Who is John Galt?

clever

Hat tip to Donald Luskin.

the sotu

Talk is talk.  And it's cheap, too.  I was actually glad at Obama's visible frustration, but it's misplaced.

Obama railed against both parties over gridlock.  I think gridlock's good, of course, but the truth is that Republicans deserve little credit for it.  Dems have had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate since Al Franken took office, and Scott Brown hasn't even been seated yet.  The only reason the Senate's not playing "Beat the Clock" to get healthcare reform through right now is because Democrats refuse to play along.  And the most destructive thing the House has passed -- Cap and Trade -- got a few Republican votes.

I don't want to sound elitist.  But taking Obama's speech seriously requires buying into the premise that government exists to solve problems.  That's not why government exists, and it's not what government does.

Ultimately, it is individuals who solve problems, usually working for their own benefit.  A doctor cures a chef's cancer in exchange for some good food.  Or perhaps he cures it in exchange for a Mercedes, and the chef prepares meals for the assembly line workers as part of a more elaborate arrangement that lands the doctor a car.

Government exists because the doctor, the chef and the assembly line workers want to protect their arrangement.  If I work hard, someone else could take the product of my labor by force, denying me whatever benefit I was seeking when I labored.  I work for carrots, and the government carries a stick to ensure that my carrots remain mine.

That stick is all government has going for it.  And that's important, because as soon as we start to think that government should "solve problems," then we are saying those problems should be solved with sticks rather than carrots.  Government goes from protecting your sovereignty over your labor to assuming sovereignty over you.

As I said, ultimately it is individuals who solve problems, working for their own benefit.  You benefit from what I do, and I do it in exchange for whatever benefit you offer me.  Putting government in charge of solving problems means that some people must work for the "benefit" of staying out of jail -- while others receive a benefit without earning it.  Government's not solving problems at all -- that's still being done by individuals -- but the benefit system is radically altered in the process.

Obama wants you to see the left and right squabbling over the fruit of your future labor.  But in reality, you benefit the most when both sides are unable to reach an agreement on seizing it from you in the first place.

And while Obama complains about partisanship, obstructionism and gridlock, to those of us who know better he might has well be up at the podium for an hour and a half chanting, "Four legs good, two legs better."

Which, in fact, is pretty much what he was doing.

stossell: serious about crony capitalism

the ubermob

The most amazing, frightening thing about what we've just seen is the sheer determination of "the party of the people" to saddle the people with something so characteristically un-American and unpopular.

The fundamental principle of "democracy" is "might makes right."  The mere mass of the mob is an imposing political force.  Politicians feed it propaganda, misrepresent the facts, and work it into a frenzy that will rally around nearly any "solution."  Nearly.

The conventional rationale is that these politicians know what's better for the people than the people themselves.  Sure, the bill is unpopular now, but force it on the public anyway, and by November they'll be grateful to have it.  Never mind that the bill is long on taxes right now, and will still be very short on benefits through November.  What's important is that this is reform, and the common folk simply don't know what's good for them.  We've got all year to tell them how great it is.

That explanation suffices -- but only if the elites really believe their ideas will work.  And in the case of healthcare, this is an area where we just witnessed some serious denial.  So how does that happen?

Well, it starts with someone like Bill Clinton, taking Democrats in a closed room and explaining that if only they'd passed healthcare in 1994, they'd have never lost the Congress that November.  It starts by getting the Democratic caucus together, and then feeding it propaganda, misrepresenting the facts, and working them into a frenzy that will rally around nearly any solution.  Nearly.

Thank God we pick leaders who are better than the common mob.

"cadillac" plans

We have to break out of this mindset which holds that pro-healthcare-reformers are simply negotiating the form of the legislation.  That's not what's happening, and to look at it that way gives the process more credibility than it deserves.  It's a faulty premise, and it does not deserve to be taken for granted -- it should be challenged up front.

Union leaders did not agree to a tax on the high-priced healthcare plans that are the hallmark of union membership.  Instead, they agreed to a tax on everyone else's high-priced plan, in exchange for reduced taxes on their own.  They agreed to tax your plan as long as theirs isn't taxed as much.  Or as soon.  In other words, they didn't agree with the "reform" you're going to get at all -- they agreed to a special reform for themselves, and the cost of that reform will simply become one more of the giveaways that make your reform more expensive.

