Mandate This Too!

The Wall Street Journal offers a brilliant, satirical letter to the Obama administration on other healthcare essentials that the government ought to mandate coverage for. Here's a sampling of the letter:

Dear President Obama,

Can you believe the nerve of employers? Many of them still seem to think that they should be allowed to determine the benefits they offer. I guess they haven't read your 2,000-page health law. It's the government's job now. 

That's a good thing, too. Employers for too long have been able to restrict our access to essential health services like contraception by making us pay some of the bill. Really, it's amazing that we aren't all dead. Now, thanks to you, we'll enjoy free and universal access to preventative care just like workers do in Cuba. Even so, there are still many essential benefits that the government must mandate to make the U.S. the freest country in the world. 

• Fitness club memberships. Most doctors agree that exercising is one of the best ways to prevent disease. However, gym memberships can run between $240 and $1,800 per year. Such high prices force us to choose between exercising and buying groceries. While we could walk or jog outside, many of us prefer not to. Therefore, employers should be required to pay for workers' gym memberships. Doing so might even reduce employers' health costs, which is why many companies already subsidize memberships. Those that don't are limiting our freedom to exercise. 

...

If only people would understand how un-hyperbolic and similarly defended these proposals really are to the underpinning logic of the current contraception issue. For the remainder of the letter, see the Wall Street Journal.

A Fair Compromise?

The Obama administration seems to think it has a winning formula in its ill-handled contraception fiasco. Having previously refused to exempt religiously-affiliated organizations from providing contraception through their insurance programs, Obama claims to have accommodated these organizations with a new ruling. The new compromise purportedly exempts religiously-affiliated organizations, but not their insurance providers. Specifically, these institutions no longer need to provide healthcare plans that contradict their beliefs; however, the insurance provider is required to offer supplemental riders, free-of-charge, to any insured policyholders who want to have these services.

The "compromise" is, bluntly, asinine and economic nonsense. It is a political dressing-up of the same program, meant to confuse opponents through a veil of economic subterfuge. The Wall Street Journal outlined the argument well:

...[Y]ou almost have to admire the absurdity of the new plan President Obama floated yesterday: The government will now write a rule that says the best things in life are "free," including contraception. Thus a political mandate will be compounded by an uneconomic one—in other words, behold the soul of ObamaCare.
...
Insurance companies won't be making donations. Drug makers will still charge for the pill. Doctors will still bill for reproductive treatment. The reality, as with all mandated benefits, is that these costs will be borne eventually via higher premiums. The balloon may be squeezed differently over time, and insurers may amortize the cost differently over time, but eventually prices will find an equilibrium. Notre Dame will still pay for birth control, even if it is nominally carried by a third-party corporation.

Fortunately, many opponents of this ruling have not been duped by President Obama's and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius's twisted logic. They correctly stand firm against the attempted gross encroachment into the private lives of individuals. GOP Presidential candidate Rick Santorum summed it up best, "It’s not about contraception.... It’s about economic liberty."

The Weekend Interview with Wolfowitz

This week's Weekend Interview in the Wall Street Journal is an interesting and recommended read.  The WSJ sits down with Paul Wolfowitz, often deemed one of the architects of the Iraq War and the neocon movement.  Wolfowitz discusses his thoughts on bin Laden, the Arab Spring, Iran, and Iraq.  While at times critical of Obama - who had opposed Wolfowitz from his pre-presidential days - Wolfowitz is quite even-handed and provides insightful analysis on the Middle East.  Most interesting is that he demurs on crediting the Iraq War for sparking the Arab Spring, arguing that "I think Iraq took so long and was so bloody and is still so uncertain that it would be hard to say that it has inspired people."

It is the Entitlements, Stupid!

Unsustainable public entitlements seem to be the most talked about secret in the nation.  There does not appear to be a pundit out there who has not addressed the necessity for cuts in or fixes of the entitlement system.  Europe has started facing down this monster while US states (who have to balance their budgets) have begun the reform process.  Yet, strangely the federal government has done little to address the nation's budgetary mess.

In today's Wall Street Journal, Charles Koch wrote a poignant editorial about the need to fix America's fiscal situation.  He called on the government to tackle the overwhelming burden of the nation's entitlement system.

