Health Care: The Debate that Never Was - Part 3

The Alternative That Never Was
“Liberals tend to put the onus of your success on society and conservatives on you and your family.” – Dennis Prager

There is indeed a problem in the health care industry. Very few would argue that reform is not needed in some fashion. Costs are incredibly high and far too many lack access to the preventative health care that they need.

This bill is not the answer. It is the result of failed leadership. That blame can be equally distributed to Republicans and Democrats alike. Democrats passed this bill under enormous political pressure and Republicans failed to provide a coherent alternative.

Sure, Republicans tried to suggest ideas like tort reform and interstate competition but they provided no clear definition of how that would look. More than that, they framed their argument around the notion that this bill was just too much too fast and that they simply preferred a little less of the same basic thing.

It must be made clear that the conservative solution to the health care market is entirely different from this bill and all of the suggestions made in Congress in recent months. It is the result of a different way of thinking altogether. The federal government, already lost in debt, cannot and must not interfere in private industry. It cannot and must not create new entitlements and expand the already far too large dependent class in this country. The responsibility to purchase and provide health insurance must rest not with the bureaucracy of Washington but with individual citizens who should be able to choose as freely as possible.

The problem with the health care industry is not that it is filled with greedy capitalists wishing to make a profit. The problem with the health care industry is that it is already overregulated and subject to unreasonable lawsuits. Those are the fundamental problems in the system that must be fixed.

To solve this problem, I propose the Liberty in Health Care Act.

Provisions of the Liberty in Health Care Act
This act would utilize the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution to require that individual states permit its citizens and businesses to purchase insurance from any state across the country under no additional regulation. This would vastly increase competition in the health care insurance market place which would inevitably drive down costs. This would lead to massive deregulation of the health care insurance market place as states would compete in order to provide the best business environment for health care companies. Deregulation means that individual citizens and businesses decide what matters to them and purchase health care insurance that fits them, not the desires of politicians in state capitals. No longer would we have a one-size-fits-all insurance market. Ultimately, some benefits would be too costly for individuals and businesses to purchase, but that decision would be made by them, not by bureaucrats.

This act would also utilize Congress’s express duty to uphold contracts to require that all insurance providers and customers disclose to each other prior to the purchase of insurance their terms and agree to those terms. This agreement then has the force of any contract. This provision would deal directly with pre-existing conditions. Pre-existing conditions should be an optional provision in any contract with a price attached to it. Insurance companies may determine the cost of insuring pre-existing conditions and the customer may determine the price they are willing to pay for that protection. Once they sign their agreement, though, that contract is binding and insurance companies may not back out of a pre-existing condition agreement no matter what health concerns are later uncovered.

This act would create a system of special medical courts to handle medical malpractice suits and institute a cap on punitive damages. These special courts would be based in the states and try cases brought against doctors and medical institutions in front of panels of specialists on medical codes. This would provide a stiff check on the rising costs of medical malpractice suits in this country which are one of the primary factors in rising medical costs. It would also allow for a system to remain which would handle true cases of medical malpractice while sorting out frivolous ones.

This act would abolish federal standards for Medicaid and free up state governments to take necessary measures to resolve the fiscal crises that the programs are creating at the state level. This would also allow for the federal government to cut costs by eliminating significant portions of regulatory agencies such as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

This act would repeal the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program which requires pharmaceutical companies to register through the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid in order for their products to be eligible for Medicaid coverage. Instead, an emphasis would be placed on shifting state Medicaid programs toward Medicaid managed care which allow states to contract their Medicaid out to private insurance companies at a fixed price per enrollee. These companies focus on generic brands and minimize costs for drugs more efficiently than state-run Medicaid programs even with the Drug Rebate Program.

This act would repeal the Medicare Part D program passed in 2003 under President George W. Bush which provided coverage for prescription drugs for seniors. Instead, in order to drive down the costs of prescription drugs, all pharmaceutical companies would be granted tax-exempt status which would eliminate more than 15% of the cost of production.

This act would also establish a Business Health Insurance Incentive Plan which would allow for a deduction in taxes for all businesses regardless of size equal to the amount spent providing health insurance to their employees under a reasonable cap. This would allow for businesses to provide top notch health insurance to its employees directly in a way that suits their own needs without the transfer costs associated with collecting and distributing tax dollars.

Summary
This is the kind of reform that this country’s health care industry needs. It vastly increases competition, reduces regulatory burdens, and eliminates taxes. These great reductions in cost would lead to an inevitable drop in prices and also help to rejuvenate a lapsing economy. The act would encourage efficiency by reducing government obligations and increasing reliance on private business. The program would renew individual freedom and liberty in the health care marketplace by truly providing options that may be personalized to each and every individual under no federal regulations. If enacted, it would also substantially reduce the negative impact of medical malpractice suits that plague the industry and drive up costs and hurt doctors across the country.

Ultimately, the difference in this plan and the bill that recently passed in Congress is that this plan focuses on freeing up business and individuals to do the most they can with what they have. This plan says that the way to increase access to affordable health care is to drive down the costs of producing that health care through competition and allowing as many choices to the consumer as possible. Instead, the bill that passed mandates access to a heavily regulated system with limited choice. It manages to reduce cost only in the imaginations of those that created it and CBO officials who only see what they are told to see. It moves responsibility from individuals in offices and homes to bureaucrats in state capitols and Washington, D.C.

Clearly, these are two entirely different views on how to fix our nation’s health care system. There is room for debate between the two views and reasonable minds may disagree. The problem is that only one of these views was clearly presented to the public in the recent health care debate. One side proposed a lot of it and the other a little less of it. Meanwhile, the conservative ideals of liberty and freedom were hardly presented at all as a solution. When it was, it was presented in bits and pieces, not as an entirely separate alternative to the sweeping change presented by President Obama.

What Now?
“So what Republicans have to do is to make the 2010 and the 2012 elections referenda on Obamacare, win those elections, and then repeal Obamacare.” – Bill Crystol

This fight is not over. Of course, there will be Constitutional challenges to the process and attempts to demonize the trio of President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Harry Reid as the three horsemen of the apocalypse reigning over us all with absolute power and forcing socialism into our country. As Admiral Ackbar might say, “It’s a trap!”

This is an opportunity. It is an opportunity for Republicans to return to the conservative ideals of liberty and freedom by presenting a clear alternative to this healthcare bill. They must run their campaigns focused on what this healthcare bill, and all the legislation that has preceded it, has done to focus control in Washington, D.C. They must focus on the damage that this has done and will continue to do to our economy. They must focus on the real ideological difference between them and their opponents by proposing to do more than “repeal Obamacare” but to replace it with something different, something better.

They must focus their efforts on winning the country back for liberty. They must focus on individual responsibility.

The people want to hear it from somebody. The Tea Party is but a subset of a vast group of Americans yearning to believe that somebody still trusts in the American people and their ability to help themselves when given every opportunity to. They want leaders who have the vision to propose ideas that lead to long-term solutions, not inevitable debt and decline.

That is the path for a Republican take-over of the House. That is the path for a Republican majority in the Senate. That is the path to the White House. Republicans must only stand beside the principles of freedom and use liberty as the bedrock of their policy proposals to return this nation to a prosperity not seen for a long, long time.

Health Care: The Debate that Never Was - Part 2

The Essence of the Bill
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” – Winston Churchill

The health care bill, in its final form as House Resolution 4872, includes many different proposals to manage the health insurance market. A summary of these reforms can be found on the web page for CBS at http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html. I will analyze each of these portions of the bill and their impact.

Health Insurance Exchange
The bill creates state-based exchanges so that those who do not have health insurance provided through their job have access to a competitive market of healthcare providers. Separate exchanges are also created for small businesses. This initiative aims to cut costs by increasing competition within states between health insurance providers. While this is certainly moving in the right direction, the effort short-arms the goal.

The exchanges are heavily regulated. The reason that the exchanges are state-based is that insurance companies are already heavily regulated at the state level. The reason most people cannot currently buy insurance from out of state is that each health insurance provider must meet the very specific requirements of individual states. Republicans hoped that the bill would establish inter-state exchanges which would serve to increase competition further, but the final bill fell short of this goal.