We need to stop listening to the people who describe these little "breakthroughs" as legislative progress.  Because what each one is, in reality, is yet another politically-protected party coming forward to complain about the legislation, and being given a special exemption from it.  Each carve-out is yet another vote against the bill, voiced by some interest special enough and important enough to get itself excluded.  In the end, unions are not being asked to support a bill they object to.  They're being given a different bill for themselves, in exchange for supporting the bill that you object to.  You, on the other hand, are not important enough to get out of it.  And, by the way, we need you to pay a little extra to help cover all these exemptions -- thanks for your support.

And it's not just labor unions.  It's Ben Nelson, whose state has been excluded from the increase in Medicaid contributions.  And it's Bill Nelson of Florida -- the only state where if you like the Medicare Advantage plan that you have then you really will be able to keep it.  And all the other states, groups and special interests who got a similar deal.  These are not endorsements of the bill, they are rejections of it.  These people did not sign on -- they got a pass.  These are all parties who know the legislation is oppressive, but who've been persuaded to support oppressing you in exchange for saving their own politically-protected hides.

When conversation switches to the healthcare reform bill, I've decided that my first response, from now on, will be to ask "Which one?"  I'll want to know if we're talking about the version with the tax on Cadillac plans, or the one without.  Are we talking about the version with Medicare Advantage cuts, or the one without it?  Are you referring to the version the Amish and the Christian Scientists get, or the one for the Catholics?  Do you mean the version with Medicaid hikes, or the one without?  The one that kicks in this year, with just taxes, or the more expensive version that kicks in four years from now, with both taxes and benefits?

At this point, I'm surprised we're not just raising taxes on Colorado to pay for the whole damned thing.

theater

I'm going to speak the language of unemployment in this post, but I want you pro-healthcare-reformers to pay close attention.  Because this post is really directed at you.

Almost miraculously, "only" 85,000 more workers became unemployed in December.  This was considered bad news by many analysts who had actually expected things to improve some, but that's not even the half of it.

You see, economists measure unemployment in several ways.  Perhaps you remember the Seinfeld episode in which character George Costanza invents "Vandelay Industries," where he hopes to convince the lady at the unemployment office that he's trying to get a job as a latex salesman.  To collect a check, Costanza needs to establish that he's looking for employment.  The government's most public unemployment figure counts people who are looking for work.  By that measurement, if you're not actively trying to find work, you're not "unemployed."

So, when we're told that only 85,000 more workers became unemployed in December, what they're really saying is that the number of out-of-work people looking for jobs has gone up by 85,000.  What they're not telling you is that there are now 661,000 -- over half a million -- more people out of work than there were in November, but that in the meantime some 576,000 of the people who were already unemployed stopped looking for work.  They became "discouraged."

If the economy's still losing over half a million jobs per month we're not anywhere near the bottom.  I'd like to say this reflects a flaw in the way we measure unemployment, but I'm sure that method works during ordinary recessions.  What's flawed here is economic policy, and a glitch in our metrics is being used to gloss over it.

Real unemployment -- working age people who would be working, but aren't -- is 17.3%.  I'm not just counting up the retirees and the sick and the kids at home watching TV on their parents' couch -- I'm talking about people who'd like a job.  These are depression-era unemployment levels, and what's changed is the way we measure.

In addition to the glitch in our unemployment reporting, there are other, more deliberate deceptions.  Remember all that "jobs saved" crap?  Or how about all the jobs created in zip codes and electoral districts that don't exist?  Well, now they're looking at a whole new way of counting the jobs impacted by "stimulus."  Basically, if you have a job and someone near you gets stimulus money, then your job now counts as a stimulus success story.  Congratulations.

wasted opportunities

It's frustrating to look back on a conversation and realize what you could have said, or what questions you could have asked to make your point -- but didn't.  And it's even more frustrating when you see such really good points being overlooked in someone else's exchange.

As you probably know, yesterday CSPAN challenged Obama to live up to his campaign promise about healthcare reform being planned completely out in the open.  They invited -- no, dared -- the President to open up the proceedings as Democrats attempt to merge the House and Senate healthcare reform bills.

