BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Barack Obama Archive

Monday

17

August 2009

0

COMMENTS

Current Approach To Health Care Is Still Fundamentally Flawed

Written by , Posted in Free Markets, Government Meddling, Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements

The argument for a public option never really made sense.  If there’s an insurance model that could perform better than current models, there’s no reason it can’t be adopted in the private sector, perhaps financed by liberal billionaires like George Soros and Steve Bing, without government legislation.  If it’s really a better choice for consumers, and thus profitable, someone would step forward to do it. On the other hand, there are many obvious disadvantages to administering government insurance (the same disadvantages that plague all government activities), while the only real advantage is the availability of taxpayer money.

If the government is to use taxpayer dollars to run an insurance model at a loss, which is basically a redistribution from taxpayers to insurance consumers (two overlapping but not identical groups), then the same thing could be more easily accomplished without undermining existing insurance providers (food stamps, for instance, don’t undermine grocery stores).  In other words, the public option was always completely unnecessary no matter which side you looked at it from, and the White House may or may not be ceding ground on this issue, depending on who you listen to.   But while dropping the public option from the discussion would be a welcome development, the nature of the health care argument advanced by the White House is still fundamentally flawed. (more…)

Friday

31

July 2009

0

COMMENTS

Obama's Health Care Rhetoric Versus Reality

Written by , Posted in Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements

The National Taxpayers Union compared Obama’s words in pushing government-run health care in a recent speech and town hall meeting with the language of the bill itself (overview here).  NTU also compared the positive (market and consumer oriented) language in the bill with the negative.  While Obama used words such as “rights” and “choice” much more frequently in his speech, the language of the bill is considerably more negative.  Here’s how the bill shacks out:

Language of a Busy Bureaucracy…
Term(s)
Frequency
Require/Required/Requirement(s) 494
Report(s)/Reporting/Reported 427
Limit/Limits/Limitation 167
Penalty/Penalties 156
Regulations 91
Tax(es) 72
Enforce/Enforcement 48
Must 47
Prohibit/Prohibiting/Prohibition 28
Sanction(s) 21
Obligation/Obligations 18
Restrict/Restrictive/Restriction 12
Fines 3
Total 1584

–

Limiting Freedom, Competition, & the Marketplace
Term(s)
Frequency
Benefit(s) 375
Choice 47
Options 38
Private 35
Rights 21
Privacy 17
Exempt/Exemption 16
Marketplace 3
Competition 3
Consumer-driven 0
Freedom 0
Liberty 0
Patient-driven 0
Total 555

Sunday

26

July 2009

0

COMMENTS

Joltin' Joe Strikes Out

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy

Vice President Biden in a New York Time’s op-ed on the porkulus:

The care with which we are carrying out the provisions of the Recovery Act has led some people to ask whether we are moving too slowly. But the act was intended to provide steady support for our economy over an extended period — not a jolt that would last only a few months.

Contrast this with these Bidenisms over the previous weeks and months:

June 2, 2009:

And, of course, we also came forward with what we’re going to talk about today, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, an initial big jolt to give the economy a real head start.

March 28, 2009:

The Recovery Act, as we call it, provides a necessary jolt to our economy to implement what we refer as “shovel-ready” projects…

Also, here’s Obama from November, 2008:

But what I want to emphasize is that there is a consensus among across the political spectrum that we need a stimulus, and we have to make sure that the stimulus is significant enough that it really gives a jolt to the economy, that it is putting people back to work, that it is making investments, that it is restoring some confidence in the business community that, in fact, their products and services are going to have customers.

And so we are going to do what’s required to jolt this — this economy back — back into shape.

And finally, here’s Obama in his very first little press conference telling us how only the big, bad federal government could give us that electric feeling:

But at this particular moment, with the private sector so weakened by this recession, the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back to life. It is only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs lead to people spending less money which leads to even more layoffs. And breaking that cycle is exactly what the plan that’s moving through Congress is designed to do.

Hat-tip: NRO’s The Corner

Tuesday

14

July 2009

0

COMMENTS

Sotomayor Rejects Obama's Judicial Philosophy

Written by , Posted in The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

What’s going on here?