The bill does provide for funding to states to set up these exchanges, however many question whether or not this funding is sufficient to maintain the programs as it only guarantees money through 2014. This has led many to question whether or not the bill is in fact an unfunded mandate, forcing the states to operate expensive programs which they cannot afford in the current budgetary crises most of the states find themselves in.

Subsidies
The program aims to extend access to healthcare by subsidizing the purchase of private insurance plans. This differs from the “public option” plan that was originally supported by President Obama and was shut down in the Senate. It means that the government will not provide insurance itself. It is not an expansion of Medicare. It is funding for private access to health insurance.

The subsidies themselves are significant. Any family with an income of 100-400% of the Federal Poverty Level will have access to subsidies and these subsidies can cover as much as 98% of the premium, although that is uncommon. This means that a family of four making up to $88,200 per year will be eligible for a federal subsidy.

All of this sounds great until you realize the money has to come from somewhere, which I will get to later.

Medicare
The bill aims to close the “donut hole” which is a gap in Medicare coverage for seniors (more information here… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D_coverage_gap). They do this by providing a $250 rebate to seniors who hit the donut hole in 2010 and providing a 50% discount on drugs to seniors after that.

At the same time as providing these drastic expansions in Medicare coverage, the bill cuts $500 billion from Medicare. This is part of the effort to make the bill deficit neutral; however, Medicare on its own is already bankrupt. Part of the rationale for this is that expanded coverage should lower costs for Medicare recipients by promoting access to preventative care, but it is hard to fathom how this combined with efforts to curb Medicare abuse will allow an already bankrupt system to withstand cuts of $500 billion.

Medicaid
The bill expands Medicaid to include families which make up to 133% of the Federal Poverty Level which is $29,327 for a family of four. It also forces states to expand their programs to include childless adults in 2014.

This is paid for by the federal government through 2016, but after that it is noncommittal. Once again, this has been viewed potentially as yet another unfunded mandate. It is another drastic expansion of a program that is bankrupting states across the country.

Insurance Regulation
The bill mandates that no insurance providers can deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions starting 6 months after the bill’s passage. Starting in 2014, nobody with pre-existing conditions can be denied coverage regardless of age.

Also, parents’ plans must cover children up to age 26.

Called “insurance reforms,” these are more accurately titled regulations. They force all insurance providers to meet certain criteria that are not necessarily needed by a large portion of the populace. Still, because no insurance providers will be able to deny these specific forms of coverage, the cost will be distributed to everybody, even perfectly healthy 30 year olds who just want the most basic form of health insurance. This will force insurance premiums to rise as all people are forced to purchase more coverage.

Still, the argument can be made that this is worth the price because these are people that, at no fault of their own, are denied coverage. That is not the argument that has been made, though. The argument has been that this is a cost-cutting measure, when in fact it increases regulations and mandates higher expenses.

Abortion
The whole issue of abortion in this bill is highly complex and clouded in the remnants of a fierce battle that took place over the possibility of federal funding. If the executive order is to be taken at face value, no federal funding will be provided for coverage of abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, or health of the mother. That doesn’t necessarily end the debate but I am going to avoid it simply because I think it distracts from the real issue of health care which has plenty of things to criticize on its own.

Mandates
And now we get to the crux of the issue. All citizens of the United States must purchase health insurance. Starting in 2014, any individual without insurance will face an annual fine of $695. This is justified by those on the left by saying that it will increase the efficiency of the system by expanding coverage. The uninsured are a drain on the healthcare system as it stands today. They must be paid for by somebody and they simply can’t afford it without insurance. They are free loaders on the system. This is why, they say, it is right to force people to insure themselves; but, this is exactly the kind of affront to individual liberty that infuriates people.

First of all, when did government get into telling people what they had to buy? I know, they force you to purchase car insurance, but that is in order to purchase a car. This bill forces you to purchase health insurance in order to live here. There are some out there who simply choose not to have health insurance, many of them young people who just graduated and are willing to risk the chance of not incurring significant health care costs. Not all of them put those costs entirely on the public. Sure, it forces some of them to mound piles of debt and possibly even bankruptcy but isn’t it just as much our right to fail in this country as it is our right to succeed?

Even if that argument of liberty doesn’t get you, President Obama had his own reasons to oppose such a plan. That, in fact, was the primary point of difference highlighted between the President and Hillary Clinton in the Democratic debates during the campaign. President Obama felt that individual mandates were wrong because they forced unnecessary expenses on the American public.

“[Senator Clinton] believes that we have to force people who don't have health insurance to buy it. Otherwise, there will be a lot of people who don't get it. I don't see those folks. And I think that it is important for us to recognize that if, in fact, you are going to mandate the purchase of insurance and it's not affordable, then there's going to have to be some enforcement mechanism that the government uses. And they may charge people who already don't have health care fines, or have to take it out of their paychecks. And that, I don't think, is helping those without health insurance.”

Perhaps of even more dire consequence is the mandate for companies to provide insurance. All businesses which employ more than 50 people are forced, under this bill, to provide insurance to all of their full time employees. If they fail to do so, they face a penalty of at least $2,000 per full time employee who remains uninsured. This, in effect, raises the cost to business of employing people. In effect, it is exactly the same as raising the minimum wage. It will lead to lay-offs. Businesses are already struggling in this economy, so now we are going to increase the cost of business.

This bill will encourage businesses that are close to the 50 person cut-off to lay off individuals above that cut off so that they do not have to meet the requirement. For companies that this is impossible for, they will be forced to lay off individuals proportionally to the increased cost to employ everybody else.

Paying for the Bill
So, with all of these expansions of coverage and subsidies, somebody has to foot the bill. Here is just a subset of some of the ways the bill plans to pay for itself.
In 2012, the Medicare Payroll Tax will be expanded to include unearned income (investment.) So, once again, as our economy struggles, we are going to tax investment. This tax amounts to a 3.8% tax on investment income for families that make more than $250,000 per year.

In 2018(this was delayed as part of a compromise in the reconciliation bill), the “Cadillac Tax” will be imposed on insurance companies which will pay a 40% excise tax on high-end insurance plans worth more than $27,500 for families or $10,200 for individuals. This tax will inevitably be transferred to the consumer and will drastically increase the cost of having a high-end insurance plan. This is a perfect example of the liberal mindset of “steal from the rich and give to the poor.” In order to provide more coverage for the uninsured, your ability to get better insurance will be prohibited.

The plan also institutes a 10% excise tax on tanning salons.

It taxes pharmaceutical companies by establishing an excise tax on medical devices.

It also doubles the fees taken by the government from insurance companies.

Summary
The bill will ultimately be one of the most expensive bills to ever become law. The CBO’s projection of a price tag around $940 billion is only the beginning. It double counts the $500 billion taken from Medicare, assuming that comparable savings can be found. It also underestimates the actual price tag of the bill’s policies because most of the expenses do not kick in for another three to four years.

The most insidious omission of the report, however, is that it does not account at all for the loss of jobs that the bill will produce. All CBO projections of the budget over a long time period assume moderate economic recovery in the near future. This bill puts that future deeply into question.

Let’s play a quick game. I will list some facts about a certain President and you will try to guess who it is.

I created the Veterans Administration to handle the healthcare and payments due to veterans. I signed into law the McNary-Mapes Amendment which expanded the role of the FDA in regulating the food industry. I announced a plan to hand over federal money to the states to provide relief to individuals and businesses affected by the recession. I formed the Committee for Unemployment Relief and created federal construction projects which, after the passage of the Davis-Bacon Act, were required to pay very favorable wages. I held a conference in order to address “discontentment” among Americans who felt “short-changed” by the labor market. As a result, I created a jobs program and slashed prices. I established the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, an agency dedicated to funding (or bailing out) the nation’s banks, railroads, insurance companies, and other major businesses. I signed into law the Glass-Steagall Act expanding the role of the Federal Reserve to extend credit and release gold to businesses. I signed into law many new taxes, including the first gasoline tax.