In spite of looming bankruptcy, President Obama and many in Congress have tiptoed around the issue of overspending by suggesting relatively minor cuts in mostly discretionary items. There have been few serious proposals for necessary cuts in military and entitlement programs, even though these account for about three-fourths of all federal spending.

His criticism is not solely reserved for the Democrats.  The GOP is equally culpable in the mismanagement of the national finances.  Koch attacks the concept of crony capitalism, which is seemingly endemic on both sides of the aisle.  Democrats and Republicans alike operate under a system that has utterly failed to face reality.  Koch argues that,

Crony capitalism is much easier than competing in an open market. But it erodes our overall standard of living and stifles entrepreneurs by rewarding the politically favored rather than those who provide what consumers want.

The purpose of business is to efficiently convert resources into products and services that make people's lives better. Businesses that fail to do so should be allowed to go bankrupt rather than be bailed out.
...
Our elected officials would do well to remember that the most prosperous countries are those that allow consumers—not governments—to direct the use of resources. Allowing the government to pick winners and losers hurts almost everyone, especially our poorest citizens.

Politicians, on both sides of the aisle, should heed these warnings.  Koch makes a powerful - and true - argument.  If American politicians, for fear of electoral retribution, fail to force tough choices on America, everyone will pay the price.  The federal government needs a serious dose of reform.  It needs to be smaller, more efficient, and supportive of free competitive markets.  Time to get started before it is too late.

It Is Not On Purpose: Medved on Obama

Michael Medved writes an extremely smart Op-Ed on Obama in today's Wall Street Journal.  Building on John Adam's prayer (see below) when moving into the White House, Medved argues that while many president's have had their flaws, none, including Obama, have done anything but pursue what they think is best for the country.  Medved strongly criticizes those on the right who attack Obama not on his arguments but on his supposed desire to "destroy America".

It is a strong and necessary argument and one that needs to be more directly emphasized by the rational on the right.  Obama needs to be battled on his ideas not myths about insidious plots.  As Medved argues, it hurts the GOP's electoral cause.  It also just makes the right seem devoid of any serious ideas and incapable of anything but Beckian conspiracy theories.

John Adam's said "I pray Heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this house and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof." 

Race, The Welfare State, and Economics

The Wall Street Journal ran a very poignant interview with Walter Williams, a black economist at George Mason University, on the impact of the welfare state, racism, and the growth of government.  Mr. Williams most salient point is best summed up in a quote, "The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do... And that is to destroy the black family." 

Williams makes a powerful argument - one that needs to be made more often by the Right.  The so-called nanny state hurts even those it supposedly benefits.  If such an argument is convincingly sold to the voters, it will do much to scale back the expansive growth of government.

Jeb Bush, the Hispanice Vote, and the Economy

Today's Wall Street Journal has a great interview with former Florida Governor, Jeb Bush.  He discusses the need to reach out to the Hispanic voters and provides some great suggestions.  He also discusses the future of the Republican Party and how to approach the next two years; including the GOP's approach to the economy.  His ideas are right on and a must read for anyone who wants to see a successful GOP.  Although it is doubtful that another Bush could successfully win the White House (and he denies any intention), any successful candidate needs to adopt his approach (maybe Chris Christie?)

Bush sums it up nicely: "There is a balance between standing on principle and finding common ground, and we need both. Common ground doesn't have to be compromise of principle."

Jimmy Carter Redux

Most on the right have long compared Barack Obama to the most recent presidential disaster - Jimmy Carter.  Apparently, now the left is seeing the same dismal traits in their once god-like Chief Executive.  John Fund, of The Wall Street Journal, outlines a fair portrayal of the similarities, based on some key Democrats' opinions - including Walter Mondale, Carter's own Vice-President.

Hopefully, the Democrats will learn from Carter's mistakes before repeating them any further in the Obama administration.  However, it seems unlikely that the administration will even consider an about-face.

Obama's "Stupid" Comment

Obama ate his words yesterday after issuing an apology to Cambridge’s Sergeant Crowley. Previously, Obama had maligned Sergeant Crowley and the Cambridge police for their arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. by stating that they had acted “stupidly”. Unsurprisingly, Obama’s ill informed statements added fuel to the fire. An editorial in the Wall Street Journal stated:

Mr. Obama’s broadside against local cops sends the wrong message to Americans of every race about how to respond to misunderstandings with police. His comments may also do more to aggravate than alleviate tensions between police officers and the minority communities they serve.