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) asked Sonia Sotomayor if she agrees with something Barack Obama said as a senator when deciding to vote against John Roberts as chief justice of the Supreme Court.

At the time, Obama said: “In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.”

… “He has to explain what he meant by judging,” Sotomayor said. “Judges can’t explain what’s in their heart — the job of a judge is to apply the law. It’s not the heart that compels conclusions in cases, it’s the law.”

According to Obama, Sotomayor was everything he was looking for in a judge, which means she met his empathy standard.  Now, speaking at her confirmation hearing (under oath?), she has rejected this standard.  Was Obama wrong in his evaluation of her?

No, he was not.  What we are seeing now is a hustle.  Sotomayor knows that Obama’s position, and her own chosen philosophy, is at odds with the proper role of the judiciary.  She knows it and yet continues to put it into action anyway because she doesn’t care about the proper role of the judiciary; she cares about getting to the desired liberal outcomes.  Lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee is just one more step down that road, no more significant to her than her frequent willingness to twist and bend the law to serve a radical ideology.

Sunday

12

July 2009

0

COMMENTS

The Government's Cut

Written by , Posted in Taxes

While in Ghana, President Barack Obama had this to say:

No country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves — (applause) — or if police — if police can be bought off by drug traffickers. (Applause.) No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top — (applause) — or the head of the Port Authority is corrupt. No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery.

I’m sure the businesses right here in America would love it if the United States government could limit itself to only taking 20% off the top.

Monday

29

June 2009

1

COMMENTS

Did Honduras Have A Coup?

Written by , Posted in Foreign Affairs & Policy

The media says yes. Tales of the Honduran coup are all over the major media outlets.  They are cheerfully repeating the claims of leftist Latin America leaders like Hugo Chavez, that President Zelaya was ousted in a “coup.”  A superficial understanding of the fact, that the military removed him from office, certainly supports this claim.  A closer inspection of the events that led up to Zelaya’s ouster, however, suggests that what transpired was actually a defense of democracy against the assault of a power hungry populist leftist.

That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.

The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.

Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court’s order.

The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica.

After the would be dictator was ousted, the military promptly stepped aside and allowed the political branches to follow the proper protocol in replacing Zelaya.  The Congress, after voting to remove Zelaya, subsequently replaced him in a manner “mandated by the constitution.” This is not the stuff of coups.

Dr. Palmer observes:

Imagine that George Bush, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan or some other American president had decided to overturn the Constitution so that he could stay in power beyond the constitutionally limited time. To do that, he orders a nationwide referendum that is not constitutionally authorized and blatantly illegal. The Federal Election Commission rules that it is illegal. The Supreme Court rules that it is illegal. The Congress votes to strip the president of his powers and, as members of Congress are not that good at overcoming the president’s personally loyal and handpicked bodyguards, they send police and military to arrest the president. Now, which party is guilty of leading a coup?

Meanwhile, while Obama felt that even rhetoric would constitute “meddling” in Iran, his White House has put considerable effort into first defending and now restoring to power a would-be leftist dictator.  Where are his priorities?

Update: Heritage has more.

Thursday

4

June 2009

0

COMMENTS

Chavez Worried "Comrade" Obama Is The Better Leftist

Written by , Posted in Big Government

Sometimes it takes a crazy person to stumble upon the truth:

During one of Chavez’s customary lectures on the “curse” of capitalism and the bonanzas of socialism, the Venezuelan leader made reference to GM’s bankruptcy filing, which is expected to give the U.S. government a 60 percent stake in the 100-year-old former symbol of American might.

“Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right,” Chavez joked on a live television broadcast.

Hilarious.

Monday

1

June 2009

0

COMMENTS

General Motors Bankruptcy Is A Triumph Of Capitalism

Written by , Posted in Free Markets

The primary benefit of a free market system is that it rewards companies that are capable of meeting our needs and demands, while punishing those that do not.  Economist Joseph Schumpeter famously referred to this process as “creative destruction.”