I am Herbert Hoover, the President most often blamed for the Great Depression.
My point is that the policies of President Obama very closely mirror exactly what was done following the stock market crash in 1929. In that instance, just as today, the role of federal agencies was expanded substantially and money was provided to businesses and individuals in the name of relief. That money was raised through new taxes and tariffs which harmed the economy far more than any of these efforts helped.
This health care bill does the same thing. In the name of helping those who “can’t help themselves” as was said during the floor debate leading up to the vote on the bill, we substantially fine businesses across the country, including those in the medical industry itself. This will inevitably lead to lost jobs. These lost jobs mean more people qualifying for unemployment benefits, Medicare, and (with this bill) insurance subsidies. These lost jobs also mean fewer people paying fewer taxes. This whole line of thought is completely excluded from CBO projections. According to them, economic recovery is just around the corner. Hoover thought the same thing.

“Definite signs that business and industry have turned the corner from the he temporary period of emergency that followed deflation of the speculative market were seen today by President Hoover. The President said the reports to the Cabinet showed that the tide of employment had changed in the right direction.” – January 21, 1930

President Hoover was wrong then and, under the current policies of President Obama, CBO projections of economic recovery seem as unlikely as ever.

In the end, this bill is a massive expansion of federal entitlements in healthcare. It drastically expands the liability of Medicare and Medicaid without addressing the basic flaws that brought those programs to the brink of bankruptcy. It mandates that all people purchase insurance and that all employers provide insurance. It heavily regulates the insurance industry and increases the cost of business. It pays for subsidies to low-income individuals and families by taxing pharmaceutical companies and applying fees to insurance companies. The fact that it was passed under budget reconciliation rules under the guise of reducing the deficit is the greatest farce in the history of American government.

On top of all of that, the high costs and remarkable strain on the economy, the bill is bad for American healthcare. The President likes to tout this bill as returning the freedom to choose to the American people and not insurance company executives. Well, you won’t have the freedom to choose whether or not you want insurance. You won’t have the freedom to choose insurance companies except the few that qualify to compete in your state’s exchange.

Even if this bill is by some miracle paid for and the cost does not harm the overall economy in any way, the mechanisms of this bill will harm the health care market. The bill removes personal responsibility from the health care marketplace. As it stands, the health care market is inclined toward innovation and high-end treatment. Cutting edge technology is where the American health care system excels in world competition. This bill will change that.

Under the current system, people do not pay for unnecessary treatment. When the responsibility is theirs and they know that they can just sit out a cold for a few days and not pay the money for the cold and sinus medication it is an effective way to reduce their own costs. When they take their baby to the doctor for a runny nose and find out that no treatment is necessary but they could pay for medication if they so choose, they very well might not take that treatment. When they find out that they have a minor case of diabetes and are told the most effective treatment is a disciplined diet but that they could also pay for an expensive shot which will help, they sometimes choose the diet.

This program takes that incentive away by providing insurance at little to no cost to many hundreds of thousands of people across the country. There will be a massive increase in the demand on those kinds of treatments, the unnecessary ones. That means fewer resources, capital, and labor in the health care industry will be available to develop and produce cutting edge treatments.

The United States, today, leads the world in cancer treatment. It regularly hosts dignitaries from across the globe for surgeries on the heart and other organs which require significant expertise. That is because our system encourages a focus on the cutting edge.

But most people don’t have access to that cutting edge treatment in the current system! I know that is what the left is screaming at the top of their lungs. Here’s the problem with that statement. All medical treatments today began as cutting edge treatments. Those simple cold and sinus medications began as cutting edge innovations. That is how the system works. By providing a profit incentive to produce as efficiently as possible, to produce as cheaply as possible to expand the potential base of consumers, those cutting edge treatments in the long run filter down to everybody.

The United States has long been the focal point of medical innovation in the world. That innovation has led to the creation of treatments that save the lives of people everywhere, every day. This bill fosters a system that takes us one step further away from that and inhibits our ability to innovate.
So, this bill is enormously expensive, extremely damaging to the economy, and detrimental to the basic system of health care in this country.

Health Care: The Debate that Never Was

It has passed. House Resolution 4872, the reconciliation bill which “fixes” the health insurance industry and addresses the crisis of out-of-control healthcare costs won passage by a vote of 219 to 212 in the US House of Representatives. We have been promised that the bill will expand health insurance coverage to 95% of Americans, decrease premiums across the board, and save the lives of tens of thousands of Americans every year. On top of that, it will decrease the deficit by more than a hundred billion dollars over the next ten years and more than a trillion dollars over the ten years after that. The bill has been characterized as this generation’s Social Security or Civil Rights Act.

At the same time, we are told that this bill shreds the Constitution. We are told that it defies all logic and reason and that it represents the dawning of a new Socialist America. It will forever consume the nation’s finances which are doomed to eternal red ink and bondage to China and India. Its manifestation will be lines that will lead to the sick dying in the streets outside of hospitals with no access to the healthcare system they desperately need.

So, who is right? How can rational people come to such divergent views of the same piece of legislation? How did it come to this? I hope to touch on the answers to all of these questions as I analyze the process of the healthcare bill, the essence of the bill itself, and the alternative that never was. I will also give my thoughts on where we go from here.

The Process
“Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” – Otto von Bismarck

The formation of this health care bill will go down in history as a case study for political scientists and parliamentarians. It is a unique example of legislative behavior in the face of unbelievable pressures from every side. The passions that exist in the mere mentioning of health care forge a debate that is very difficult to win.

Some view access to affordable health care as a basic right which must be protected no matter the cost. They believe that covering the uninsured saves lives and is therefore worthy of any expense.

Others believe that the government is an inefficient manager, guilty of corruption at every level. They see regulation and management as power grabs intent on defying individual choice and liberty, the essence of what they believe to be the soul of America.

When these forces collide, it produces a train wreck with many casualties and Washington, D.C. is where it all went down.

President Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Majority Leader Harry Reid represent an ideological bulwark for the first set of people. They believe that the government must facilitate however necessary the complete access to healthcare they deserve. They set their sights on a very high target, a radical and complete overhaul of the United States health care system.

You can see this in the words of President Obama back during the campaign. “I believe absolutely passionately,” he said, “that we must have universal health care. It is a moral responsibility and a right for our country.” He favored a public option that would allow government to provide coverage to those who have no private insurance plan.

With significant majorities in the House and the Senate and control of the White House, this team saw their opportunity to achieve what they had hoped for. They sought to pass the most expansive bill they could.

Then came the opposition. The public option was dropped to gain the support of some who saw the bill as simply too much to swallow. Deals were made and kickbacks were added. The bill grew to a length of more than 2,000 pages.

Constituents began to find buried in these thousands of pages taxes and expenses that were not as advertised. They saw mandates and regulations that reduced their choices in the name of expanding them. They were encouraged by sympathetic members of Congress and media to voice their concerns, but those concerns were always there. This is the second set of people I mentioned earlier, distrustful of government bureaucracy, ever wary of federal expansion.

The Tea Party movement was born as town hall meetings were swamped and rallies were formed across the country. Before long, popular opinion began to indicate a steady and significant erosion of support for the bill. A CNN poll conducted in June of 2008 indicated that 51% of Americans supported President Obama’s health care bill. At the time of the bill’s passage, a new CNN poll indicated that number had fallen all the way to 39%.

This popular unrest helped spark a Republican revival with victories in Virginia and New Jersey. It led to the ultimate victory of Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Senate Race, which sent violent shockwaves through Capitol Hill. It was a new shot heard round the world from Massachusetts.

Though separate bills had already passed the House and the Senate, negotiations broke down and the fate of healthcare legislation seemed dead with the loss of a supermajority in the Senate.

Democratic leadership faced a legislature scrambling for cover, many of their members representing districts that voted for John McCain, even more in districts with significant disapproval of this bill; however, the leadership would not give up.

They found a parliamentary rule that had been passed in order to facilitate budget proceedings and cut wasteful spending: the budget reconciliation. This allows for a bill, after being passed by the chamber, to be amended under strict rules. It eliminates the filibuster which allows for a simple majority to prevail so long as the amendment can be demonstrated to reduce the deficit and all of its parts are germane to that cause.

So, leadership went hard at work to create a reconciliation amendment which would meet these requirements. In the end, they produced a package that the CBO projected to reduce the deficit. Still, there were many parliamentary questions that remained.

