Conservative Insights

Thomas Frank's Tilted Little Yard

cneul@aol.com (C Neul) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 06:09:00 +0000

There's an ultra-liberal columnist by the name of Thomas Frank whose writing appears on Wednesday's in the Wall Street Journal, just below Holman Jenkins' column.

I'm not sure just when Frank was added to the paper's slate of resident editorialists, but I suspect it has something to do with Murdoch's newly-installed publisher attempting to provide a similar "balance" to the Journal's editorial staff as is found on News Corporation's Fox News cable channel.

Frank is so liberal and, no pun intended, frankly wrong on so many issues that it actually makes me wish- despite the pain- for the return of one-time Journal writer Al Hunt.

And that is no small feat.

For over a year, one of my business colleagues and I have discussed some of Frank's more outrageous, ill-informed and out-of-touch with reality pieces. But this past Wednesday, Frank finally wrote something about which I apparently have more knowledge than him, and, is truly a total misrepresentation of reality.

The subject in question, to use Frank's own title, is "Glenn Beck's Hotline to Nowhere."

Frank's misinformation begins with the editorial's featured quote in the middle of the piece,

"The White House has no obligation to correct willful ignorance."

Perhaps true, but totally irrelevant to the piece's title. Frank starts off totally ignorant of the chain of events leading to Beck's 'hotline.'

Here's the back story Frank either doesn't know, or won't divulge.

Beginning a few months ago, Wonderboy's administration began to demonize Fox News in a sort of head fake to get the rest of the media, and many voters, distracted from its push for the health care bill.

It began with the administration's spokesperson, Robert Gibbs, solemnly declaring that Fox isn't really a news organization, and publishes untrue stories. No specific examples were forthcoming. I believe that Wonderboy's chief of staff got in on the act, as well. Administration member Anita Dunn apparently joined the pile-on.

In an interview, Wonderboy himself mused that Fox was mostly opinion shows, not a news organization. In the past, he's threatened NewsCorp, a publicly-held company, by name as being too powerful.

Following the public media assault on Fox News, the White House began to publish its alleged identification of lies on a website. To my recollection, the only one of note was that Beck referred to the wrong city when reporting on how much money had been lost by an Olympics host. But Beck noted that the White House had taken it upon itself to be a fact checker.

Frank missed this entirely, or is simply, as many liberals are wont to do, in denial about this truth.

Beck grabbed the opportunity to ask the White House to back up its allegations that Fox News reports lies as truth. He installed the red hotline, then sent its number to Anita Dunn, the White House Communications Director.

Beck was quite clear about the setup. The White House had attacked Fox News for publishing lies, and begun a website on the topic. Beck provided an easy facility for Dunn to directly communicate lies which she or other administration officials had detected on Fox News.

The phone, of course, has never rung. But it was only for the White House, and only in response to Wonderboy's team's accusation of Fox News for publishing lies, and then going so far as to start a website devoted to 'fact checking.'

Further, about a week into the hotline watch, Beck noticed that someone in the administration emailed MSNBC within an hour of some story, correcting what it believed was an untruth.

Beck again jumped on this, observing that the administration clearly felt it worthwhile to communicate directly with some media outlets, such as its favorite, left-leaning cable channel, MSNBC. True, fewer people watch MSNBC than almost any other cable channel. But Beck never the less seized on the event to point out how hypocritical and cowardly Wonderboy and his minions are behaving.

None of this relevant information appears in Frank's one-sided lambaste of Beck. Instead, he writes,

"On Monday I wrote to an old friend, Robert McChesney, a professor of communications at the University of Illinois who has been a frequent target of Mr. Beck in recent weeks for his left-wing views and also for co-founding Free Press, an advocacy group on media policy. Did Mr. McChesney get a chance to respond on the red phone or any other way? No. "He never asked me or Free Press to call the red phone," Mr. McChesney wrote me.

Then I emailed Mark Lloyd, the Chief Diversity Officer at the Federal Communications Commission. Mr. Beck has attacked Mr. Lloyd numerous times in recent weeks, repeatedly airing video clips in which he appears to hold noxious views. Did Mr. Lloyd get a chance to call the red phone? "No, no one gave me a phone number to call Beck."

Nor should Mr. Beck require a phone call from the White House to understand that lots of people, including conservatives, have cited Mao and Lenin and other such demonic figures in all sorts of contexts, and that they aren't always careful, when so citing, to point out what bad people these were. "

You can see that Frank doesn't understand, or doesn't want to understand, that Beck's hotline is only relevant for and directed at the White House, and with good reason. These other people have nothing to do with it.

Frank went on to assert,

"Consider a few of the other grand assertions tossed out by the panic-peddling host last week: that the cause of last year's financial crisis was pressure exerted by Acorn and "the people in Washington" on otherwise-reluctant mortgage lenders; that the cause of the inflation of the 1970s was President Jimmy Carter's quest for a "socialist utopia." "

This is actually true, despite Frank's desire that it not be. For proof, check yesterday's post on my business blog, in which I discuss Charlie Gasparino's new book on the topic. Gasparino is clear on assigning responsibility to government officials, including Andrew Cuomo and Barney Frank.

These are postulates that it is only possible to believe after you have utterly closed yourself off to conventional ways of knowing, after you have decided that the reporting and analysis and scholarship on these subjects are not worth reading, and that you will choose ideological fairy tales over reality until the day a magical phone call comes from on high."

Totally untrue, as you will understand by reading about Gasparino's book and numerous Journal editorials over the past year. You can even find a post on this blog devoted to quotes by liberal government officials demanding that Freddie and Fannie increase their securitization of low-income, poor-quality mortgages. ACORN and Congressionally-mandated CRA mortgage lending requirements figured large in this mess.

Frank concludes with these passages,

What Mr. Beck's silent phone really symbolizes is a new kind of ignorance, a coming high-tech dark age in which people can choose to blow off professional standards of inquiry; in which they can wall themselves off with cable TV and friendly Web sites, dismiss what displeases as liberal bias, and demand that any contrary view be transmitted to them via telephone call from the president himself.

Why not let Mr. Beck and his viewers have their fun? Because ideas have consequences. Maybe, as many believe, Glenn Beck is indeed the future of the conservative movement. From tea parties to town-hall meetings, thousands are signing up and fitting themselves out with their very own hotline to nowhere. "

Thomas Frank is probably a pretty good indicator of just how clueless the liberal Democrats in this country are to the coming storm of rage from millions of centrist, independent voters, along with a conservative core of the Republican party. It's not about random hotlines. Or dismissing what, if Keith Olberman were doing it, Frank would consider to be 'investigative journalism.'

Rather than walling themselves off from anything, Beck's viewers are learning more about what conventional, liberally-biased media outlets won't investigate. Socialist members of Wonderboy's administration. Selective persecution of balanced media outlets by a fearful, cowardly White House.

Frank is on display in his recent editorial as being clueless, biased, and in denial about reality on so many levels. Not to mention having failed in his own 'investigative' piece, to learn the actual background of the story which he attempts to lampoon.

Glenn Beck & PETA On Al Gore's Hypocrisy

cneul@aol.com (C Neul) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:32:00 +0000

Al Gore's hypocrisy is beginning to become more apparent.

First it was Bjorn Lomborg's challenges to many claims in Warm-Boy Al's (liberal) prize-winning documentary. Al has been ducking a direct confrontation with the esteemed researcher for years.

Next, it was the subtle change from 'global warming' to 'climate change,' because, well, the earth hasn't actually been uniformly warming according to Al's schedule.

Then it became more well-known that Al has made well over $100MM from investments which benefited from his false cries of coming environmental destruction.

Now, PETA is after the Warm One to go vegetarian. Glenn Beck provides an interview with the head of PETA in this hilarious clip on YouTube.