Over the summer leading up to his election, Obama said:

We’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.

Yesterday, following CSPAN's challenge, a reporter asked Nancy Pelosi about Obama's pledge.

“There are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail,” quipped Pelosi, who has no intention of making the deliberations public.

Sadly, nobody appears to have followed up by asking if Pelosi's response also referred to this quote:

"The Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history." -- Nancy Pelosi

But don't take my word for it.  I could write an entire series of posts on this short clip alone:

"jobs saved" branches out

Yesterday, North Dakota Democrat Senator Byron Dorgan announced that he will not be seeking re-election.  Chris Dodd, who faces the fight of his life for his Connecticut Senate seat, is expected to announce his "retirement" today.  If Dodd were to seek another term, the odds are much higher that a Republican would win the seat.  These jobs, it would appear, could not be saved.

This would be a good time to stop and consider what a Democrat-run government has accomplished in the last year.  So far, Dems' own best description of their achievements comes down to, "Thanks to us, it wasn't worse."  It's the same reasoning behind "jobs saved," only extended to include everything else that didn't get better, too -- which is to say everything.

And it looks like that's going to be the Dems' principal 2010 campaign strategy, as well.  Fox reported that they plan to campaign against George W. Bush again.  This tells me that the Dems don't expect any demonstrable improvements that they can take credit for.  Instead, we're gonna have to take their word for how much better the existing misery is, this coming November, compared to what we would have had with four more hypothetical years of Bush.

Now, it's one thing to have grand plans and high hopes, and then later point back at your good intentions in retrospect, and claim that at least you minimized the damage.  But it's really something else to look forward to the 10 months remaining before the election, and know in advance that you're going to run on mitigating your failures. 

With 10 months to go, Dems have time to actually alter their strategy; time to make improvements.  Instead, they're digging in to defend something -- something that they already know is going to create a lot of very unhappy voters.

The Dems are already planning for how unhappy you're going to be about the loss of so much liberty.  But then, your happiness is not what they want -- it's the liberty they're after.  And what Dems are saying, about freedom and happiness, is that it's easier to take your freedom and then just tell you that you're happy.

The truth is, I don't know whether it's more amazing to marvel at how stupid liberals think we all are, or to marvel at how often they're proven right.

This has to be stopped.

healthcare update

Not much time today. 

Via Drudge, here's US News & World Report on the "ping pong" process for reconciling the healthcare bill.  Senate rules give Republicans several opportunities to obstruct the conference process.  But the bill can pass without conference, as long as either chamber gives a straight up or down vote to the exact text passed by the other.  So the Dems will send the current Senate bill to the House, and then an amended bill should come back to the Senate for a straight up or down vote.

healthcare reform constitutionality

Orrin Hatch's Wall Street Journal op-ed on the constitutionality of the healthcare reform bill.

First, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to require that Americans purchase health insurance. Congress must be able to point to at least one of its powers listed in the Constitution as the basis of any legislation it passes. None of those powers justifies the individual insurance mandate. Congress's powers to tax and spend do not apply because the mandate neither taxes nor spends. The only other option is Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.

Congress has many times stretched this power to the breaking point, exceeding even the expanded version of the commerce power established by the Supreme Court since the Great Depression. It is one thing, however, for Congress to regulate economic activity in which individuals choose to engage; it is another to require that individuals engage in such activity. That is not a difference in degree, but instead a difference in kind. It is a line that Congress has never crossed and the courts have never sanctioned.

...selective spending targeted at certain states runs afoul of the general welfare clause. The welfare it serves is instead very specific and has been dubbed "cash for cloture" because it secured the 60 votes the majority needed to end debate and pass this legislation.

A third constitutional defect in this ObamaCare legislation is its command that states establish such things as benefit exchanges, which will require state legislation and regulations. This is not a condition for receiving federal funds, which would still leave some kind of choice to the states. No, this legislation requires states to establish these exchanges or says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will step in and do it for them. It renders states little more than subdivisions of the federal government.

This violates the letter, the spirit, and the interpretation of our federal-state form of government.