The bill was not law and had to become law before it could be amended by the reconciliation. This meant that the Senate bill had to be passed by the House before reconciliation could be acted upon. The Senate bill was loaded with unpopular special deals and questionable treatment of abortion funding which made it incredibly radioactive for many House members.

This is where Speaker Pelosi stepped in with the so-called “Slaughter Solution,” or “deem-and-pass.” It meant that the House would simply deem the Senate bill passed without voting on it. Instead, they would attach a rule to their passage of the reconciliation bill that stated that the Senate bill was passed if the reconciliation bill became law. Ultimately, this idea was scrapped as it did not win the support of people who felt it was just a way to avoid accountability.

Still, a group of Democrats aligning themselves with Bart Stupak, a Democrat from Michigan, threatened the passage of the reconciliation bill which did not keep the original House language on abortion. Uncomfortable with the potential federal funding of abortion the bill could open the door to, the bloc was enough to determine the outcome of the bill.

So, negotiations began. At first, it seemed as though a deal would be struck to amend the reconciliation bill itself. The parliamentary procedure for this is questionable and would only complicate the process even further. Fortunately for parliamentarians, this idea didn’t last long as an even larger contingent of pro-choice Democrats squashed the opportunity by threatening to walk out on the bill should such an amendment be added.

Literally the day of the vote, only a few hours before the final vote was held in the House Chamber, a deal was struck between Bart Stupak and President Obama. An executive order would be issued declaring that the bill shall not be interpreted to indicate that any federal funding should be provided for abortion. The agreement was substantive enough to satisfy Stupak and his allies while also remaining distant enough for the pro-choice Democrats to put up with it.

Finally, the bill passed. With enormous political opposition, the Democratic leadership was able to guide a monstrous bill through a minefield. Public support had completely eroded and numerous Congressmen risked their jobs to vote for the bill. By the end of the process, Congressional approval had dropped from 35% in June to 19%. Still, the bill had passed.

Who is running this show?

I will admit I am a biased observer.  I am a conservative’s conservative and I don’t try to hide that.  I believe that what Pres. Obama and the Democrats on the Hill are trying to do with healthcare in this country is just plain wrong.  It is bad for our healthcare system and it is bad for our country.  I don’t like anything the Democrats have done since they took control of Washington.  With all of that said, none of it is unexpected.  I am not a Democrat and, as such, I wouldn’t expect to be happy with what Democrats do in Washington.  I am surprised, though, at the complete ineptness they have demonstrated since arriving.

I thought President Obama was a marvelous politician back during the campaign.  Now, I wonder if it was not just seeing him next to John McCain with a backdrop of George W. Bush that made him look so good.  What exactly has he been doing since he got to Washington?

Let’s see… he began by signing an executive order declaring that he would shut down Guantanamo Bay (still open.) He moved on to spend a LOT of money with bailout number two (just more of a George Bush policy.) He bought out General Motors and appointed a figurehead to run it for him.  After all of this intervention, the economy is turning around in a hurry, isn’t it? Oh wait, now the White House is telling us don’t look at the latest unemployment numbers because they’re just the result of a particularly harsh Winter. (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0111549320100301?type=marketsNews) Yeah, it’s been cold.  Oh wait, the Earth is warming at an alarming rate.  So alarming that the EPA needs to step in and regulate CO2 as a pollutant.  You know, the gas that every human being exhales and is required for the survival of any green plant.  Yeah, it’s a pollutant.

Now, the big crown jewel of it all, we get to healthcare.  This reform is so urgent that we are going to pass it without reading it! I mean, it’s 2000 pages, I’m sure lots of people would die in the time it took to read it.  Somebody didn’t get the word to the people of the United States that it is so urgent, though, because 50% disapprove of the bill while only 40% approve. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html) That’s all because the evil Republicans told lies to the American people about the bill, they say.  Yeah, because the American people obviously don’t really know what they are talking about.  They can’t, if they did, they would agree with you.

That’s why, in the State of the Union Address, Pres. Obama highlighted the need to go out and talk to the people.  He valiantly took the blame for not communicating the bill clearly enough to the American people.  If they just understood, they would like it.  They have to!

So, it would make sense that he would try to be as open as possible with the bill, right? Well, sort of … except for the fact that it was created in closed-door committee hearings with all kinds of backroom deals and, when Pres. Obama proposed his own solution in preparation for the Healthcare Summit, he made sure not to release enough information in time for the Congressional Budget Office to score it so they would know how much it cost.

What does how much it costs matter, anyway? It’s only going to cost a $1,000,000,000,000 over the next decade when we have a system full of entitlements going bankrupt already and a national debt that is completely out of control.  Pres. Obama knows this.  He finds it to be such a grave concern that he promised to freeze spending (except on the top three or four most expensive programs the government operates) and … wait for it … form a commission! *GASP!*

Back to healthcare… so after being so open with the American people about the bill and trying so tirelessly to show them all the evil lies the Republicans have been perpetrating on them, the American people still don’t like the bill.  So what’s next? Reconciliation!

It’s so great! All we have to do is get a simple majority in the Senate and it passes. Great! Except, it’s never been used on anything like this and wasn’t intended to.  (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704625004575089362731862750.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines) It is an excuse to force a bill on the American people that they clearly do not want.  It is a clear case of the President doing exactly what he wants because he knows better than the American people do.  "I do not know how this plays politically, but I know it's right.” For those of you who don’t speak politician, he basically just said that he doesn’t know whether or not the people will support this bill or not, but he is going to do it anyway.

Ok. So what? They are going to try to pass an unpopular bill.  Well, let’s see what else we have in the news today.

He has appointed the brother of a previously no-vote and now undecided on healthcare legislation to the 10 Circuit Court of Appeals. (http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-now-selling-appeals-court-judgeships-health-care-votes)

Joe Sestak, Democratic Congressman, has publically claimed that he was promised a federal job to quit his primary challenge of Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania. (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_stories/20100219_Sestak_says_federal_job_was_offered_to_quit_race.html)

A Democratic Congressman has retired amid allegations of sexual abuse.(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33864.html)

Democrat Charles Rangel finally gave up his gavel as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee despite some hypocritical ambivalence from Speaker Nancy Pelosi. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/03/01/2010-03-01_pelosis_defense_of_rangel_is_tepid_at_best.html)

So, I ask, who is running this show? Democrats have had the largest majority in both chambers of Congress we have seen in quite some time.  They have a President who, at the time of his election, most people could have sworn walked on water.  What have they done this whole time?  It looks to me like a whole lot of nothing.  Now, they are resorting to the worst kind of power-grabbing and forcefulness to get healthcare legislation through Congress and exhibiting all of the qualities of a group thirsting for power.

It’s time to get these clowns out of office and get somebody new in the game.  I’m not sure that Republicans will fix any of it but they sure can’t do any worse.

CPAC 2010: Day 3 (part two)

Finally, we get to the end. Luckily, today is a slow work day so I will use my free time to write up my final summary and analysis of CPAC. It was a great close to the conference and there were lots of great speakers, so I will just get straight to it.

Newt Gingrich

There are lots of things you can say about Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House and leader of the Republican Revolution. Some of those things are good, and some aren’t. One thing that you cannot question about Newt, though, is he knows how to put on a show.

Unlike the rest of the speakers at the conference, after being introduced, Gingrich entered the room from the side entrance so that he could walk through the crowd shaking hands prior to delivering his speech. As he did that, “Eye of the Tiger” made famous in the Rocky movies was played over the speakers. I was about two rows of people away from him when he came through. It definitely created a lot of energy in the crowd and was a unique way to set himself apart from the rest of the speakers. It had a very polished, Presidential feel to it. He even met up with the guy who introduced him on stage and they stood together and waved to the crowd like a President and Vice President would do at a nominating convention.

He also knows how to deliver a speech. He began by referring to the other side as a “Secular Socialist Machine.” He then introduced a slogan that he spoke about the last time I heard him speak, back at the Young America’s Foundation Student Conference in the Summer. “2+2=4” The phrase was used in a foreign country where the state began to assume authoritarian control. He listed a couple of meanings, but the main point was that the government can tell you 2+2=5 all day long, but if 2+2=4 then that is all there is to it and nothing they say will change that.

