before, establishing health insurance co-operatives is a poor alternative to the public option plan. Opponents of a government takeover of the health care system should not be fooled.

Government-run health care is government-run health care no matter what you call it.

The health care “co-op” approach now embraced by the Obama administration will still give the federal government control over one-sixth of the U.S. economy, with a government-appointed board, taxpayer funding, and with bureaucrats setting premiums, benefits, and operating rules.

Plus, it won’t be a true co-op, like rural electrical co-ops or your local health-food store — owned and controlled by its workers and the people who use its services. Under the government plan, the members wouldn’t choose its officers — the president would.

The real issue has never been the “public option” on its own. The issue is whether the government will take over the U.S. health care system, controlling many of our most important, personal, and private decisions. Even without a public option, the bills in Congress would make Americans pay higher taxes and higher premiums, while government bureaucrats determine what insurance benefits they must have and, ultimately, what care they can receive.

Obamacare was a bad idea with an explicit “public option.” It is still a bad idea without one.

Brainstorming for (Your) Dollars

The Wall Street Journal reports [$]:

President Barack Obama’s health-care plan is in jeopardy because of serious concerns that costs will spin out of control. As much as anyone, it’s White House budget director Peter Orszag’s job to save it…

After his TV appearances, he went straight to the Senate Finance Committee, where he spent three hours with committee aides brainstorming about how to pay for the trillion-dollar legislation. At one point, they flipped through the tax code, looking for ideas.

Note, of course, that finding new sources of tax revenue doesn’t do anything about cost concerns. But for those “fiscal conservatives” who worry more about the deficit than about the government ending up with all our money, new revenue to match new spending may alleviate their concerns. (By the way, this WSJ article also has interesting vignettes about Orszag’s encounters with libertarian writer Virginia Postrel and my former colleague Andrew Biggs.)

For a review of some of the ideas Orszag and his friends have found as they flipped through the tax code — such a charming metaphor for the reality of the ruling class looking for opportunities to extract more of the money we earn — click here.

Race to the Takeover

With the federal takeover of health care stalled, President Obama was able to enjoy a little feeling of success today at an event celebrating the “Race to the Top Fund,” a $4.35 billion kitty of education money created under the economic “stimulus” law. Not much actually happened today — the draft state application for fund dollars was released — but that was enough to produce a full-on, Department of Education dog-and-pony show topped off with a speech by the president. The administration even had a bit of a media blitz leading up to the show, with numerous articles appearing in major papers, a Washington Post op-ed by Secretary Duncan, and the president participating in a lengthy Post interview.

Unfortunately, there’s nothing about the Race to the Top Fund actually worth celebrating. Despite rhetoric by the president about “evidence-based policymaking” and promises that “politics won’t come into play” with fund money, this is just another escalation of politicized, destructive, federal education interference. It pours more taxpayer ducats into the edu-abyss, and with new data-collection requirements and money for national (read: federal) standards and tests, further tightens Washington’s grip on our schools. And don’t expect any of this to translate into better outcomes: The people employed by government schools, who have the greatest incentive and ability to control education policy, will still be calling the shots in a soon-to-be even tighter monopoly. Heck, just ask American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten and National Education Association president Dennis Van Roekel. Both were in attendance at today’s big event, and both were singled out for praise by Secretary Duncan and President Obama.

The race to the federal takeover just keeps getting faster.

55% Duties on Chinese Tires Would Be Plain Stupid in Every Respect

Last month, I posted about the upcoming decision confronting President Obama on the question of whether or not he should impose trade restrictions (55% duties) on passenger tires from China, as recommended by the U.S. International Trade Commission.

I am in the process of finishing a short paper on the issue, explaining why doing so would be disastrous for the economy and foreign relations, but am taking a break to share this brilliant op-ed that appeared in today’s Detroit News. Ross Kogel, Jr., president of Tire Wholesalers, really hits the nail on the head, articulately and succinctly, explaining that there is no upside, only misery, in the proposed tariffs.

Michigan could sure use several more Ross Kogel and far fewer of the business-as-usual pols and union leaders who have run the state into the abyss.

Topics:

Mandate for Taxes?

The New York Times reports that House Democrats want to raise money for health care with a $550 billion tax hike on people who produce the most wealth. The Times says,

the proposal is perhaps the clearest expression yet of the mandate that Democrats believe they won last November, when voters expanded Democratic majorities in Congress and sent Barack Obama to the White House.

