From the diaries…

Insurance (n): financial protection against loss or harm: an arrangement by which a company gives customers financial protection against loss or harm such as theft or illness in return for payment premium.

So, the Obama administration has just announced that all employers will henceforth pay for birth control medications and abortifacients. Setting aside the (substantial) conscience issues that many religiously-motivated employers have with this government compulsion, how exactly is this even “insurance”?

Consider traditional forms of insurance, such as fire, flood, or life insurance. When someone buys these types of insurance, they are protecting themselves against catastrophic financial harm from an unanticipated, unambiguously disastrous event. Nobody would wish a fire or flood on themselves, and by pooling resources, millions of insurance policy holders spread the risk of such events so that everybody pays a little to ensure that nobody suffers the full impact when it happens to them.

In this light, what we are calling “health insurance” is not health insurance at all. It’s more of a purchasing pool which gives people the right to consume certain goods and services paid by a third party. I can’t think of any other product we buy this way. Imagine paying a flat fee to Safeway for the right to pick up our weekly grocery haul (perhaps with a small co-pay at the cash register) – and calling it “food insurance.” Even stranger – imagine having your employer pay that fee on your behalf as part of your compensation package. Double down on strangeness – imagine the government organizing purchasing pools for people who can’t afford “food insurance,” setting standards on what employers must pay for in their “food insurance” policies, etc.

When you buy groceries, you buy only what you need; you economize by comparing prices across brands and stores; you pay attention to the quality measures that matter to you, such as taste and freshness. Suppose, instead, you knew that you’d be paying $50 regardless of what was in your cart. You might load up on expensive meats and packaged foods, and blow past the plain-tasting generic aisle. (Even if you didn’t, you can bet your neighbor will. So you might as well, right?) To hold down costs, the grocery store might stop carrying premium brands; or it might impose controls, such as no more than two visits per month, and approval by a dietary specialist as a condition to enter the expensive deli section. What do you suppose would happen to the availability, quality, and cost (the real cost, not the out-of-pocket co-pay) of groceries if this was how they were paid for? (Hint: it’s exactly what has happened to health care.)

Getting back to the new Obamacare mandate: Obama’s HHS has decided that our so-called “health insurance” policies must cover the cost of birth control and abortifacients. I may have found the explanation. In March 2008, candidate Obama famously offered the following remark at a town hall meeting. Speaking about his daughters, he said: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” (That phrase – “punished with a baby” – is very revealing.) Perhaps this new mandate finally provides a rationale for calling it insurance. It makes sense if you take the view that a pregnancy is nothing but a disaster against which one should take precautions, and a baby is merely a financial catastrophe against which one should be protected.

Is there not one ethical, courageous Democrat?

The Obama administration’s actions in the recent past have by any measure set new records for cynicism and hypocrisy. Obama the Senator (c. 2006) and Obama the Presidential candidate (c. 2007-2008) repeatedly espoused positions that Obama the President (c. 2009-2012) has not only declined to endorse but dramatically repudiated. Pre-election Obama was going to reset international relations (oops), close Gitmo (oops), shrink the deficit (OMG, OOPS!), and swear off Presidential signing statements (oops, oops, and oops). The best of intentions and all that, right? Since then, Obama has abandoned positions with – well, with abandon.

But the unmitigated gall he showed last week in the brazen, unconstitutional power grab exemplified by the lawless “recess” appointments of three NLRB directors as well as the head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau belongs in the chutzpah hall of fame.

I am no longer surprised when this administration does something of which I disapprove, no matter how strongly. But this posting is not about why – or even whether – those were poor decisions. Others at this site (see here, here, and here) and elsewhere have thoroughly and convincingly explained why Obama’s actions were unconstitutional. What does surprise me – indeed, alarms me – is the deafening silence, if not downright approval, from the Democrat side of the aisle in the face of these outrageous actions.

I have yet to see one Democrat in a leadership position – cabinet secretary, Congressman, governor – good Lord, I’d settle for a state legislator by now – publicly repudiate Obama’s choices. I don’t know of any that have left the party, resigned a position of power, or otherwise taken a stand to confront this most anti-democratic of administrations. Not one has said so much as, “Mr. President, I respect your intentions, your heart is in the right place; as a fellow Democrat, I am aligned with your goals; but this cannot stand.”