He then laid out his agenda. He said that he would call for the 9^th Circuit Court of appeals to be abolished. The crowd enjoyed that one. He made sure to cite precedent to indicate that it really can be done.

He is in favor of a Balanced Budget Amendment.

Any tax increase, he said, “is a job-killing measure and it should be defeated.”

He said that something must be done about the corruption of the government employee unions, referencing specifically teachers’ unions.

He then proceeded to talk directly to Democrats, saying that, if they want to have a debate over these issues, “Let’s get it on.”

He then made some predictions that pleased the crowd.

“I believe we’re gonna control the House and the Senate in 2010.” He also said that he believed we would have a new President in 2012 to which the crowd responded by yelling “Newt!”

He then went back to policy, directly talking about healthcare reform as it is being discussed now. He said that, if they really wanted to do some good in bringing down premiums, then they should start over and focus on litigation reform first.

He called out President Obama on his campaign promises of allowing CSPAN into the Conference Committee meetings.

After all of that, he sort of backed away from policy and talked about the big picture. He told the audience that this was a crucial time in our nation’s history, but to “be not afraid.”

He closed his speech to a large standing ovation and gave the thumbs up to the crowd when he exited. His whole appearance had a very Presidential image to it.

If that had been the only image of Newt Gingrich at CPAC, it would have been a very strong conference for him, but it wasn’t. I’ll get to that in a minute.

Panel on Global Warming

The panel consisted of Chris Horner (Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming), Ann McElhinney (Not Evil Just Wrong: The True Cost of Global Warming Hysteria), Steve Milloy (JunkScience.com), and Myron Ebell (Freedom Action and Competitive Enterprise Institute).

They declared that environmentalists are using the state to create scarcity, increasing the cost of energy to everybody.

The keys to winning the debate on environmental policy are to:

1. Demand stay until science is cleared.
2. Don’t allow burden of proof to be shoved onto you.
3. Ask what the temperature will be if we make changes.

The reality is that the science is not cleared at all, especially in light of the Climategate scandal of late. They are the ones wanting to fundamentally alter energy policy and increase the costs of energy for every person in the country so it is up to them to prove it is necessary, not us to prove it isn’t. And, in the end, they have to show that the policies they promote will actually have a significant effect on global temperatures. None of the policies being promoted right now meet that criterion. In fact, most estimates show that any change in US policy will be offset by production in other parts of the world very quickly.

Then, it got interesting. They commended the work of Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) as an “indispensible man.” Then, they showed pictures in their slides of Newt Gingrich and John McCain that weren’t so flattering. The image of John McCain was with some more liberal members of the Senate and the image of Newt Gingrich was with Nancy Pelosi and it was from an ad supporting one of Al Gore’s environmental groups. They then said that we need to beware of “political opportunists.” It certainly stole a lot of the thunder from Newt Gingrich’s momentum-building appearance at CPAC.

Colonel Allen West

Col. West is a candidate for Florida’s 22^nd Congressional District. He gave a good speech on what it means to be an American.

He began by saying that he had tried to think of what brought him to where he was standing that day and he said that it was the, “dreams of my father.” This brought a response of laughter from the crowd, of course, referencing Pres. Obama’s autobiography.

He said that his story was different from the America that Pres. Obama envisions.

His parents taught him about individual responsibility and accountability. He said that too many Americans were becoming “victims,” depending on the government for help. He said that he was taught not to be a victim, but a victor.

He transitioned from that to saying that we shouldn’t be in the business of bailouts and that we should be operating with a balanced budget.

Then, in a clear swipe at President Obama, he said that in all the years of attending his home church, he never once heard anybody curse his country. “This is a Judeo-Christian country.”

He said that we need leaders who take pride in American exceptionalism, feeding off the common theme throughout the conference that the President should not be in the business of apologizing for us.

Panel on 2010 Elections

This panel was made up of John Gizzi (Human Events), Michael Barone (Washington Examiner and Fox News), Ed Goeas (The Tarrance Group), and Grover Norquist (Americans for Tax Reform).

John Gizzi began by pointing out that 2010 had already begun and pointed to the primary results in Illinois where 3 out of the 5 Republicans nominated as their party’s candidate were backed by the Tea Party movement.

He then went on to break down the 2010 elections. 36 Senate Seats are up for election, including Joe Biden and Barack Obama’s former seats which he said are in play.

In the House, there are 18 Republicans and 14 Democrats retiring. Of the 18 Republicans retiring, only one is in danger. He also noted that 63 of the Democratic seats went for McCain in 2008. He highlighted the Pennsylvania 12^th District which is an odd one. It is the only Congressional district in the country to go for John Kerry in 2004 and John McCain in 2008. Weird… Now, it is open due to the death of John Murtha.

Michael Barone tried to give the crowd a feel for the uniqueness of the momentum behind Republicans now. He said that, typically, Republican support on a generic ballot in Congress is understated and, even in years of moderate gains they find themselves behind in the polls. Right now, they are actually holding a significant lead in that question.

He also noted that Charlie Cook’s endangered seats have a LOT more Democratic seats than Republican ones. He had one sheet with a list of Republican seats and another with a list of Democratic seats and, even from the back of the audience it was clear that one had a whole lot more black ink on it than the other.

Grover Norquist made an interesting statement about the current set of affairs. He noted, “We spent 50 years not being East Germany, we will spend 50 years not being France.”

He went on to say that the key is not just that Republicans win, but that the Republicans that win have good, conservative ideas. He noted that Sam Brownback, a favorite of mine, has said that, if elected governor, he would create an Office of Repealer in Kansas whose job it would be to find outdated and inefficient programs to close down. Those are the kind of ideas that Norquist likes to hear from politicians.

Straw Poll

Then, the straw poll that has received so much attention from the press was announced. Here, I will give you the real story, not just the conventional story line. Yes, Ron Paul won, but let’s look at this Straw Poll a little more thoroughly.

Respondent demographics: (2,395 total respondents)

Students: 48%

Independent individuals: 32%

(The rest were media or representing their business)

Male: 64%

Female: 30%

Most important priority:

Freedom: 80%

Traditional values: 9%

Security: 7%

Approval Ratings:

President Obama: Approve 2% - Disapprove 98%

Republicans in Congress: Approve 62% - Disapprove 37%

Favorability Ratings:

Jim Demint: 73%

Glenn Beck: 70%

Rush Limbaugh: 70%

Mike Pence: 59%

John Boehner: 56%

Mitch McConnell: 51%

Michael Steele: 42%

Most Important Issue

1) Reducing size of federal government

2) Reduce government spending

3) Terrorism

4) Taxes

5) Abortion

Expected gain in the House

Majority: 33%

Just shy(30-39 seats): 20%

Moderate gains(20-29 seats): 24%

Presidential Preference

Ron Paul: 31%

Mitt Romney: 22%

Sarah Palin: 7%

Tim Pawlenty: 6%

Mike Pence: 5%

Newt Gingrich: 4%

53% also said they are unsatisfied with field of candidates

So, in summary, it is clear that the libertarian, college element of the crowd dominated the straw poll which, by the way, was not a scientific poll. Don’t let the fact that they have a real pollster run it fool you. It is littered with bias. The way it works is they set up booths throughout the building (one of them right next to where college students register) and whoever fills out the survey, that’s who they get. There is no random sampling.

Who do you think is most likely to take the time to fill out the survey? The typical Republican right now who isn’t yet sure who their favorite candidate is for 2012 or the Ron Paul enthusiast who has probably voted in 1,000,000 online polls already and feels like it is their job to buck the establishment any way they can?

The answer is obvious and that is why respondents were overwhelmingly young, college students and security and traditional values were almost entirely unimportant to them. Does that sound like the typical Republican demographics? Not at all. That is why this stroll poll is completely and utterly useless. Does that matter to the so-called journalists who ran with the story that Ron Paul won the CPAC straw poll? No. Does it matter to Mike Huckabee who used it as an excuse to bash CPAC and the conservative “extremists?” No.