If Democrats think they won a mandate for huge tax increases – without talking about them – then 2010 ought to be fun.

Yet Another Imperial Outpost in Pakistan

Visit an American embassy almost anywhere in the world and it is likely to be a large, hulking, ugly fortress.  Both size and security are dictated by the U.S. government’s seeming attempt to be dictatress of the world.  Following the biblical principle that God is aware whenever a sparrow falls to earth, Washington wants to be consulted whenever a country adjusts a local education ordinance.

Very often the U.S. government keeps busy propping up unpopular regimes and intervening in internal political disputes.  As a result, Americans are targeted by demonstrators and terrorists alike.  Our embassies need to be large to accommodate all of the officials who are busy micro-managing the local society and fortified to protect those same officials.

The result isn’t particularly good for America’s image.  And it is expensive. 

Consider the taxpayer tab for new and expanded facilities in Pakistan.  Reports the Christian Science Monitor:

The US is embarking on a $1 billion crash program to expand its diplomatic presence in Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan, another sign that the Obama administration is making a costly, long-term commitment to war-torn South Asia, US officials said Wednesday.

The White House has asked Congress for – and seems likely to receive – $736 million to build a new US embassy in Islamabad, along with permanent housing for US government civilians and new office space in the Pakistani capital.

The scale of the projects rivals the giant US Embassy in Baghdad, which was completed last year after construction delays at a cost of $740 million.

Senior State Department officials said the expanded diplomatic presence is needed to replace overcrowded, dilapidated and unsafe facilities and to support a “surge” of civilian officials into Afghanistan and Pakistan ordered by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Other major projects are planned for Kabul, Afghanistan; and for the Pakistani cities of Lahore and Peshawar. In Peshawar, the US government is negotiating the purchase of a five-star hotel that would house a new US consulate.

U.S. policy towards Pakistan has been roughly 60 years of incompetence, mistakes, bad judgment, ignorance, inadequate moral conscience, wasted aid, counterproductive actions, and utter failure.  But Washington continues to try to fix Pakistan.  It seems like time for U.S. officials to learn from their experience.

Civil Liberties and President Barack W. Bush?

It’s fair to say that civil liberties and limited government were not high on President George W. Bush’s priorities list.  Indeed, they probably weren’t even on the list.  Candidate Barack Obama promised “change” when he took office, and change we have gotten.  The name of the president is different.

Alas, the policies are much the same.  While it is true that President Obama has not made the same claims of unreviewable monarchical power for the chief executive–an important distinction–he has continued to sacrifice civil liberties for dubious security gains.

Reports the New York Times:

Civil libertarians recently accused President Obama of acting like former President George W. Bush, citing reports about Mr. Obama’s plans to detain terrorism suspects without trials on domestic soil after he closes the Guantánamo prison.

It was only the latest instance in which critics have argued that Mr. Obama has failed to live up to his campaign pledge “to restore our Constitution and the rule of law” and raised a pointed question: Has he, on issues related to fighting terrorism, turned out to be little different from his predecessor?

The answer depends on what it means to act like Mr. Bush.

As they move toward completing a review of their options for dealing with the detainees, Obama administration officials insist that there is a fundamental difference between Mr. Bush’s approach and theirs. While Mr. Bush claimed to wield sweeping powers as commander in chief that allowed him to bypass legal constraints when fighting terrorism, they say, Mr. Obama respects checks and balances by relying on — and obeying — Congressional statutes.

“While the administration is considering a series of options, a range of options, none relies on legal theories that we have the inherent authority to detain people,” Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said this week in response to questions about the preventive detention report. “And this will not be pursued in that manner.”

But Mr. Obama’s critics say that whether statutory authorization exists for his counterterrorism policies is just a legalistic point. The core problem with Mr. Bush’s approach, they argue, was that it trammeled individual rights. And they say Mr. Obama’s policies have not changed that.

“President Obama may mouth very different rhetoric,” said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. “He may have a more complicated process with members of Congress. But in the end, there is no substantive break from the policies of the Bush administration.”

The primary beneficiaries of constitutional liberties are not terrorist suspects, but the rest of us.  The necessary trade-offs are not always easy, but the president and legislators must never forget that it is a free society they are supposed to be defending.