Strange bedfellows, indeed.

But I think the PETA head is on target in labeling Al a hypocrite for ignoring what would be a simple and easy lifestyle change in keeping with his alleged concern for the environment.

How's that for an "inconvenient truth?"

The Usual Excuses & Lies From The Usual Liberal Suspects

cneul@aol.com (C Neul) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:52:00 +0000

It's official.

Republican governors won in blue state New Jersey and 'purple,' slowly returning to red state Virginia. In Virginia, the rest of the GOP slate swept in with Governor McDonnell.

In the upstate NY 23rd District, the Democrat squeaked by the Conservative candidate, benefiting from the bizarre endorsement by the withdrawing GOP candidate. This situation was so strange as to provide no national reading.

Of course, various Democratic pundits began excusing these losses by the middle of yesterday evening. On Fox News, Howard Dean's ex-campaign manager claimed that neither gubernatorial loss meant anything significant for Wonderboy or the greater liberal Democratic regime in Congress. If anything, he claimed, it meant trouble for all incumbents when challenged by their parties' fringes.

This morning, on CNBC, liberal apologist and businessman Don Peebles, a prominent black supporter of the country's first black president, crowed about how nothing had changed for Wonderboy. His agenda, declared Peebles, ignoring the election results, was now more important than ever, and any delays due to minor issues like free speech and opposing views were inexcusable. Health care must be passed because our First Rookie says so.

On the failure of Wonderboy's five- count 'em- trips to the Garden State on loser Corzine's behalf, Peebles excused and explained it by saying there was absolutely no credibility on the line. Presidents always must and do support their party's governors.

A lie, but Peebles has drunk so much Kool-Aid now that he can't tell the difference anymore. And, besides, he's no politician. Just a fund raiser who is probably hoping to ride somebody's political coattails.

I believe Karl Rove and Brit Hume got it right when they opined that, with health care passage stretching into 2010, these two GOP victories will quite possibly and probably immobilize the 40+ Democratic Representatives with seats in districts won by McCain last year.

Contrary to popular conceptions, an analysis of the House and Senate revealed that only a 2 seat change in the latter chamber will remove the ability of Harry Reid to prevent cloture, thus delaying votes on bills to who knows when? The House, by contrast, would need to see a 40 seat shift to give a Republican the Speaker's gavel.

Personally, I believe that 40 seat move is quite possible. If the GOP had removed the perennially, eerily tan Boehner from a leadership position, it would be a slam dunk.

But, back to last night.

There's no doubt that, had either gubernatorial race, or the rest of the Virginia contests, gone the other way, Wonderboy and his team would be crowing about the electorate re-validating his win last November. And how this reinforced the need to inject more government into every sector of American life.

Instead, they are silent and will try hard to spin the results as meaningless.

As several Fox News and CNBC guest pundits noted, the big news for all Democratic candidates next year is that Wonderboy couldn't get his personal, energized motley crew of voters out for other candidates from his party.

Bad news if you are a Democratic House blue dog, or simply worried about how much more debt and spending your district's adult, as opposed to Wonderboy's kiddie voters, will tolerate.

Kim Strassel On HarryCare's Public Option

cneul@aol.com (C Neul) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:39:00 +0000

Kim Strassel wrote an interesting piece in last Friday's Wall Street Journal regarding the reason Harry Reid added the infamous "public option" to his HarryCare bill.

It may be cynical, but Strassel thinks he added it as a diversion, so people would sort of forget the bigger, simpler issue of just not wanting the basic HarryCare bill at all.

Specifically, the idea that, in order to allow US consumers to spend less on health care, you don't need to: reform tort law, allow interstate purchase/marketing of health insurance, or level the tax-preference basis of health insurance between those who receive health insurance as a pre-tax benefit, and those who purchase it with after-tax dollars.

Instead, HarryCare will ignore all of that, and offer the dubious claim that his bill will 'fix' health care, with or without the public option.

Very reasonably, and not alone, Strassel argues that Reid can now say he tried for the uber-liberal goodie, the public option, and thus shed responsibility for whatever happens next. At moderates, if it passes, he can thumb his nose, while, if it doesn't, he can explain it was never his idea anyway. Liberals pushed him to it.

But as Strassel points out, Harry has now gotten everyone squabbling over this frill, and perhaps they'll forget the big elephant to which it is attached.

She notes that he's Senate Majority leader for a reason, and it's not because he's stupid.

Perhaps so.

Perhaps today's two gubernatorial and the special upstate NY Congressional elections will give liberals pause.

Or it may make them accelerate the damage they can do before they lose the House next November and end the Reign of Wonderboy for good.

Modernity vs. Liberal Democrats & Progressives

cneul@aol.com (C Neul) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 07:15:00 +0000

There were a pair of excellent editorials in recent Wall Street Journal editions concerning how out of step with modern practice and technology in the US.

On Thursday, Daniel Henninger wrote "Obama and the Old Hat People," deriding the liberal Democrat Senate oldsters.

Henninger points out that young American voters thought they were getting a youngish, cool black dude for President, when what they actually got was "old hat" in the form of Chuckie Schumer, Pat Leahy, Chris "Doddering" Dodd and Harry Reid, ol' vinegar himself.

As Henninger puts it so well,

"Our out-dated political software can't recognize trial and error. What ObamaCare is doing with health care' the "public option"- may be fine with the activist left, but I suspect it's starting to strike many younger Americans as at odds with their lives, as not somewhere they want to go. Wait until EPA's ghost busters start enforcing cap-and-trade.

People thought something small, agile and smart was coming to government, but so far it's turning out to be just big-box politics."

Henninger captures an aspect of public disaffection for Wonderboy's evolving political mess and failure that I have yet to see in polls or in the media. That is, the techno-culture of young Americans is very much at odds with the old liberal Senate bulls' view of government control of everything in sight.

Henninger closes with this observation,

"So long as the Democratic Party is the party of the Old Hat People, dependent on public-sector unions with Orwellian names like the Service Employees International Union, it will remain yoked to a pre-iPhone political model that will increasingly strike average everyday American voters as weird and alien to their world."

As it to provide the perfect support to his views, Friday's Journal carried an editorial by Republican Senators Jim DeMint (SC) and Orrin Hatch (U), extolling the virtues of non-"net neutrality."

Their point was simple and clear. Nevermind what the complicated meanings of the term or the proposed regulation entail.

We have a vibrant, free, useful internet and tens of thousands of "apps" springing up for iPhones, texting, etc., on a medium which has been totally free of government intervention.

Why spoil that? How can government "help" improve anything?

They note how the large, blundering entities which are linked to the federal government, like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM and Chrysler have done recently.

Orrin Hatch is no spring chicken. Yet, he provides a wonderful counterpoint to Harry Reid.

And this editorial, these two GOP Senators, perhaps illustrate the beginning of an awareness that could build among young Americans.

That is, the GOP isn't "against" good things. Rather, it's "against" getting government's messy, slow, cumbersome, dumb hands all over your personal life and so many precious, private, individualistic things about it.

Thus, the GOP approach to health care reform isn't to pass a total redesign of the existing system, with government taking control.

Instead, it's to remove barriers to: tort reform, interstate marketing of health care insurance, mandates, and differential tax treatment of health insurance premiums.

It's a beautiful point. Everyone, especially the new voters who flocked to Wonderboy last year, value and prize their technologically-based freedom and individuality.

How will they like having the Old Hat crowd, with our First Rookie's leadership, take all of that away?

Peggy Noonan Almost Hits the Mark

cneul@aol.com (C Neul) — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:45:00 +0000

Peggy Noonan almost got it right this weekend in the Wall Street Journal when she opined,

"This is historic. This is something new in modern political history, and I'm not sure we're fully noticing it. Americans are starting to think the problems we are facing cannot be solved.