I apologize for diverging from the speakers for a bit, but this is something that has been bothering me ever since the Conference that day and I wanted to get it off of my chest.

Now, for the grand finale…

Glenn Beck

Let me say first that I have been a huge fan of Glenn Beck ever since he was at CNN Headline News. Some people try to lump him in with the likes of Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly or even say he is the conservative equivalent of Keith Olbermann. I think those people need to listen a little closer. Glenn Beck is different. I can’t stand to listen to Sean Hannity or Bill O’Reilly for any length of time. They don’t make good arguments, and instead just rely on too many ad hominem attacks and shallow debates. Beck uses a lot of evidence and relies on facts to back up his arguments. He makes points that other people are afraid to make and does it with sincerity. That’s why his fans like him so much. Oh, and by the way, he doesn’t necessarily like Republicans any more than he likes Democrats. He is about ideas and policy, not party.

His speech at CPAC was nothing short of amazing. I honestly believe it was the best speech given in the last 20 years. I will not attempt to summarize it because I do not believe there is any substitute for actually listening to the speech yourself.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/36618/

Summary

Ok, so, it was a great weekend. The bottom line is that Republicans need to remember that the people that are giving them a chance at a majority in 2010 are the people that this conference is built for. It’s the people who believe passionately in limited government and individual liberty. They believe that people should have the right to triumph and fail all on their own and it is not the job of the government to help them along the way or sweep up the dust. In the end, America is a special place that allows for more opportunity for success than anywhere else in the world precisely because it does not guarantee that success. Instead, it comes at the sweat of your own brow. You are responsible for your own condition in life. Not the government, not the President, nobody but you. It is that basic element of self-governance that created this country. That idea, that God grants rights directly to the people who, of their own free will, create a restricted government to maintain basic liberties, is what sets us apart from the nations of Europe and Canada where the people depend on government to ensure their own well-being. That dependency, as our fathers warned us, leads to tyranny. It is everything that we stand for. If Republicans will jump into that boat and truly fight for it, not just use it as a punch line, they will sweep across the country with electoral victories like we haven’t seen in decades. If they continue on the path they are still on, though, and only say the things we want to hear but don’t back it up with actions on the Hill, they will continue towards a path of obscurity. CPAC 2010 helped me to see that I am not alone. This movement has its leaders and followers across this country and they are going to win in the end. Will the Republicans join the party?

CPAC 2010: Day 3 (part one)

Ok, so I didn’t exactly get the last day of CPAC done the next day like I said I would.  I hope that you have listened to mine and Andrew’s podcast, which is what I spent that time on instead… I went into some detail about a plan I have to eliminate the National Debt.  After I finish putting up my notes from CPAC, I will work on putting that plan down in written form with more details.

As for CPAC, I got off to another late start on Saturday and this one I can’t blame on getting the times wrong.  It’s just hard to get out of bed on a Saturday morning…

Rick Santorum

I missed his speech because of the late start, but I did catch enough to know that he did a good job with his question and answer time.  Unfortunately, that’s all I know.

Andrew Breitbart

What a character! He is very … interesting? The stereotypical ADHD kid on steroids, he seemed like his conversation with a guy backstage was interrupted by the speech he made.  He riled the crowd up pretty good, though.  Talking about his personal fight with ACORN, he said, “We tried to be nice to you, nice is over.” He went on to shout into the microphone, “It’s over!”

Jonah Goldberg

Founding editor of the National Review Online, Goldberg said that the goal of the left is to “Europeanize” the United States.  He went on to give a very good talk about the difference between the United States and Europe.  He said that, after the Revolutionary War, those loyal to the crown migrated north to what is now Canada.  This led to one of the best lines of the conference.  As a result of this, Canada has become “northern Puerto Rico with an EU sensibility.”  The biggest difference between the US and Europe, he said, was that “we don’t take orders from government, it’s in our nature.”

Amity Shlaes

Author of The Forgotten Man, an absolutely excellent book that I would recommend to everybody who reads this, Shlaes was a little hoarse for some reason so she remained subdued in her speech.  Still, it was one of the better speeches of the event, in my opinion.

She discussed the history of the struggle between what we now classify as liberals and conservatives.  She said that we need to recapture the term of classical liberalism which is all about freedom and liberty.

She made it clear though, that the worst things for us to do are to resort to ad hominem attacks or to be Democrat light.  She noted that repeatedly throughout the twentieth century, Republicans reacted to periods of long Democrat strength by trying to take parts of what they suggested and just offering a little less of it.

She also mentioned that ad hominem attacks like what we resorted to in the era of McCarthyism saw little actual political success.

In the end, she made the point that we must actually promote something of substance that we stand for ourselves.

I had the opportunity to meet Ms. Shlaes after her speech at her book signing.  Unfortunately, I didn’t have my copy of The Forgotten Man, but she graciously signed my piece of notebook paper that I will put in my book as soon as I get back home to Tennessee.  I told her that I am a history minor and that I learned more history from her book than in any of my classes.  Once again, I would like to recommend it to everybody out there.  It tells the true story of the Great Depression and how we have been taught the wrong lesson by some skewed histories of it.

Unfortunately, in order to see Ms. Shlaes, I had to miss John Bolton’s speech.  Oh well… it was worth it.

Don Devine

Former Director of the Office of Personnel Management under Ronald Reagan, Devine painted a slightly different picture of Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy than what you typically hear.  He noted that the genius of Reagan’s foreign policy is that he exercised peace through strength and knew when to strategically use force with minimal risk of casualties.  He clearly was referencing the change in Republican foreign policy after 9/11 that led to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Joanne Herring

If you have seen Charlie Wilson’s War then you will know Joanne Herring as the character played by Julia Roberts.  Yes, she is still alive and believe it or not she is still trying to fix Afghanistan.  And yes, she is every bit as odd as Julia Roberts played her.  She still had some very interesting points to make, though.

She noted that we are not the world’s policeman, but also said that “we cannot leave a gaping wound.” She noted that this is the third time we have been involved in some way with a war in Afghanistan and that we cannot just leave, saying “thank you” like we have every other time.  If we do, she made it clear, we will be back.

She said that the key to rebuilding Afghanistan was to fund their own military and the rebuilding of their country through nonprofits that are wildly successful in Afghanistan already, existing in 27 provinces.  She said that the funds to do it are sitting at the DOD if only we would do it.

If we do not, she said that Pakistan would surely be the next country to fall due to the destabilization of Afghanistan.  Pakistan, a nuclear state, would be slightly more disconcerting.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz – Utah

Once again, I didn’t take much of substance from Rep. Chaffetz’s speech, but there was one particularly good line. “A politically correct war is a lost war.”

Ann Coulter

Ok, I have been forced to listen to an Ann Coulter “speech” twice now and it is excruciating.  You know those ad hominem attacks that Amity Shlaes said we need to beware of? Well that is all Ann Coulter does.  Don’t believe me? Let’s look at the titles of a few of her books…

Slander: Liberal Lies about the American Right
Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism
How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)
Godless: The Church of Liberalism
If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans
Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and Their Assault on America

So, basically, liberals are slanderous, treasonous, stupid, atheists…

And now you have basically heard the substance of every speech Ann Coulter will ever make.

The rest is a bunch of punch lines meant to startle the audience with their complete over-the-topness.  Imagine a conservative version of Keith Olbermann, and that is Ann Coulter.

So, have you figured out yet that I really don’t like Ann Coulter? The kicker to me was that she was introduced as having introduced conservative ideas to college students across the country as part of the Young America’s Foundation college speaker program.  What conservative ideas? All she does is make fun of everybody who isn’t conservative.

Edward Lynch

Lynch is a candidate in the 19th District House seat in Florida that will be holding a special election before too long.  He also happens to be the President of the Latin American Republican Club. He said that legal immigration isn’t a problem, that illegal immigration is the problem.  He said that he wished those answering machines would be changed to say, “Push 1 for English, push 2 for Go Home!”

He said that the most racist thing we do is not making English our national language.  His own parents immigrated to the United States, so his statements are given a little extra weight.  Though he didn’t go into any detail behind his claim about not making English our national language is racist, I am going to assume he was saying that it indicates we don’t think they can learn a new language.  It also puts a limit on the success they can have here when they don’t learn English.