Now, one could argue that Democrats are only acting in their own self-interest. Obama is a Chicago pol, you might say, and will take his revenge on any who cross him. Power can be taken, committee assignments can be stripped, financial assistance for a re-election campaign can be withheld, primary opponents can be recruited. For a fellow Democrat to express strong, principled opposition to Obama’s malfeasance in office would bring enormous risks, and more likely than not would result in the termination of a political career. Just lay low for a year, you might imagine them saying to themselves; he’ll probably be gone and if I can avoid making waves I’ll survive the tsunami.

But this is small comfort. The Democratic Party represents, give or take, one half of the population of the United States, and has control of one-half or more of the institutions of power of this great country. It is not a fringe party clawing its way to relevance as a spoiler, or a coalition partner, as may be found in many European nations. It is a mainstream party, but it is tacitly approving of actions that are decidedly outside what should be the mainstream in our 236-year-old Constitutional Republic. A certain level of responsibility, of respect for traditions like the Rule of Law, of decorum, is de minimus. Ethics, and the courage to insist upon them, are not situational. Personal integrity cannot be suspended and resumed at will.

The complete absence of anyone in the party willing to challenge this administration, to speak truth to power, is not only unseemly; it is downright unhealthy. If voters fail to hold the Democratic Party accountable for this grievous lapse of judgment (or if the party manages to circumvent the will of the people and cling to power in spite of them – but that’s a topic for another post), then power-seekers will take note that integrity and adherence to ethics are now optional.

In the words of the German pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer: “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” Obama’s assault on the Constitution is, if not evil, at the very least pernicious and corrosive. The monolithic silence from the Democratic Party communicates much.

I await a Democrat with the courage to speak out: to demonstrate integrity instead of expediency, and, if it comes to it, to show a willingness to forego a sinecure in the halls of power. Like Diogenes, I am looking – so far, in vain – for an honest man.

I’m not a fan of “litmus-tests” or “deal-breakers” when choosing my favorite candidate for president. For example: “Candidate X voted YES on legislation Y. That’s a deal-breaker for me, so I’m not supporting Mr. X.” Frankly, such hard-line pronouncements are generally unrealistic. They fail to account for the fact that no candidate is perfect. Every candidate with any meaningful history is likely to have done something, sometime in the past, that disappoints you. We conservatives are better than that: we accept reality as it is, even as we try to make it better.

I’m going to make an exception. For the 2012 election, there’s one test I think all conservatives can get behind.

Every one of the seven remaining top-tier candidates for the Republican nomination is infinitely better than the man currently in the Oval Office. For that matter, every person who has ever been considered for the Republican nomination is better than Obama. Hell, just about anybody in the PHONE BOOK of any large city in the United States is better!

So here is my litmus test: if a candidate is unwilling to say flatly that he or she will endorse and actively support the eventual nominee from the Republican Party – whoever that turns out to be – then I’m writing them off. There is no room for nuance here. I’m not going to be tolerant of any candidate who threatens (or even hints at) a third-party run or otherwise implies that their support may not be forthcoming if the “right” nominee does not win the primary. Such threats only make it measurably easier for Obama to win a second term which the country simply cannot afford.

What do you say – can we conservatives get behind this litmus test?

Not since Sarah Palin’s decision to NOT enter the 2012 Presidential race has a topic received so much dawn-to-dusk coverage on redstate’s front page.

I just counted: 13 of the past 19 front-page entries are about Cain and the allegations of sexual harassment, over a roughly 24-hour period. Each one is breathlessly reporting some trivial development, or some politico’s comments on the latest trivial development.

I fear we are playing into the Left’s hands by behaving as though this is far and away the most important issue facing us in the 2012 election, with 9% unemployment, trillion-dollar deficits, nuclearizing Iran, etc. barely hitting the radar. Hell, I feel soiled just by posting this d*mn diary.

May I humbly suggest that our esteemed front-page authors spend a bit more of their energy on other stories, and wait for a news cycle or two (didn’t that used to be called a “day”?) before giving us the latest blow-by-blow on the topic.

If you are short on topics, here are a few suggestions:

• How are we doing with our plans to take over the Senate in 2012? Besides the Democrats we want to eject, are there any incumbent RINOs that are being primaried by upstarts who deserve our support?
• What is new on the legislative front at the state level? Are any states passing legislation that would be of interest (positive or negative) from conservatives?
• What new outrages are being perpetrated by the Obama regulatory machine, in its relentless drive to kill jobs?
• What has the Obama administration done TODAY to waste our tax dollars? Any new Solyndras on the horizon? And how goes the Congressional effort to reign this in?
• Are any cities handling the Occupy protests appropriately? If so, can we learn lessons from those cities?