Part of the reason is that the problems- debt, spending, war- seem too big. But a larger part is that our government, from the White House through Congress and so many state and local governments, seems to be demonstrating every day that they cannot make things better. They are not offering a new path, they are only offering old paths- spend more, regulate more, tax more in an attempt to make us more healthy locally and nationally. And in the long term everyone- well, not those in government, but most everyone else- seems to know that won't work. It's not a way out."

Noonan actually refutes herself by the end of that second paragraph. If she had simply added the phrase,

"by our increasingly professional, lifetime political class"

to that last sentence in the first paragraph, she'd have hit the mark exactly.

How is it she could write "well, not those in government, but most everyone else- seems to know that won't work," but claim we are dispirited and feel overwhelmed by our problems?

Nobody I know, with a brain, thinks our problems are overwhelming us.

They think the problems are overwhelming power-hungry professional pols who just want lifetime sinecures and more power.

Sensible Americans understand that we must spend less via government, trim entitlements, reverse 60 years of deficit spending, and focus on defining objectives for our current combat situations, then achieve the objectives.

These problems are far from insoluble by Americans who want to go about their business unhampered by government.

But for too-long-sitting Senators and Representatives with half a dozen years in office and dreams of as many more, or one of their state's Senate seats, those solutions don't sound like fun.

Less power. More accountability. Fewer lush promises made with other peoples' taxes.

Maybe Noonan's friends are too set in their government ways, and, by extension, so is Noonan.

She almost had it right.

But not quite.

She knows the right answer, but, like so many careerists in and around national politics, she can't bring herself to say it.

Term limits. Less federal power. No more professional politicians.

It's that simple. Solving that problem might be overwhelming. But not debt and spending. Not even war.

Glenn Beck's Flawed Argument

cneul@aol.com (C Neul) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 07:06:00 +0000

Earlier this week, I believe on Wednesday evening, Glenn Beck went through a fairly complex explanation of how the US unwisely intertwined federal housing policy, low interest rates and excessive spending to arrive at our current debacle.

He then, understandably, discussed the folly of depreciating the US dollar in order to repay creditors with cheaper currency. Again, understandably, he cited the failed German Wiemar Republic.

But then he veered into dangerous and, unfortunately, intellectually wrong territory. Beck began to suggest that, like the Germans in the 1920s and '30s, the US might issue land-backed debt, because so many mortgages are held by Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and, though he didn't mention it them by name, the FHA and VA mortgage programs.

In a rare misstep, Glenn said that the government "owns" these mortgages, and implied that, therefore, the feds can just claim them as assets, against which to issue dollar-denominated debt.

But that's not true. Not by a long shot.

Here's how things would have to work for that to be true. Mortgages backing a specific Fannie or Freddie debt issue would have to default. Upon default, it's possible that the owners of the GSE-issued securities might choose to take possession of the properties. But the details here are very important.

GSE's (Fannie, Freddie, as well as non-publicly owned VA and FHA programs) buy mortgages from originating institutions. To do that, they issue debt, with the implied backing of the US Treasury. Then they package the mortgages into pools and sell bonds backed by the income from the pools of mortgages.

The money they receive for these bonds goes to buy more mortgages. When the GSEs wish to expand, they issue more debt.

But they don't "own" a vast collection of mortgaged homes. They typically only "own," which is to say, hold, home mortgages for seasoning and packaging into bonds.

And, to reiterate, Fannie or Freddie wouldn't even "own" the homes connected to those mortgages securing their bonds if the borrowers defaulted. The bondholders would, or could, own them.

It's a nuanced point to many, but I think important. What Beck went on to contend, on the back of assuming the federal government simply "owns" the homes bought by mortgages which may eventually have secured Fannie or Freddie bonds, would simply be unrealistic.

Because this sort of misunderstanding of the actual mechanics by which all of these mortgages could be held, and the underlying homes and land owned by the federal government, and used to back other bonds, could materially damage Beck's credibility.

HarryCare's Surprises

cneul@aol.com (C Neul) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 06:09:00 +0000

Surprise, surprise!

Harry Reid has managed to stuff the public option back into his HarryCare Senate bill. I erred in my prior post when I stated that a House-Senate conference was underway. In fact, it was simply the numerous Senate committees' Democrats caucusing to stitch together their Frankenstein of a health care bill- HarryCare.

Under Nevada Democrat Harry Reid's mis-leadership, the Democratic gang in the Senate have concocted a concept- because, to date, there is still no available written version of this- called a 'modified public option opt-out.'

Apparently this is Reid's attempt to have his health care cake and eat it, too. He's allowed for a public option, but states can choose not to avail themselves of it. Thus, if he has to surgically remove it, he can say he tried, placating his liberal colleagues.

If it passes, he'll probably claim that there's no need for added CBO scoring, since states can 'opt out.' And he'll use that, in all likelihood, to claim to other Senators that it isn't really a public option.

You know, like a fully-federalized, hobnail-booted mandate.

Trouble is, Harry has already lost at least two Senate Democrats and Joe Lieberman. Lieberman is so adamantly against the public option, in any form, that he promised to side with the GOP Senators to filibuster the bill.

Meanwhile, Olympia Snowe delivered on her promise and backed off of any support, and was joined by Nebraska's Blanche Lincoln.

Funny thing about the health care mess. When Democrats, as Reid did this week, continually claim Republicans would not 'work' with them, but, in fact, keep ignoring GOP calls for interstate health insurance purchasing, tort reform, and the dropping of mandates, they look silly and lacking in credibility.

Instead of trying the simplest measures, maybe in several states, then waiting a few years to see the results, these Congressional morons insist on ignoring these sane, simplifying ideas, and going for a total redesign of the US health care system.

Nobody with a brain thinks this will work, or save anyone any money.

How is it Democrats can't understand that? Or do they just not want to understand it?

Why Is Glenn Beck So Popular?

cneul@aol.com (C Neul) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:28:00 +0000

I have had a few discussions recently with a colleague about Glenn Beck's sudden popularity. Since coming to Fox News, Beck has vaulted into the number one position at 5pm, at least among all cable programs, if not network, as well.

Last year, before changing networks, I believe Beck was on CNN. I'd see him occasionally while channel surfing. To me, he was this guy with a crew cut and an old-style radio microphone sitting at a desk. Usually proclaiming loudly and in a surprised voice.

Now, Glenn Beck has a much different approach. An approach my colleague, a well-educated, very intelligent businessman finds off-putting. To him, Beck is too high-voltage, simplistic and animated.

However, as I contended in a recent conversation with my friend, that is precisely why Glenn Beck is now so popular.

Simply put, Glenn Beck knows how to appeal to a large audience, on television, about fundamental political and philosophical topics. He takes dry topics and animates them in a disarmingly simple fashion.

A few years ago, I was a guest on Bill O'Reilly's Fox News program. During a break in taping, due to an equipment malfunction, O'Reilly began to critique the comments and responses to his questions that we had just taped. He found my approach to be a bit too esoteric for his audience.

To paraphrase O'Reilly, he said something like,

'Listen, I'm not Neil Cavuto, and you're not on his show. My audience is different. The folks want things simple and direct. Keep it simple and clear.'

My subsequent, simpler answers and comments were just what O'Reilly wanted.

I think that, like Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck knows exactly who his audience is. Most of the people who watch him aren't like my colleague.

They aren't as well-read, deliberative or educated. Whereas my friend would like to see the old-style Beck, engaging in deep discussions with a series of guests, the new Beck is much more lively and engaging.

What Glenn Beck has done, really, is move to an all-visual presentation style that appeals to his audience. Watch his show and look at his props.