Robert Rector

Rector, of the Heritage Foundation, went into further detail on illegal immigration.  He said that the best estimates available are that 5-6 million jobs in the United States are taken by illegal immigrants, which is half of the current unemployment level.

He said that this could be fixed simply by instituting a program called “E-Verify” that would check a person’s name, birthday, and social security number against the records at Social Security when they apply for a job.

Linda Chavez

Chavez presented a somewhat different view of the immigration problem that I have wondered about for a while.  She said that what we need is to secure the borders first, yes, but also to back it up with legal immigration reform.  She said that we can tell everybody to get in line like they should but she also quoted a recent Secretary of State who said that that line for the typical Mexican man is 120 years long.

Obviously, something must be wrong if people are willing to risk their lives to cross into this country the way they do every day by the thousands.  I wish more people would stay away from the fringes of let’s all just live in peace with the rest of the world or let’s just kick everybody else out and not let anybody else in.  What can we do to really fix the situation so that people can get into this country legally with the interests of national security in mind but also in a reasonable time frame? I wish we could hear more real discussion on that.

Rep. Bob McEwen – Ohio

First of all, I would like to say that Bob McEwen gets my five star rating for surprise of the event.  Sure, I heard some amazing speeches from people like Mike Pence and Glenn Beck, but I expected it from them.  Rep. McEwen gave a dandy and I had never heard of him before CPAC.

He noted that the Arkansas GDP is greater than the entire GDP of Pakistan (6th largest country on Earth.) Louisiana’s is greater than Indonesia (4th largest country on Earth.)

He then went on to go from point to point highlighting the basic conservative principles that he stands for.  He said that politics = integrity + economics.

He said that he believes in a limited government, in fewer taxes, and a strong national defense.  He made the point that all of these are linked by the notion that we must protect our freedom.

He said he also believed that our rights come from God.

He closed by telling a story about a man he know in the Czech Republic when they were forming the basics of their government and how they would operate their fiscal policy.  Rep. McEwen asked him how high the Capital Gains Tax would be in their country.  The other man told him, “Congressman, we’re not stupid.”

Conclusion

It was a pretty good start to the day, for sure, but it was about to get a whole lot better.  CPAC saved its best for last from Newt Gingrich all the way to Glenn Beck.  For now, though, I need some sleep.  I’ll be back with the rest of day 3 and to close out CPAC 2010 sometime over the next couple of days!

CPAC 2010: Day 2 (part two)

Ok… now to pick up where we left off… I will start out with the panel on healthcare.

Dr. Eric Novak

Dr. Novak opened by saying that health reform is needed and that there can be no doubt about that.  Still, he said, “patients’ right to choose must be their own.” He is pushing for the Healthcare Freedom Act (more information can be found at www.ushealthfreedomcoallition.com). The basic tenets of this are that people should be free to choose any healthcare facility and that they should not be forced into any insurance plan, which, by the way, is forced under President Obama’s most recent healthcare proposal.  There will be a yearly fee of hundreds of dollars assessed to anybody that doesn’t have health insurance.  The Healthcare Freedom Act has actually had considerable legislative success already at the state level.  Dr. Novak showed a map of all the states that had considered and passed the bill and it was very encouraging.

Dr. Hal Scherz

Dr. Scherz founded a group called Docs for Patient Care (www.docs4patientcare.org).  He had the crazy idea that Doctors should talk with their own patients about the healthcare system and what reforms would be helpful to them.  He asks all of his patients if he can take two minutes to talk to them about healthcare reform at the end of all of his visits.  Through this experience, along with the experiences of other doctors that have joined this organization, they have put together some practical ideas.  The central idea that he pushed in his talk at the conference was to take medical malpractice suits out of civil courts and put them in specialty courts.  I think it’s a very interesting idea.

Chris Chocola

Chocola, President of the Club for Growth and former member of Congress, spoke a little bit about the crowd-favorite need for the Republicans to come home to their conservative ideals.  He began by asking if the Republicans would really enact conservative policy.  “I am not convinced.”

He asked how Republicans could regain the trust of the people and then delivered a line that really serves as a pretty good summary of the whole weekend.

“Every year, conservatives come back to Republicans.  This year, I think it is time for Republicans to come back to conservatives.”

Of course, the crowd liked that.

Rep. Michele Bachmann - Minnesota

A favorite of liberals all over the world, this fire breather knew how to light up the crowd at CPAC.  She said she wanted to focus on how the people in the audience could do their part to win upcoming elections.  She focused on the power of persuasion and the need of one-on-one campaigns where people aim to win votes one conversation at a time.  It reminded me of talking with members of my fraternity about the best way to recruit new members.  It’s all about personal contact.

She talked about the reverse town hall held in North Dakota where 1,000-1,500 people stood up and told their public officials what they thought about the issues of the day.  She said the comments were very thoughtful and well articulated and she was proud.

She then moved on to the Democratic agenda.  She said that the central problem with government control is the lack of choice that it permits for people.  She repeated the stat quoted by another speaker before her, that 30% of private industry was now owned by the federal government under President Obama.  She stressed that, if the healthcare and energy sectors were added, that number would be up to 57%.

She told the story of Levi Preston, a veteran of the Revolutionary War, who was once asked what drove them to war with Britain.  His response was, “We always governed ourselves, and we always meant to.”

She continued with story after story of Americans who highlighted the struggle for liberty and freedom.  She bordered at times on getting a little bit too emotional.  She basically made Democratic policy out to be the enemy of anything and everything that America has ever stood for.  Not that there isn’t something to it, but she may have taken it a little too far with the stories and rhetoric.

She knew her crowd, though, and got several standing ovations throughout her speech.

Steve Poizner – California

The candidate for governor in California began by talking about the need for conservatism in his home state.  He highlighted the exploding deficits and high taxes.

He spent a considerable amount of time talking about the water shortage situation in California.  He said that this problem is not natural, it’s the result of the ruling of an unelected federal judge legislating from the bench.  He then said that, if elected, he would use the power of the state to sue the federal judge over the ruling and take it all the way to the Supreme Court to get a ruling on whether or not the states have the right to control their own natural resources.

Chuck DeVore – California

In a previous blog post, I highlighted the California Senate Race for the seat currently held by Barbara Boxer.  Chuck DeVore, if you’ll recall, is the Tea Party favorite in the race and appeared on Glenn Beck’s television program where he looked right at home.

He said that California is a laboratory for the liberal left.  The California law on greenhouse gases was a precursor for what Barbara Boxer and the EPA are now trying to do at the federal level.  He said the results can already be seen in California, where they have the 4th highest unemployment among the states.

John Ashcroft

This where CPAC began to get interesting.  You see, Ron Paul would be the closing speaker that day and his fans were rapidly filling the hotel.  John Ashcroft, one of the architects behind the Patriot Act and its implementation while Bush was in office, is not exactly their favorite person.

Well, it started out well enough.  Ashcroft gave a speech that was very reasonable.  He said that the people impose their values on government, not the other way around.  He implored the crowd, “Don’t stop, don’t let up.”  He went on to explain his views on the supposed conflict between liberty and security.  “I reject the formulation,” he said, “of balancing security and liberty.” Instead, he believes that security gives value to liberty and that, without security, there can be no liberty.

Presented with the “Defender of the Constitution” Award, the proceedings seemed to be going just fine.

Then, the next panel, consisting of 2008 Libertarian Party Candidate Bob Barr, former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore, Rep Dan Lungren (R-CA and one of the chief defenders of the Patriot Act) and Viet Dinh of the Georgetown University Law Center and moderated by Dr. Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ, began its debate.

It got very tense, to say the least.  Words were exchanged and the crowd got into it.  There were plenty of mixtures of applause and boos as the conservative/libertarian factions began to appear.

Some really good points were made on both sides.  Ultimately, what it came down to was the argument that John Ashcroft had spoken of earlier.  Gilmore and Barr sided with liberty and used the word as often as they could because the Libertarian elements of the crowd seemed to swoon just as you would expect an Obama crowd to swoon over hope and change.  Lungren and Dinh made the same point that Ashcroft had made a few minutes earlier, that liberty is not possible without security, and that they believed the Patriot Act included sufficient checks on the ability of anybody to abuse their power.  They also made it clear that these were enemy combatants not protected by the same Constitutional rights that we possess.  That, in the modern world, traditional rules don’t apply because there is such a blurred line between a soldier and a citizen and the battle lines aren’t what they used to be.