The collapse of General Motors and Chrysler is evidence of the process in action.   As Greg Mankiw recently noted on his blog, the 2009 Consumer Report ranked Chrysler dead last, recommending zero percent of tested cars for purchase.  General Motors came in next to last, with 17% recommended.  At the top was Honda with a score of 95%.

Standing in the way of this capitalist process was the administration’s of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Obama in particular has gone above and beyond in his counterproductive effort to prevent GM and Chrysler from facing the consequences of producing shoddy products. He opened the corporate welfare spigot in a flawed effort to save the floundering companies, but to no avail. Like the grim reaper, bankruptcy knows when the time has come for a business to be put to rest, either to be reborn again as a new company (even if it’s under the same name), or for good.

Democrats who pushed for passage of corporate welfare bills to prop up the automakers portrayed bankruptcy as an unacceptable course.  Gov. Rendell flat out called it “a disaster to put them in Chapter 11.” Obama seemed to share this aversion to bankruptcy when he asserted a need to “figure out ways to put the pressure on the automakers the way a bankruptcy court would.  Demand accountability, demand serious change, but do so in a way allows them to keep the factory doors open.” Yet despite the efforts of Obama, the GM and Chrysler of yesterday that ranked at the bottom of the 2009 Consumer Report will finally be laid to rest. Having eventually realized that the best way to “put pressure on the automakers the way a bankruptcy court would” is to let an actual bankruptcy court do it, Obama should now get out of the way and let the free market make the ultimate decision on the survival of their new incarnations as well.

Wednesday

27

May 2009

0

COMMENTS

Sotomayor Is Good Pick, Bad Judge

Written by , Posted in The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

President Barack Obama has announced his replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter.  It is going to be Sonia Sotomayor, a judge who embodies not only the American dream, but the President’s stated criteria for what makes a good Supreme Court judge.  Unfortunately, those criteria are misguided and have delivered a judge with a philosophy antithetical to the proper role of the judiciary in a constitutional republic.

The politics of the pick are overwhelmingly positive for the President.  Sonia Sotomayor is a great American story.  She rose from poverty to attend the top law schools in the nation and, today, has been appointed to the highest staiton in her chosen field.  That’s great.  It’s a testament to the pre-Obama America, and that it was never the horrible place that he, and his wife, have made it out to be.

But that’s not the real genuis of the pick.  To put it simply, it’s all about identity politics.  The left is already wrapping her up in her gender/ethnicity to protect her from criticisms on her substantive record.   I say once again, welcome to Obama’s post-racial America, where everything is about race.  Those remaining racists in America, who insist on seeing every event through the distorted goggles of race, celebrate the pick without the slightest consideration to what actually matters on the court: judicial philosophy.  They celebrate it because they think more people are now “represented” on the court.  But the court does not have representatives, it has judges.  Its members are not there to advance interests of constituency groups; they are there to follow the law.  The text of the law does not change based on the ethnic background of the person reading it.

Sonia Sotomayor does not understand this.  She has gone on record not only stating a dangerous judicial philosophy, but one littered with bigoted comments based on leftist identity politics.  In a constitutional republic, the law is made through the people’s representatives in the legislature.  The Executive then carries out that law, and the courts settled disputes based upon it.  There is no room in this system for the courts to make law.  Doing so removes the people from the equation, and thus undermines claims that we are, in fact, a republic.  Yet Sotomayor has made it clear that her view is that the court is a place where policy is made.  Moreover, she thinks she’ll be better at making policy from the bench than a white male, due to her gender and ethnic background.  This rank ignorance of the function of the judiciary is why Sonia Sotomayor must be opposed, but our race obsessed society, molded as it is by years of identity politics, make it impossible to talk about her merits instead of her utter irrelevant characteristics, such as her gender and ethnic background.

Wednesday

20

May 2009

0

COMMENTS

Obamaman Can

Written by , Posted in General/Misc.

Who can take tomorrow,
Spend it all today?
Who can take your income,
And tax it all away?

Obamaman!
Yes, Obamaman can.

Newer Entries →
← Older Entries

About Me

profileI serve as Vice President of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a non-profit think tank dedicated to preserving tax competition and free markets. This site features my personal views, which are not reflective of CF&P.

Search Site

Categories

Archives