The whiteboard on which he frequently scrawls his points. Or uses with magnetic-backed pictures of people to fill in points on some diagram of Wonderboy's administration.

He frequently plays videos again, and again, and again. Especially key clips from Wonderboy's campaign speeches. Like the one telling you to judge him by his advisers. Then Beck will play an embarrassing, revealing video of an Obama adviser over, and over, and over again.

Repetition is what makes such an impact on children. I saw my own children watch Barney or SpongeBob reruns more times than I could literally count.

Beck also uses a large video screen to project pictures topical to his comments.

The other day, as he was chiding South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsay Graham, as a reply to Graham's dismissive remarks about Beck a few weeks ago, Beck pointedly had a large, clear, incredibly unflattering picture of Graham's face in a weird smirk, with one eye closed, left on his immense screen for about 3 minutes.

It was a priceless visual burning into viewers' brains that Graham is a goof-ball. Nothing like a silly picture to leave an image.

The other thing Glenn Beck takes to heart is that we learn best when offered multi-media inputs. Beck will talk while either working at his whiteboard, pointing to pictures, or running videos. There are almost always at least two media streams coming at you.

And, lastly, Glenn Beck is an entertainer. He has learned to entertain as he preaches and teaches. His shows are vibrant, and, in Marshall McCluhan's vernacular, very "hot."

Add it all up, and Glenn Beck behaves more like your favorite high school or college teacher than a dry television program anchor.

He's just as deep as the latter and, actually, deeper than most nowadays. But because he wraps everything in high-energy video, movement and dynamic action, even dry topics like the Constitution, Woodrow Wilson's Progressivism, and our Founding Fathers, come alive.

And that is why Glenn Beck is the most popular guy on television at 5pm.

Edolphus "Ed" Towns' Hand Is Forced On Countrywide Investigation

cneul@aol.com (C Neul) — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:05:00 +0000

Last week I wrote this post concerning Edolphus "Ed" Towns (D-NY) shameful squelching of his committee's members' push to investigate the so-called "Friends of Angelo" VIP mortgage progam.

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal reported that Democratic Representatives Mike Quigley, of Illinois, and Paul Hodes, of New Hampshire, broke party ranks and joined California Republican Darrell Issa to force Towns to issue the relevant subpoenas to Bank of America for the Countrywide records.

Covering any federal and state officials, plus those at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the subpoenaed records should finally cast light on the truth of denials by Democratic Senators Kent Conrad and Chris Dodd that they never knew they received special treatment.

Of course, Towns' foot-dragging might save Dodd, who is in the fight of his life to retain his Senate seat.

But, having heard and seen both Dodd's and Conrad's sanctimonious denials, it's going to be fascinating to see what evidence emerges from the Countrywide files, phone and email records.

Oh, and let's not forget Ed Towns, either. Remember, he, too, denied receiving any special treatment on his Countrywide mortgages.

I suppose it's way too much to hope that Quigley's and Hodes' votes presage a wholesale return to Congressional members voting and acting for the public good. But maybe it's a small start.

About That 37th Place US Ranking In Health Care From WHO

cneul@aol.com (C Neul) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 06:36:00 +0000

When the initial proposition or premise of an argument over a major decision is found to be false, it's usually time to stop the debate and revisit the entire context of the debate.

Such a situation has now been revealed to be true for the US health care debate. Specifically, Wonderboy and his party's members have made a point of claiming to exhaustion that the US health care systems is ranked "37th in the world." This, we are told, is the reason for redesigning the whole mess. When, that is, the administration isn't claiming that excessive health care costs as a burden on business is the leading reason to redesign the health care system.

Last Wednesday's Wall Street Journal carried a fascinating piece by Carl Bialik in his column, The Numbers Guy, entitled "Ill-Conceived Ranking Makes for Unhealthy Debate."

It should be required reading for every Congressional and administration member, as well as any voter interested in the health care debate. Because Mr. Bialik's piece is so important and, being the WSJ, it won't be searchable by non-paying readers, I've reposted substantial portions of his column, in order to accurately present the big picture of the WHO data.

Before launching into Mr. Bialik's piece, let me provide a general orientation to the topic. Having been a quantitative type from my early years in undergraduate business school, I am fairly well-versed in both doing and critiquing the work of others. Just because someone cites a study, that doesn't mean the study has any bearing on the topic at hand.

Research methodology, as composed of definitions of terms, measurement approaches, and analytical techniques, to name a few components, has many dimensions which may be evaluated for either error, or context for interpretation of results and conclusions.

Mr. Bialik very capably reveals many aspects of the WHO report which mitigate its use as the Democrats and liberals have been applying it in the current health care debate.

Mr. Bialik begins his article,

"During the health-care debate, one damning statistic keeps popping up in newspaper columns and letters, on cable television and in politicians' statements: The U.S. ranks 37th in the world in health care.

The trouble is, the ranking is dated and flawed, and has contributed to misconceptions about the quality of the U.S. medical system.

Among all the numbers bandied about in the health-care debate, this ranking stands out as particularly misleading. It is based on a report released nearly a decade ago by the World Health Organization and relies on statistics that are even older and incomplete.

Few people who cite the ranking are aware that some public-health officials were skeptical of the report from the outset. The ranking was faulted because it judges health-care systems for problems -- cultural, behavioral, economic -- that aren't controlled by health care."

So we learn at the outset that even those in the medical field don't take the vaunted WHO report at its face value.

"It's a very notorious ranking," says Mark Pearson, head of health for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the 30-member, Paris-based organization of the world's largest economies. "Health analysts don't like to talk about it in polite company. It's one of those things that we wish would go away."

More recent efforts to rank national health systems have been inconclusive. On measures such as child mortality and life expectancy, the U.S. has slipped since the 2000 rankings. But some researchers say that factors beyond the control of the health-care system are to blame, such as dietary habits. Studies that have attempted to exclude these factors from the equation don't agree on whether the U.S. system looks better or worse."

Here we see a failing on the very first element of research design. One of my graduate school mentors, Wharton Marketing Professor Jerry Wind, taught me that if I could not construct the data analysis plan and tables prior to going into the field with my research instrument (questionnaire), then I wasn't ready to field the instrument. A good researcher already has the data analysis plan detailed, with each individual analysis specified, just from knowing what the questions and form of the responses will be.

Foremost among these are the so-called objective variables, i.e., the outcome measures for which causal or related variables are being sought and which effects are being measured.

On that topic, controlling for things which may affect, but aren't strictly part of the study, is critical. In the area of medical system effectiveness, common sense dictates that you need to control for the incoming patients' uncontrollable initial conditions. This would include things like lifestyle variables- diet, exercise, even genetics. Apparently, none of this was done in the WHO study.

"The WHO ranking was ambitious in its scope, grading each nation's health care on five factors. Two of these were relatively uncontroversial: health level, which is roughly the average healthy lifespan of a nation's residents; and responsiveness, which is a sort of customer-service rating encompassing factors such as the system's speed, choice and quality of amenities. The other three measure inequality in health-care outcomes; responsiveness; and individual spending.

These last three measures struck some analysts as problematic, because a country with unhealthy people could rank above a healthier one where there was a bigger gap between healthy and unhealthy people. It is certainly possible that spreading health care as evenly as possible makes a society healthier, but the rankings struck some health-care researchers as assuming that, rather than demonstrating it."

Here, we see the problems arising from what I just mentioned. Health-care outcomes seems a reasonable topic, but "individual spending?" This latter item would absolutely be conditioned upon the initial health situation of individuals. Thus, without some control across populations measured, this measure will be meaningless.

Yet health care spending is one of the two major clubs with which liberals beat the US health care system as poorly performing.