After a bruising and intensely public battle over the debt ceiling, many in the Progressive Left are publicly declaring disappointment in the result, asserting that the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party (“extremists” and “terrorists”) drove the terms of the debate and ensuing outcome.

Of course, this is not a universally-held assessment. Ann Barnhardt (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/08/we_the_stupid.html), Francis Cianfrocca (http://www.redstate.com/blackhedd/2011/08/01/obama-is-the-big-winner-in-the-debt-ceiling-debate/),  and others have eloquently argued the opposite position – that the Republicans were the ones that got rolled.

Setting aside the question of who actually “won” – if the question can even be answered in a value-neutral way – why are the most intense partisans on each side of the aisle so emphatic in asserting a devastating loss on their own side? Is there some benefit in persuading the public (or a subset of the public) that you lost badly?

Here are some possible answers.

• Each side is positioning itself for the confrontation that is surely on the way with the new-and-improved, six-per-side 12-member deficit commission that has been created by the legislation that ultimately passed. Imagine the dialog (from either side) during commission debates: “How can you be so uncompromising? Your side won the earlier battle, now it’s time for a more balanced approach.” Indeed, even the selection of participants on the commission could be contentious, for exactly the same reason: “How can you nominate such an extremist? Surely you know that we can’t work with him/her on such sensitive negotiations after he/she demanded (and won) so much ground in the debt-limit debate.”

• Each side is looking to motivate their base. “Get ready for 2012, or this year’s fights will look like a cakewalk.” (For the Left: “The election in 2010 led directly to this awful bill, which was basically written by the Tea Party. Get into gear or 2012 will be even worse.” For the Right: “The seats we won in 2010 weren’t enough to get the spending cuts we need. We need to win again – and even bigger – in 2012 or we’ll never cut spending.”) It’s a fine line, of course, since you don’t want your side to conclude that your loss was due to irresolution rather than a disadvantageous position.

• Each side is looking to avoid “ownership” of the economy between now and November 2012. With unemployment holding steady above 9%, inflation on the rise, interest rates expected to increase, and a credit-rating downgrade a near-certainty, NOBODY is optimistic about the economy in the next year or so. Thus the Left would like to be able to say a year from now: “See, the country gave in to the right-wing extremists in the Tea Party, and the economy is no better than before.” Conversely, the story from the Right will surely be: “See what happens when you do what the Leftists want, year after year? The economy stays in the tank!”

Bottom line: both Left and Right have reasons to declare defeat rather than victory, now that this stage of the battle is over.

I’m sure Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader McConnell have received plenty of advice in the recent past, but I’m going to dare to offer some of my own.  Here is an imaginary speech which I am imagining they could deliver to shore up their negotiating position.

Mr. President, the Republican Party has gone on record with its proposal. It’s called the Ryan Plan. It’s been written up as legislation, scored by the CBO, read by the American people, and passed by the House of Representatives.

On the other hand, the public doesn’t really know what you are offering. You have said that you would take your argument to the American people. Although you may have intended that as a threat, we think that’s a great idea. In fact, we think it’s a necessary step to continue with these difficult negotiations.

So here’s what we’ll do. We’ll postpone these closed-door meetings while you write up in plain legislative language the proposal from the Democratic Party. Once we have it in hand, we’ll ask the CBO to score it as quickly as possible, and we’ll move it aggressively through hearings and other steps in the legislative process. We’ll put it before the public for their input. And, we’ll hold clean up-or-down votes in the relevant committees.

Now, we won’t promise to pass your budget. We hope you understand by now that Republicans won’t vote in favor of a budget that we think is bad for the American people. Nor will we promise not to filibuster it in the Senate, because that’s one of the tools available to the minority party in the American system.

Our expectation, however, is that it will receive the support of enough Senate Democrats to receive a majority vote in that house, since you do hold a Senate majority, and enough House Democrats to receive at least a 1/3 vote in that house. Why is this important? Because that will show that you are serious, and it will give us something specific to debate, in the halls of Congress as well as at the kitchen tables of America. We can then get back together in our effort to find common ground, between the choices and priorities expressed by the Ryan Plan and those expressed by the Democratic proposal.

We look forward to resuming these critical negotiations promptly.