What continues to be missing in this argument, in my opinion, are the examples.  Why doesn’t anybody ever talk about examples of abuse? It’s always the potential for abuse.  Well, if there are examples of the system being abused, then let’s talk about it and how we can prevent it from happening again.  I’m not saying there aren’t examples out there, I just wish that somebody in these debates would talk about it.  Too often, it just becomes a shouting fest swamped in rhetoric and that is exactly what led to the tensions that finally spilled over.

To close the panel, John Ashcroft came back out to the podium and tried to say that both sides had their points but once again reiterated the need for security for liberty to exist.  Then, he was interrupted by a woman recording the event from the stairs on one side of the room.  She screamed something loud enough that it disrupted what Ashcroft was saying and caused quite a bit of commotion afterwards.  I wish I could have understood what she said well enough to write down the exact exchange but, alas, my ears are not the best out there.  You can be sure, though, that it was an idealistic statement of liberty over everything else.

Anyway, Ashcroft proceeded about as well as he could and closed by saying, “My time is out and her time is past.”

Laura Roth

Ok, she was just an emcee, not a speaker, but I had to include something about her.  She was AWFUL. I guess she hits some kind of market on her radio show, but she just comes across as an angry person wanting to pick a fight.  She did nothing but bash Democrats with baseless ad hominem attacks.  She was like a living spam e-mail.  Did you know that President Obama refuses to salute the flag and doesn’t like the “Star-Spangled Banner”?  I’m serious… she went there and more that I didn’t care to listen to.

Rep. Darrell Issa – California

I guess somebody decided CPAC would be a good place to shove it in Democrats’ faces that we had people in their backyards.  There were so many speakers from places like California, Minnesota, and Massachusetts… it was weird.

Anyway, Rep. Issa didn’t say an awful lot of substance, but the main point I took away from his speech was the connection between the President and ACORN.

You know, I’ve never paid much attention to the ACORN stuff because I figured it was just another one of those distractions people like to blame when they should really be focusing on the real thing: we just plain got beat because we did a terrible job of governing for a decade.  But, the next panel really made me think.

Saving Freedom from Vote Fraud

This panel, including Anita MonCrief, a former ACORN employee, presented some compelling evidence that there really is some funny business going on.  President Obama is clearly very integrally associated with the organization.  They played a video of him going on and on about how he was on their side in a conversation with ACORN directors of some sort.  Of course, that doesn’t mean anything. 

In case you are like me and just haven’t paid much attention to this whole ACORN thing, it is a group that claims to represent communities, one of their chief missions being to register people to vote.  Although, they seem to play favorites as to what types of people it likes to register and it doesn’t seem to pay a whole lot of attention to whether or not they are actually eligible. 

Apparently, Ms. MonCrief (http://anitamoncrief.blogspot.com), collected a lot of information while she worked there showing consistent, organized efforts to register as many people that agreed with their stances as possible, purposefully creating a mess for somebody else to sort out later.  They apparently put a lot of effort into finding all of the intricate details of registration laws in the various states and taking advantage of everything the can.

All of this wouldn’t really concern me an awful lot because they are simply doing what they should be doing… they are registering people.  Somebody else should do their job and check the registration rolls and make sure everybody is actually eligible.  The only problem is that ACORN receives federal funding… to the tune of $53 million under the Bush administration according to this panel.

They made a good point by quoting Chris Dodd in saying that every election law “should make it eaiser to vote, harder to cheat.”  I agree whole-heartedly, but surely the federal government should not take it upon itself to fund registration efforts, especially so blatantly partisan ones.

Another thing the panel concentrated on was the need to focus on more groups than just ACORN.  Because of all of the negative publicity, it appears ACORN groups across the country are shutting down but they aren’t going away.  They are just changing names and continuing business as usual.  They said that people should keep an eye out and contact their local officials and find out just who is registering voters in their counties.

Rep. Tom Price – Georgia

Introduced by Dr. Ed Feulner of The Heritage Foundation who touted the Mount Vernon Statement which defines a Constitutional conservative, Rep. Price is heavily involved in the Republican Study Committee.

Rep. Price then delivered a good line for the crowd.  In response to Nancy Pelosi calling the Tea Partiers un-American, he said, “Don’t you fly over our country in your luxury jet and tell us what is American!”

He repeated the familiar “no” chant championing the “party of no” label.

At this point, I think the Ron Paul fans were about ready to explode.  I’m sure sitting and waiting for a few minutes was too much for many of them but several hours was simply too long for them to be quiet so they once again became a little disruptive.

Two-Minute Activists

Then, one of the more unique moments of CPAC, was the presentation of several conservative activists from colleges across the country, though most were centered in the DC area.  It was a really weird thing because each of them was allotted two minutes to talk about what they had done and each had a cheering section from their school when they were introduced.  There was just a real college feel to the whole thing, which I guess makes sense.

The big thing to come out of it, though, was a statement in support of GOPride, a conservative gay rights group which was allowed to sponsor CPAC 2010 causing a lot of controversy.  It caused a mixed reaction in the crowd, but the Ron Paul fanatics enjoyed it.

Then, a few speakers later, one of the activists took his allotted time to condemn CPAC for accepting the sponsorship of GOPride and railed against the abomination of homosexuality.  The boos from the Ron Paul fans were incredibly loud, so much so that most of what the student said on stage was drowned out.  It was a really surreal moment to have somebody booed off the stage at CPAC for speaking out against homosexual marriage.  I’m sure some of the older elements of the crowd were wondering what in the world was going on.

Rep. Ron Paul – Texas

Then the messiah of the libertarian movement, Ron Paul, came to the stage.  It is really crazy how similar his followers are to the followers of President Obama… so much raw passion.

I really respect Ron Paul a lot.  I really do.  I think that the United States House of Representatives could use 20 more Ron Pauls… but I wouldn’t want any more than that.  At some point, you have to be willing to govern and you have to know how to formulate a foreign policy.

Ron Paul’s speech was basically a campaign speech, at least it would have been one if he was running against Woodrow Wilson.  He railed against the policies of Wilson, including the passage of the 16th Amendment which allows for an income tax.  He said that we should repeal it.  I am all for that.  He talked about how Wilson created the Federal Reserve and that we should “End the Fed” which seems to be another catch phrase for Paul supporters who chanted it all day long, usually in a very disruptive fashion.  I think that it is an option that certainly deserves discussion.  He also talked about his bread and butter issue, the gold standard.  Now that, I’m not so sure about.  But then, he talked about how Wilson supposedly arrested hundreds of people simply for disagreeing with his policies and for no other reason.  It’s a story I’ve never heard before and would like to hear more about.  Still, I find it’s relevancy to be a little thin.  I’m sure he was trying to draw a connection to the Patriot Act, but I don’t think anybody would claim that it has been used to round up political dissidents.

Then, he tried to define a true conservative foreign policy of non-interventionism which once again harkens back to the days of Wilson because it died after it was blamed for the escalation of World War II…

It’s as if he really believes that nobody would ever mess with us if we just minded our own business over here on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.  Nevermind the fact that two towers, a defense building, and a plane all fell down almost ten years ago because a few people on the other side of the globe had declared war on the United States.  Even if you want to claim that we started it with our interventionism at the end of World War II, which is a very feeble argument to be made, you can’t put the genie back in the bottle.  Does anybody think that if we just picked up our things and came home that the rest of the world would stop hating us? Does anybody think that terrorists would stop trying to kill our citizens?

It’s just not a real-world view of foreign policy.  That is why we cannot afford too many Ron Pauls.  Still, he is a passionate ideologue who mixes things up and throws out different ideas.  We need more people like him in Congress.

Conclusion

It was a very intense day, as I hope you could pick up from my summary.  Still, it was a very educational and entertaining day.  Tomorrow, I will try to get all of Day 3 up and finish up my summary of CPAC 2010!