"An even bigger problem was shared by all five of these factors: The underlying data about each nation generally weren't available. So WHO researchers calculated the relationship between those factors and other, available numbers, such as literacy rates and income inequality. Such measures, they argued, were linked closely to health in those countries where fuller health data were available. Even though there was no way to be sure that link held in other countries, they used these literacy and income data to estimate health performance.

Philip Musgrove, the editor-in-chief of the WHO report that accompanied the rankings, calls the figures that resulted from this step "so many made-up numbers," and the result a "nonsense ranking." Dr. Musgrove, an economist who is now deputy editor of the journal Health Affairs, says he was hired to edit the report's text but didn't fully understand the methodology until after the report was released. After he left the WHO, he wrote an article in 2003 for the medical journal Lancet criticizing the rankings as "meaningless."

The objects of his criticism, including Christopher Murray, who oversaw the ranking for the WHO, responded in a letter to the Lancet arguing that WHO "has an obligation to provide the best available evidence in a timely manner to Member States and the scientific community." It also credited the report with achieving its "original intent" of stimulating debate and focus on health systems."

This is stunning! First, we learn that many of the desired data items were simply absent. So rather than either reduce the scope of the study, or redesign it to use available data, the researchers simply grabbed at some presumed correlated measures in some countries, then applied those correlative associations to completely different societies and economies. This technique basically assumes the result, since one uses assumed relationships to churn out "results," which are, of course, as expected, because, well, you created them from an a priori formula.

The results are truly useless, as Dr. Musgrove contends. Further, as Mr. Murray states, the study was only supposed to stimulate "debate and focus on health systems." This would mean it wasn't intended to be conclusive, or used as conclusive evidence about anything actionable. Only to spur debate.

In effect, the WHO designed a flawed study which was only meant, anyway, to provide some rough directional findings for debate. Not to conclude that this or that country was demonstrably better or worse on health care system performance. Precisely what US liberals wishing to nationalize health care are now doing.

"Prof. Murray, now director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, Seattle, says that "the biggest problem was just data" -- or the lack thereof, in many cases. He says the rankings are now "very old," and acknowledges they contained a lot of uncertainty. His institute is seeking to produce its own rankings in the next three years. The data limitations hampering earlier work "are why groups like ours are so focused on trying to get rankings better."

A WHO spokesman says the organization has no plans to update the rankings, and adds, "We would not consider it current."

Here, we have the WHO contending that a study which is 10 years old is still current in its implications. Does anyone else seriously believe this?

More importantly, do you rip up and redesign one of the world's more complex and effective health care systems, some 15% of the US economy, on the unreliable conclusions of a decade-old study not even intended to provide firm conclusions for any actions?

"And yet many people apparently do. The 37th place ranking is often cited in today's overhaul debate, even though, in some ways, the U.S. actually ranked a lot higher. Specifically, it placed 15th overall, based on its performance in the five criteria. But for the most widely publicized form of its rankings, the WHO took the additional step of adjusting for national health expenditures per capita, to calculate each country's health-care bang for its bucks. Because the U.S. ranked first in spending, that adjustment pushed its ranking down to 37th. Dominica, Costa Rica and Morocco ranked 42nd, 45th and 94th before adjusting for spending levels, compared to the U.S.'s No. 15 ranking. After adjustment, all three countries ranked higher than the U.S.

Still, people often claim that the 37th-place ranking refers to quality or outcomes. High spending rates pushed the ranking down but didn't degrade the quality of care. Among those who have recently failed to make that distinction in published comments are Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette; Iowa Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin; and Margaret E. O'Kane, president of the National Committee for Quality Assurance, an advocacy group.

Representatives for Ms. DeGette and Mr. Harkin didn't respond to requests for comment. A spokeswoman for the National Committee for Quality Assurance said, "WHO is a respected organization. ...We have no reason to believe it is inaccurate, and we would never knowingly misrepresent or misuse another organization's data."

Here we see that many US politicians don't even know the details of the WHO study they cite. This is, as I noted in my earlier comments, perhaps the worst way in which research studies are used. Yet that is precisely what liberal US Congressional members are doing with this flawed WHO study of a decade ago.

"The flawed WHO report shouldn't obscure that the U.S. is lagging its peers in some major barometers of public health. For instance, the U.S. slipped from 18th to 24th in male life expectancy from 2000 to 2009, according to the United Nations, and from 28th to 35th in female life expectancy. Its rankings in preventing male and female under-5 mortality also fell, and placed in the 30s.

But even such analyses, more limited in scope than the WHO's effort, face similar problems: How to differentiate between the quality of the medical system and other factors, such as diet, exercise and violent-crime rates.

Some think that if the U.S. health-care system isn't responsible for troubling outcomes, trying to fix it doesn't provide the best return on investment.

"We might get more bang for the buck by setting aside some of our health-care money to support novel approaches to improve nutrition, education, exercise or public safety," says Alan Garber, an economist and professor of medicine at Stanford University. "Not every health problem has a medical solution."Nor can everything be ranked -- especially health-care systems. "I think it's a fool's errand," says Dr. Musgrove."

And here we have the "Sunday punch," as it were, from misusing the WHO study's report.

Let's take the two negative health trends in US male and female life expectancy cited above.

Any sensible person would first ask,

"Which countries moved up in the rankings, which are above the US, and what is different in those societies and countries from the US?"

You wouldn't just assume the difference was due to the countries' health care systems. Diet, lifestyles, genetics, or other cultural differences could all figure more prominently than health care systems.

There is so much detailed commentary one could make on the WHO study's flaws that it's really impossible to do so from the outside. But it's a pretty good bet that to study the various aspects of comparative health care systems' effectiveness's, a lot of smaller studies focused on specific topics in more controlled situations would have produced much more valuable, credible and actionable findings.

From what I read in Mr. Bialik's excellent piece, I have no confidence in any part of the WHO report on health data from a decade ago. It should scare you, as it does me, that our politicians are taking this report at all seriously.

The Return of the Public Option?

cneul@aol.com (C Neul) — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:17:00 +0000

With the conference of the House and Senate Democrats over the several versions of health care that they have now passed, at least in committees, the so-called "public option," or government-run health care, is now back on the table.

Of course, no Republicans are included in these deliberations, as the Democrats apparently believe the American voters won't punish them for not even trying for bi-partisanship on this issue.

Will the CBO rescore any resulting bill containing the vaunted public option?
Will the resulting bill be posted online for at least 72 hours, as Wonderboy promised during his campaign for all major legislation?

We aren't getting C-Span coverage of the debates over this legislation, as promised in his campaign. Rather than the transparency he promised, we're getting the old one-party stiff-arm.

Of all the bad ideas being written into legislation, though, the public option is the worst. No matter how it is conditioned or couched, it represents the looming, eventual move by the federal government to eliminate the private health insurance industry.

This will not end well.

Perhaps enough Democrats are still not so liberal as to believe they will survive their next election after the passage of such legislation.

In a way, it may almost be better to watch these liberals pass this bill, in hopes it will return the House and perhaps the Senate, at a stroke, back to the Republicans. And maybe, as a libertarian friend of mine remarked, the GOP will remember to behave like the party of smaller government.

We can only hope.

Do They Think We Are All Stupid?

cneul@aol.com (C Neul) — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 05:52:00 +0000

I mentioned the New Jersey gubernatorial race in this post yesterday.

As part of his assault on his Republican opponent, Chris Christie, Jon Corzinne's campaign has been running non-stop ads, courtesy of Corzinne's Goldman-sourced personal fortune, attacking Christie for allowing insurance companies to "drop mammogram" coverage.

The entire thrust of these ads are that insurance companies wouldn't cover anything unless the government mandated that they do so.

Does Corzinne think we are all stupid? And, by extension, do the Washington Democrats, as well?

I guess they must, because their argument is so fallacious and obviously wrong that it caused me to think of who would believe it?