Obama’s commentary was out of line. While some, such as Karl DeVries at Reality Checkpoints, attempt to minimize Obama’s statement, it is clear that Obama’s behavior was anything but minimal. His un-presidential behavior raises a couple of pertinent issues.

Firstly, Obama implicitly assumed that racial profiling occurred. Without knowing the facts and admitting a pro-Gates bias (they are friends), Obama slammed the police for an act they did not commit. As argued in the prior post and supported by Officer Crowley’s account of the arrest, there were no racially motivated behaviors on the part of the police. (In fact, Officer Crowley is responsible for teaching fellow police officers about racial profiling.) Gates was the one who brought race into the picture.

This unfair and heinous assumption is quite harmful. While not fair to declare it as a black militant worldview, as some might, it speaks volumes about our President’s perspective. Up until this point, Obama should have been rightfully commended. He handled the race issue with tact and poise. He refused to be sucked into petty racial quarrels or speak the langue of backwards leaders such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Obama’s gaffe shows a first crack in his otherwise perfect veneer. While it is certainly laudable that he apologized (I always respect a man for admitting he is wrong), the slip-up has done damage to the post-racial worldview that Obama could have helped bring to America.

Secondly, this ties in with a much deeper issue; that of a titan struggle between those who accept and reject a post-racial America. Leaders such as Gates, Sharpton, and Jackson willingly or unwittingly need to maintain a worldview where American racism and oppression exist. Sharpton, for one, is adept at creating racial tensions where they didn’t exist before. On the other side stand the likes of Bill Cosby; leaders who recognize a history of racism, but also acknowledge times have changed and there are other factors that contribute to the plight of the black community.

While understanding the history of black oppression is essential and necessary, the past needs to be separated from the present. Gates falls into the common trap of seeing today’s events through a 1950s lens. While racial tensions certainly and unfortunately do still exist in America, they no longer predominate the interactions between whites and blacks. American leaders have a responsibility to ease these tensions and bridge the gap. However, Obama’s “stupid” comment only demonstrates another issue where the supposed uniting, bipartisan President has become a divider. His comment allied himself with the outmoded old guard of black leadership– a political mistake on one hand, but a historic mistake that will handicap his ability to change the racial dialogue in America.

Obama = Change?

There was a phenomenal op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123734209584965205.html#mod=djemEditorialPage). It really speaks to the divergence between Obama’s rhetoric and action; and to the blind, mob-like naïveté of the masses who elected Obama in the first place.

It is common knowledge that Obama ran and won on an anti-Bush campaign. “Change” was his moniker, and change was presumably what America wanted. But as many supporters of McCain knew, change was artificial. Not only was making any substantial changes going to be difficult, but more importantly it was just downright poor policy. Many of the Bush era policies were well thought-out, necessary and appropriate. Obama, however, knew that an anti-Bush campaign was a ticket to the White House. He therefore campaigned by using language that disparaged Bush’s policy. This was apparently done in contrast to Obama’s knowledge that such policies were beneficial. [It is possible that he didn’t know at the time that these policies were worthwhile and is only learning now. It is a much scarier thought; however, that the man did not have a basic understanding of how things worked when running for the office of President.]

While I must say that the supposed failure to change the enemy combatant policy, as the WSJ points out, is something that I am pleased with; however, the author’s point that Obama gets far less criticism than Bush for the very same policy is a bit scary. This speaks to a couple phenomena that are disheartening: 1) that Obama is willing to distort his message and use slogans and rhetoric in order to achieve his political goals; and 2) the fact that anti-Bushism (which has often been extended to anti-Republicanism) combined with the godlike aurora that surrounds Obama has blinded so much of America into giving Obama nearly free rein.

The bottom line is that Obama sold America an image, not substance, and unfortunately America bought it. He is quite easily proving this with his horrible management of the economy, as well as with his inability or unwillingness to make the changes he promised (of course often with much positive benefit for America). The scary thing is that America could be bought so easily.