 

It may be hard to remember, but we have tens of thousands of troops in Aghanistan ostensibly because we are at war with Islamic fundamentalists. Let me repeat: we are at war.

One of the characteristics of war is that you use all necessary force to achieve your objectives, up to and including killing the folks who are working against those objectives. In war, you do physical violence to your enemies to achieve your aims. And one of our big challenges in this particular war is that sometimes it’s hard to distinguish enemy from friend – or, more subtly, enemy from unfriendly civilian.

The Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan who are now running around committing murder and mayhem, claiming to be outraged by a book-burning, are pretty clearly putting themselves in the category of actively hostile enemy. Which means they are valid targets for military reprisal. This is a useful distinction. Our troops in harm’s way can now take action against the perpetrators of this mob violence, without any of that nagging doubt that they may inadvertently harm civilians in the heat of battle.

In other words, Pastor Jones has done the inestimable service of “smoking out” the enemy. Wouldn’t we now be better off taking advantage of the opportunity he has created, rather than whining about the danger our troops now find themselves in?

Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) is holding hearings in the US Senate Judiciary committee to highlight the imagined threat of “Muslim intolerance.” No, it’s not intolerance BY Muslims, which I guess by now is so commonplace we don’t need to waste congressional time discussing the phenomenon. It’s actually intolerance OF Muslims, which is so widespread that hate crimes against Jews are only 8 times more frequent than those against Muslims.

One of the folks testifying today was Thomas Perez, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, and here is what he had to say:

Thomas Perez, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, told the Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing: “We continue to see a steady stream of violence against Muslims… The good news is that with each wave of intolerance, our nation has responded by passing news [sic] laws.” (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.ee42b30b062f3a020db1e9b5b6e68f0e.6e1&show_article=1)

I would have thought that an even better response would be to enforce the laws already on the books. Isn’t “violence against Muslims” (or anyone else, for that matter) already illegal? Or are the perpetrators of this violence such criminal geniuses that they are finding loopholes by which they can instigate “violence against Muslims” with no fear of legal retribution? Presumably, these loopholes do not apply to “violence against Jews” since we don’t seem to need new laws to respond to THAT particular phenomenon, which occurs far more often.

This is all so confusing. I guess I’m just not clever enough to be a high-powered government bureaucrat like Thomas Perez.

The flight of the Wisconsin Democrats has been hailed by movement conservatives as a clear victory for our side. Their flight, you might claim, is an admission of defeat. You may be among those who assert confidently that eventually, the “fleebaggers” will return, tails tucked between their legs, and accept their defeat. And, you could think it reasonable to assume that the victory, once in-hand, will be secure, and the next battle will be for even greater gains.

Unfortunately, this is an inaccurate and unreasonably optimistic assessment of the situation. While we may win this battle, the cost will be high. The Progressive Left is playing its (admittedly weak) hand brilliantly to make it difficult if not impossible to build on this win. Governor Walker’s heart is in the right place, but at best he is moving the ball from his own one-yard line to the five-yard line.

Point 1: Governor Walker has conceded the principle the Left is fighting for. He has stated (and repeated to all who would listen) that the motivation for this battle is theWisconsinstate government’s financial situation: “We’re broke!”

By relying on this rationale, we can be sure that the Left will seek to reverse this win at the first sign of improvement in state finances, and will not relent any time thereafter. Someday the state will be back in the black, or at least not quite as badly in debt. At that time, the “We’re broke” argument becomes inoperative. The overriding principle – that it’s inappropriate for government employees to engage in collective bargaining at all (conflict of interest, etc.) – has disappeared down the rabbit hole.

Point 2: The Progressive Left is living and breathing one of its mottoes, “By Any Means Necessary.” They cheerfully abuse process as much and as often as required to achieve their ends. Fleeing the state is but one example in a rich history of flouting the Rule of Law by the Left. (Remember ObamaCare?) We’re still reading up on Marquis of Queensbury rules while the left pulls a switchblade, throws sand in our eyes, and kicks us below the belt.

Do you doubt this point? Then ask yourself – what negative consequences will befall the “fleebaggers”? That they’ll eventually return in defeat and lose the vote? That win was already in-hand. If this is the outcome, they are no worse off than they would have been had they not pulled their stunt. That Gov. Walker is withholding their paychecks? Boo-hoo. Their union buddies are probably paying their hotel bills and a per-diem to boot. And the paychecks will be there waiting for them when they return, conveniently placed in their top desk drawer. That recalls are being organized? Big deal, this is high-stakes poker. Obama’s OFA and DNC will help their brave soldiers beat back the recall, and in any event will probably offer lucrative consulting gigs to anyone who loses.