Of course, the truth is that, in a mandate-free, more competitively-governed health insurance market, you could choose exactly the coverage you wanted, and pay for that. No less, and certainly no more.

No company "drops" unmandated coverage. It's not that simple. But by mandating something, politicians then scare unsophisticated voters into believing that any candidate who is against mandates must be "for" dropping said coverage.

I'm guessing Corzinne and, by extension, Wonderboy and his minions in the Congress, are aiming at the least-sophisticated voters. The ones already on welfare or getting government subsidies of one type or another.

Because anyone who buys, say, auto insurance, knows you can elect, at some point, when the value of your car is sufficiently low, to not pay for collision damage coverage.

Why anyone would think that you should not be able, in a competitive insurance market, to buy what you want, and not what you don't, is beyond me.

But the way Corzinne's ads keep hammering away on this falsehood, it's evident he has no respect for the intelligence of New Jersey voters.

The Conundrum of The New Jersey Voter

cneul@aol.com (C Neul) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 06:45:00 +0000

It's tough to be a voter in New Jersey this year. One really feels there's no practical, quality choice in the gubernatorial election.

The Democrats are, of course, propping up failed liberal Jon Corzinne. After being kicked out as co-head of Goldman Sachs' years ago, Jon bought a New Jersey Senate seat. Tiring of that, and not expecting the Democrats to retake the upper chamber, he then bought the governor's seat.

Perhaps he thinks getting his ticket punched there, twice, gives him presidential credentials. Or maybe he's just bored with working for a living, so political elective office makes sense.

Who knows?

Either way, he's taken the wreckage left by the last governor, who resigned under an ethics cloud, and worsened it. New Jersey is probably closer behind California in its fiscal mess than most people, or state citizens, realize.

Then we have "Chris Christie."

What a guy! A product of the Christie (no relation) Todd Whitman-influenced state Republican party, he's been coached to alter his positions like a custom-made suit.

I never trust someone who flips on right-to-life issues suddenly, and without reason. Christie did this so that a pro-life stance, his original view, wouldn't hinder his chances in a solidly Blue state.

However, as an independent who registers Republican, even I can see how Christie is corrupt even before winning the governorship.

The reports of his cutting a deal to spare his brother an SEC prosecution ring true. So does his paying off Justice department cronies with no-bid contracts for outsourced legal work.

Sure, sure, he got a bunch of convictions as a federal prosecutor. Sure, so did Rudy Giuliani.

But I think the comparisons stop there.

You knew what Giuliani was for, and against, even if you didn't live in New York City. Christie merely mouths platitudes about lower taxes and spending, but offers no solid plans for such empty concepts.

This is a state in the choke-hold of lawyers, of either party, in the state legislature. It's going to take a lot to restore any shred of fiscal rectitude in the state.

Faced with these unappetizing choices, one considers the independent, Chris Daggett. Daggett actually details how he'll cut a range of taxes and extend the sales tax to more items, without raising the rate. Of course, there's no plan for spending cuts in his campaign, either.

But the real question is how to vote without feeling you've rewarded vagueness, incompetence, or corruption, or wasted your vote.

I can't vote for Corzinne. Just isn't going to happen. I never liked him or his policies, and they have demonstrably failed.

I voted for Lonnegan in the Republican primary. I don't like Christie, and I don't trust him. With only a prosecutorial career and no clear ideas on governing, voting for him is like buying a pig in a poke. And, no, I'm not poking fun at his weight or girth.

But I just have doubts about voting for Daggett. It's a classic prisoners' dilemma. If I knew a lot of other voters, disgusted with both of the other clowns, would choose Daggett, then so would I.

I mean, how much worse can things get? And several local and regional news organizations have endorsed his candidacy.

But if I vote for Daggett and Corzinne wins, then I did waste my vote.

but if I vote for Christie, I'm not voting with a clear conscience.

It's all very disturbing. A microcosm, really, of my disappointments with both parties on the national level, too.

Polanski Edges Closer to Extradition

cneul@aol.com (C Neul) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:37:00 +0000

Remember the flap over Roman Polanski's arrest in Switzerland earlier this month?

It hasn't gone away.

A news article this week reported that the Swiss have refused to allow Polanski to leave jail for house arrest, citing the obvious flight risk. After all, he's in Europe because he fled a court sentencing in the US in the first place.

What is comical is that Polanski's lawyer says they will attempt to offer ever larger financial assets as collateral to get Polanski sprung.

By the way, he's 76 and probably has enough money that losing a chalet or two pales besides being imprisoned in the US for flight from his original sentencing.

Polanski is reportedly suffering from "depression because of his incarceration."

Hmm. I wonder what sort of depression or other psychological impairments the admitted rapist's 13 year-old victim suffered after he drugged her, then sexually assaulted her?

Yes, it seems the Swiss are acting in such a way as to deliver this little moral package to Wonderboy's doorstep one day soon.

How will he reconcile Hollywood's affection for him, and its denizens' demands that Polanski be pardoned for art's sake?

Stay tuned.....

A Sad Tale of Federal Regulatory Overkill & Thrift Shops

cneul@aol.com (C Neul) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:12:00 +0000

Remember the stampede in Congress to regulate toy imports from China and, then, by extension, regulate the testing and safety of toys sold in the US?

Talk about unintended consequences. I read about this at the time, but didn't really grasp the full impact.

Yesterday I visited a local resale shop to donate some items. One was a piece of clothing one of my children had outgrown. The other was an all-plastic toy.

The toy was an accessory for small metal cars. It was a simulated garage with a few electrically-powered moving parts.

When I spoke to an employee at the shop, she smiled as she took the article of clothing, then simply said,

"Sorry, we can't take the toy."

I somewhat dimly asked why not, and she reminded me that, with the imposition of recent regulations, all second-hand shops had to drop handling toys.

She told me that they can't afford the liability, should someone buy a used toy at the shop and then sue them for violating laws regarding lead, paint, or anything else now prohibited.

I looked at the toy I held, then at the woman. I knew it was useless to appeal that the toy had no paint, because it was obvious that the shop had to simply stop handling toys of all sorts.

Clearly, they had been told by their insurer that it wasn't enough for them to try to discriminate between lawful and unlawful donated toys.

It was safer for them to simply stop taking and reselling any toys.

This seems to me to be a sad state of affairs. In the current economic recession, I'm sure there are quite a few parents who would be happy to find some less expensive toys at resale shops.

But, now, that's impossible. A reliable source of used toys has been shuttered, raising costs to parents who can't necessarily buy new toys for their children all of the time.

How sad that a previously-functioning market for still-usable, used toys has been permanently destroyed by Congress' regulatory overreach.

The False Advertising For A Public Health Care Option

cneul@aol.com (C Neul) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:01:00 +0000

I happened to see an ad for public option health care yesterday. The ad in question made use of alleged "facts" that were calculated to prove the wisdom of a public option, i.e., government-run health care.

Among the things I recall about the ad were that it alleged that one insurance company controlled more than 90% of some measure of insurance, though it didn't mention what that measure was. There were similar statistics cited, without sources, to suggest that there is no competition in the health insurance sector.

Here are two other pro-public option ads you can find on YouTube.

I found it notable that this first video only engaged in ad hominem attacks. That is, the health insurance CEO is bad simply because he lives in a large house and is paid a large salary. There's no mention of his background, how long he worked to attain that position, or how well, or poorly, he has done for his shareholders.

We know nothing about the family that lost their home, allegedly due to health-related expenses. We don't know if the home was too expensive for their budget, or what their lifestyle was, and how it may have contributed to their medical expense woes.

In short, there are no contexts for either emotional appeal.

This video is just a farce. I guess the intent is to suggest that insurance companies can change policy rules on a whim. I don't think that's at all true. In fact, my guess is that, being subject to state regulations, they probably have to appear before a state insurance commission with rate increase requests.

However, for some states, like mine, New Jersey, there are so many mandates and such an inhospitable health insurance climate, that the best, cheapest plans allowing the buyer to tailor the policy for her/himself, won't do business there. Instead, we are hostage to what is, admittedly, a non-market in health insurance, in which rate increases are simply dictated.

But that's a consequence of political actions by state legislatures, not the insurance companies. I know for a fact that health insurance coverage is about half as expensive just sixty miles west of me, across the Delaware river, in Pennsylvania.

What public option proponents don't discuss is any of the following:

-Most situations of a lack of competition in health insurance were constructed by politicians.
-Industry concentration is a common occurrence in most multi-state industries.
-Insurance companies are, for the most part, publicly-owned. Thus, so-called excess profits for insurance companies are, in fact, good for their shareholders, who could be American voters and taxpayers, should they so choose to buy the equities of those insurance companies.
-Comparing US health care spending to that of other countries makes no allowance for more innovative treatments and drugs used in the US. Nor does it address whether it is good, or bad, to spend more on something like health care. Perhaps more spending denotes better outcomes, longer lifespans and higher satisfaction with outcomes.
-Comparing foreign country health care costs with those of the US, without mentioning different tort lawsuit environments, is a gross misrepresentation of the true situation. Much US health care expense is engendered in defense of unregulated tort lawsuits for damages beyond simple medical malpractice.

In short, the public option proponents grossly distort, limit and hide the context of their so-called "evidence" against a health insurance market devoid of government-run providers, but allowing inter-state competition without mandated coverages in policies.

Such a situation would, in fact, allow for the most competition, with no tax-free, hidden-cost government 'competitor' undercutting actual costs, and driving private insurers from the marketplace.

If insurance companies were allowed to easily sell policies across state lines, without the needless complexity of conforming with 50 state insurance commissions policies,' and state-created mandates were eliminated, health insurance policy costs would drop immediately.

Add tort reform, and US health care costs for the same excellent level of care would fall even further.

The simple truth is that today's health insurance market is what it is as a consequence of many state legislatures, and the federal government, through Medicare and Medicaid, not through the design of the insurance industry.

The Shame of Edolphus Towns (D-NY)

cneul@aol.com (C Neul) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 06:28:00 +0000

To the sullied names of Democratic Senators Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad, we can now add the name of New York Democratic Representative Edolphus Towns.

Towns has refused to take a vote in his committee to investigate Countrywide Financial's "Friends of Angelo" VIP mortgage loan program.

Of course, Towns' own two mortgages from Countrywide have no bearing on the matter, do they?

Not at all. Not in Frisco Nan's new House of Responsibility and Transparency.

California Republican Representative Darrell Issa is pressing for this investigation, and even Illinois Democrat (and Rahm Emmanuel replacement) Congressman Mike Quigley favors taking the vote and even publishing the names of any Congressional Members who accepted favors from Countrywide and Mozillo.

But Towns still refuses to either recuse himself or take that vote.

Apparently, a recent committee meeting at which the vote was again skipped saw the Democratic Representatives slinking out the back door of the meeting room.

Towns is a disgrace to his state and the nation. He openly supports tax cheat and fellow Black Caucus and New York Representative Charlie Rangel, too.

It's corrupt representation like this that weakens our Republic. And, hopefully, will lead to a change of party majority in the House next year.

'We Need A National Debate.....'

cneul@aol.com (C Neul) — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 05:47:00 +0000

How often have you heard some politician or pundit say this?

"We need a national debate about....."

-health care
-the stimulus
-cap and tax/trade
-increased deficit spending

Sounds nice, doesn't it?

Even Wonderboy, in various clips aired on Fox News last night, promised that any health care bill would have the Congressional debates carried on C-Span. They had him on video record making that campaign promise twice. God knows how many more times he said it out of camera range.

Of course, the First Rookie has conveniently forgotten about that promise, hasn't he? Along with the fabled website on which you would be able to view bills for 72 hours prior to Congressional voting.

But what does it really mean to "have a national debate?"

Well, it could mean town hall meetings with your Senator or Representative. But the current administration and Democratic Congressional leadership has declared these to be moot, because voters attending them are "angry."

Sadly, in our system, the "national debate" is supposed to occur, over months, in the Houses of Congress. In the early days of our Republic, such debates were held over bills, after Senators and Representatives had had their ears bent at meetings with their constituents back home. And knowing the earful they'd get upon returning from the current session.

Now, communications are much faster. Emails and phone calls can pour into a Representative's or Senator's office in real time as bills are debated and networks report on the action in Washington.

But, to be realistic, the only "national debates" occur in Congressional Committee rooms, committee chair offices, and perhaps on the floor of the Houses. That's why the recent Democratic bum's rush with health care is so worrying. There's no openness to the crafting of these various health care bills.

At the least, you'd hope that Congress would hold hearings, during which relevant experts, industry participants and pundits could all testify with their ideas, plans and warnings. On the basis of such testimony, various committees could write legislation and invite commentary from these parties. And let's not forget the CBO, which could be scoring various components, the better to be added-up flexibly as Congress actually gets down to writing draft legislation.

Of course, such a process would take time and risk pet liberal concepts being trashed or seen as too costly.

This is what should constitute a "national debate." Not closed-door committee horse-trading on a bill which hasn't actually been printed by Baucus, because it's more concept than legislation.

The way our Constitution is written, the only true national debate you'll see is what C-Span shows on the House or Senate floor. And the only remedy you'll have is at the voting booth every other first Tuesday in November.

The Legislative Process

cneul@aol.com (C Neul) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:49:00 +0000

It's fascinating to me how much fanfare Democrats have accorded the mere passage out of the Democratically-controlled Senate Finance Committee of a health care bill. It would seem that they are wasting a lot of powder on what should have been a non-event back in February.

After all, once Wonderboy was elected, why didn't the Senate Democrats simply write their wish list into a health care bill and ram it through committee to the floor on January 21st, at the earliest? Or certainly within a week of the inauguration.

But, no, that's not what happened. Apparently leery of voter reactions, they actually tried, unsuccessfully, for eight months to write a bill that would attract more than token, expected defections from the Republicans, in the form of Arlen Specter wannabe Olympia Snowe of Maine.

By the way, of all the states in which a Senator might not want to risk being identified with the Democrats' health care schemes, you'd think Maine, with its own failing universal health care mandates, would be one of them. Massachusetts and Tennessee being two others.

In any event, still to come is the Senate's reconciliation of the Finance and Health Committees' two bills. By the way, since there is a Health Committee, doesn't that make you wonder what on earth the Finance Committee was even doing trying to propose a bill?

What's next, agricultural subsidies from the Telecommunications Committee?

Then you have the separate, much more left-wing House health care bill. And the eventual reconciliation of that with whatever monstrosity may have passed on the floor of the Senate.

Of course, there is the slight chance that there won't be a Senate health care bill actually passed on the floor. The more people understand the risks and costs of this entire effort, the less some Democratic Senators may wish to risk their precious asses....errr...seats....by voting for it.

I was actually quite surprised to see Mary Landrieu (D-LA) in this exchange on CNBC the other day.

Imagine that. A Democratic Senator endorsing fewer mandates at the state level and inter-state purchase of health insurance. Granted, it's in the twisted, unworkable so-called 'regional exchanges,' but the concept has reared its head. And Landrieu explicitly comes out against the vaunted "public option."

Seems to me that some Democrats, like Landrieu, may be fearful of voting blindly for whatever their leadership hands them. Especially after conferencing with Frisco Nan's minions over this legislation.