Meanwhile, in the complete absence of any real negative consequences, the Left is surely aware that there is always the possibility that Gov. Walker or his Senate allies will lose their nerve and come back to the bargaining table.

Bottom line: the legislative temper tantrum being thrown by Wisconsin Senate Democrats has no downside and BIG potential upside. I would call this “positive reinforcement,” as in: “it works, so be sure do it again the next time you think you’ll lose a vote.”

Point 3: Is anyone even talking any more about the next step in rolling back public-sector union power inWisconsin? Nope. The Left has made this battle so difficult, this hill so hard to climb, that we will be exhausted at the summit, and may not even think about scaling the next peak. (I hope I’m wrong, but I doubt it.) Remember, this whole battle ultimately will saveWisconsin$300M, a mere down payment on their $3.6B shortfall. How are they going to cover the other 92%? Instead of talking about that, the conversation has been about nothing but the union fight. Does anyone think the next Progressive special interest group whose ox will be gored in the budget battles will roll over any more easily now that they’ve seen what the unions can do to frame the debate, resist, and delay?

What could we have done differently? I’m glad you asked! This is a great opportunity for brainstorming, so we can be ready the next time an epic battle like this rolls around. Here are my thoughts:

Firstly: go back to principles. Instead of: “We’re broke,” try: “It’s inherently corrupt when public-sector unions and politicians conspire to fleece the taxpayer. Public sector unions are different from private unions. And by the way, we’re broke.”

Secondly: make it as painful as possible when Democrats abuse the process and we have the upper hand. If the Democrats are going to abdicate, immediately propose and start voting on items on the Conservative wish-list. (You better believe they’d be doing that to us if the situation were reversed! Remember Rahm Emanuel’s immortal words: “Never let a crisis go to waste.”) The “fleebaggers” can block action only on budget issues. Non-budget matters can move forward smartly. Bottom line: take advantage of (and punish them for) their absence. Voter ID was a good start but let’s go further.

Here are some possibilities: De-certify the teacher’s union (and any other union that is facilitating their illegal sickout), and ban them from organizing on state property for 5 years. Start expulsion proceedings – not just recalls – on the AWOL Senators. Threaten the corrupt doctors who are writing sick notes under false pretenses, with prosecution and jail time. Nullify ObamaCare in the state using any legal pretext available, starting with Federal Judge Roger Vinson’s ruling that it is unconstitutional in its entirety. Cancel state funding to any and all left-leaning groups, such as Southern Poverty Law Center.

By living up to their creed “By Any Means Necessary,” the Progressive Left is fighting an asymmetric war, and the asymmetry isn’t working in our favor. We need to think a few moves ahead, so that this victory, once achieved, is our warm-up act and not our high-water mark. Gov. Walker and his allies in the legislature are so far showing the courage of their convictions, but that’s not enough. It’s time to turn the tables.

Democrats understand the concept of “By Any Means Necessary.” They use it persistently and consistently. I think we are about to find out if Republicans have the stomach to return the favor.

I understand the quorum requirement is less stringent for non-budgetary matters, and the Republicans can take them up without the Dems.. I suggest the Wisconsin state legislature take up some non-budgetary topics now, in the absence of the Dems-on-the-lam. Right-to-work and voter-ID is a good start, but here are a few more examples that might get their attention:

1. Decertify the teacher’s union, immediately, and forbid them from any organizing activities on state property for 5 years.

2. Upgrade to a felony the act of falsifying medical records, including doctor’s notes for illness, punishable with 25-years-to-life in state prison.

3. Any state legislator who misses 5 consecutive days of a duly-called legislative session without just cause is immediately removed from office and barred from holding a government job or elective office for 10 years.

4. Any party whose absence (without just cause) “in toto” prevents a quorum in a legislative session for 5 consecutive days is no longer automatically placed on the general election ballot, but instead must submit petitions signed by at least 5% of eligible voters for each elective office in order to receive a place on the ballot.

I’m just brainstorming here; I’m sure others in the Conservative movement could come up with more. Of course, if the Dems return to do their jobs before these measures are passed, we could table them to committee and suspend further action.