There is so much further to go with this that you just wonder how desperate Wonderboy and his followers are to crow about the smallest steps. Steps which can't really be called a victory when they control both chambers of Congress and the White House.

No Surprise: Baucus' Committee Passes Health Care Bill

cneul@aol.com (C Neul) — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:37:00 +0000

Yesterday's Senate Finance Committee vote to pass Max Baucus' pig of a health care bill out to the Senate floor for debate and vote was hardly the surprise so many liberals made it to be.

Yes, even though turncoat Maine Republican Senator Olympia Snowe, it was still a slam dunk along party lines. True, Wonderboy singled her out for her vote. That alone should make Maine Republicans toss her out of the party.

On the other hand, I will say that Snowe made it clear she only voted to get it out of committee so it could be debated on the floor. Mind you, Baucus had no need of her vote.

Charles Krauthammer noted, on Fox News last night, that Snow won't likely vote for either the reconciliation bill coming out of the Senate Finance and Health Committee conference, since it may contain the public option. Ditto for the result of the House conference.

Thus, he observed, Wonderboy's lauding of Snowe for 'reaching across the aisle' will be hollow and look foolishly premature.

But what's new about that and our First Rookie?

What really amused me, however, was the breathless manner in which CNBC's resident socialist, John Harwood, reported the passage as if it had ever been in doubt.

Honestly, the liberal media just won't quit. Making it out like a major moment that one Senate committee, dominated by Democrats, finally squeezed their own bill out among their own members.

Will it ever really make it into law? Time will tell, but know this. It's already mid-October. Those two gubernatorial elections are in about three weeks.

And next year, every Senator and Representative who voted for passage of this bill's descendant may well face loss of her or his seat.

An Overview of Democratic US Presidents' Arms Control Failures

cneul@aol.com (C Neul) — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:14:00 +0000

Stephen Rademaker, a State Department official from the Bush administration, wrote an insightful piece in the Wall Street Journal last month entitled, "Why Democrats Fail at Arms Control."

Mr. Rademaker wrote a fairly long editorial filled with references to a multitude of non-proliferation and arms control treaties, e.g., CTBT, SALT, ABM, START, SORT and SALT II.

But what caught my eye was this passage,

"The principal reason that recent Democratic presidents have failed with Russia has been their excessive enthusiasm and ambition, which perversely encourages the Russians to overreach, dooming prospects for agreement. This was a problem for Messrs. Carter and Clinton. And it promises to be an even bigger problem for Mr. Obama, who comes to office with an arms-control agenda- the abolition of nuclear weapons- far more ambitious than that of any previous administration."

One of the so-called "advisers" that Wonderboy has cited, in his quest to appear bi- and post-partisan, is Republican Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana. Here's what Rademaker has to say about Lugar's views,

"Early on, Sen. Richard Lugar (R., Ind.) admonished the administration to "resist calls to load the negotiations agenda with objectives that, while desirable, would slow down the talks and threaten the tight timetable" for avoiding a lapse in arms-control verification."

So much for that adviser. Rademaker notes that our First Rookie summarily ignored Lugar's recommendations, and did exactly the opposite, attempting to install a completely new vehicle to begin ridding the world of all nuclear weapons in place of the planned, much simpler extension of verification procedures.

Mr. Rademaker goes on to note,

"Today, the administration finds itself in the unhappy position of negotiating against a firm deadline, with very ambitious objectives and a negotiating partner that does not share its political needs to reach agreement. Come December, Russia can be expected to present Mr. Obama with two choices: Sign an agreement on terms disadvantageous to the U.S. (thereby risking defeat of the treaty in the Senate), or allow the START treaty to expire with nothing to replace it."

Yet another example of why it's unwise to allow to run, be nominated and elected, a person with no substantial life experience or prior government experience at a significant level.

Being a multi-term state legislator, then serving less than two years in the US Senate, has resulted in Wonderboy being totally unfit to actually govern the United States and, thus, fulfill his oath of office. This arms control issue is a perfect illustration of how that is occurring in one crucial area after another in the nation's affairs.

Steve Wynn On Government Fiscal Policy

cneul@aol.com (C Neul) — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 07:28:00 +0000

I don't usually watch Chris Wallace's Sunday program on Fox News. But for some reason, I found myself accidentally viewing these scenes the other day.

I don't usually find Nevada casino mogul Steve Wynn to be a source of business wisdom. Mostly, I've seen him as a very good, successful promoter for his hotel and casino properties. But I honestly don't follow what he does.

Sunday, Wynn was the 'business' guest on Wallace's discussion regarding tax policy. Here's what Steve Wynn had to say.

I found him to be extremely articulate and sound. Perhaps one of the best business people I've heard or seen on this subject.

Elsewhere in the debate, a few minutes later, I believe, Wynn expounded on the topic of the danger of big government. Michigan governor Granholm was foolish enough to try to demonize Wynn, and he gave back better than he got. Much better.

So much better, in fact, that Wynn had Granholm mumbling contritely that she agreed with him.

The Coming Health Care Bill CramDown

cneul@aol.com (C Neul) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 06:22:00 +0000

Get ready for the bum's rush!

Max Baucus' grossly misrepresented and lied-about Senate Finance Committee health care bill is reported to be voted out of committee on Tuesday.

If you are like me, you are curious as to why a health care bill is being written in the Senate Finance Committee. Doesn't the Senate have some sort of health and social welfare committee where this pig should have been born?

As it happens, by the way, Fox News reported this past week that the Senate has only two committees which, as a matter of operating principle, never publish full bills to the full Senate prior to votes.

Guess what one of them is? That's right- the Finance Committee.

You cannot make this stuff up.

So the bill goes out of committee this week. I suppose it rattles around on the floor for "debate" for several days, prior to the Democrats holding their noses and cramming the bill through with only 51 votes under "reconciliation" rules, although those rules are supposed to apply to budget bills, not national social policy omnibus bills with pages numbering in the thousands.

Then, after some time during which the House will pass some disgusting, larded-up pig of a health care bill of its own, the two chambers' representatives meet for the all-important "reconciliation" process.

This is a different process than the Senate's fly-by-night voting rules which overturn its traditional requirement of 60 votes for passage.

My question is this. The House Democrats have made clear that some provisions in the Senate version will be DOA. Among them, for example, is the tax on so-called "gold plated," or "Cadillac" health care plans, many of which belong to union members.

I hope the public and Republicans insist on a CBO rescoring of this new pig-in-a-poke. You can bet that what Baucus has been cheering about for his bill, a so-called, alleged "deficit neutral" scoring over a decade, by dint of carefully backloading benefits and front-loading taxes, will become a net deficit creator, along with a huge spending kick.

If the Democrats hang their collective hats on the CBO scoring, let's all see what happens when the Democratic pigs in the House get their snouts in the trough on this one.

You can bet that the scoring will result in a bill so far from any sort of spending neutrality that there'll be no way of disguising it as the Democrats try to cram it down voters' throats.

Michelle Obama Is A Liar Or ?????

cneul@aol.com (C Neul) — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 22:16:00 +0000

Lost amidst the hoopla over the recent, failed Chicago Olympics 2016 bid was adequate focus on a fairly impassioned lie told by the First Rookie's wife.

Michelle Obama was recorded as tearfully recalling watching US Olympian Carl Lewis- a black, of course- at the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics on her father's lap!

Some observant wags quickly did the math and reported that Wonderboy's wife has apparently been infected with same lying disease as Hillary Clinton.

Remember when Hillary mis-remembered being under fire as she flew into some Eastern European airport during her husband's administration?

This time, it seems that the Anointed One's spouse was over 20 years of age when she was sitting on her dad's lap.

Do tell!

I guess either Michelle is a liar.....or we are to infer that she didn't have the healthiest of upbringings, n'est pas?