Saturday, November 21, 2009

Fight!   [Jay Nordlinger]

In an Off the Page spot, Will Cain and I discuss the term “teabagger”: what to do about it. In other words, should conservatives fight this term, adopt it and wear it proudly, sort of ignore it, or what? I don’t claim that my mailbag is a scientific survey of conservative opinion. I am not some Rasmussen sittin’ here in his PJs. But I will report to you: Conservatives, if my mail is any indication, are in a mood to fight, big-time. Teabagger-schmeabagger.

I’ll report more later . . .

11/21 10:49 AMShare

Chatter   [Robert Costa]

Arguments offered from Democrats on the Senate floor this morning:

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) — Cites the late Teddy Kennedy, speaks about his legacy, calls this a "moral" issue
Sen. Michael Bennet (D., Col.) — Says this cloture vote is about finishing the dream of the Baby Boom generation
Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore.) — Calls our private health system “inhumane,” says we need a “different system”

11/21 10:49 AMShare

. . . and an All-You-Can-Eat Salad Bar   [Jay Nordlinger]

I was reading Mark Steyn, always one of the happiest things in life to do, and I thought of something when reading this line: “[Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had] been brought before a military commission, and last December indicated he was ready to plead guilty, and itching for the express lane to the 72 virgins.”

This reminded me of something a public official once told me, something that has tickled my funnybone — in a perverse way — since: Islamofascist suicide-bombers believe “you get a free ticket to the big whorehouse in the sky: 72 virgins and an all-you-can-eat salad bar.”

Something about that “all-you-can-eat salad bar” just tickles me. I also think of the line, “and a player to be named later.”

11/21 10:41 AMShare

Get This Woman to the Senate   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

I'm sitting on an Amtrak train listening to a woman explaining why her sister in Canada comes the the U.S. for all her medical procedures. "So it's not just Europe with the long lines?" The man across from her asked. No, this is what happens when the government tries to run health care. "Like other things in life, there is really no quick fix."

11/21 10:37 AMShare

Why Orwell Matters   [Robert Costa]

“Orwellian!” — that’s how Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) is describing McConnell’s speech. The GOP leader, he says, “is living in a different world than everyone else. For him to lecture the Senate on debt is really beyond the pale.”

Why, Senator Reid, why?

Bush and Iraq, of course. “It’s not only that war, but other actions of the Bush administration,” says Reid. Plus, he adds, the Broder column cited by McConnell is irrelevant. “That’s not where we should be,” says Reid, listening to some writer who’s “retired or writes once in awhile.”

So Reid doesn’t read Broder? Surely he reads Steyn then, right?

11/21 10:16 AMShare

The GOP Line   [Robert Costa]

"Higher taxes, higher premiums, and cuts in Medicare." That's what will happen if you vote for Reid's cloture vote tonight, says Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.). If you support moving the bill to the floor, it's a vote that simply "can't be explained to constituents," he adds.

McConnell is continuing to explain why a cloture 'yea' is just as bad as a 'yea' on the final vote, should it ever get there. With Democratic moderates prepared to give Reid his 60 votes tonight, McConnell knows that he has to make this procedural vote matter — if you light the match, you're responsible for the fire.

11/21 10:05 AMShare

Maybe There's an Eighth Person Who Would Want One. . .   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

From a $100 NRO contributor:

Geez, fellas, I gave seven gift subs already, and you're still guilt trippin me. You guys are good.

Contribute to NRO here.

11/21 10:00 AMShare

The Broder Strategy   [Robert Costa]

The cloture debate on ReidCare just began in the U.S. Senate. Minority leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) is speaking. His speech is interesting — instead of just listing his complaints, he's using a new David S. Broder column from the Washington Post as his guide. Broder, McConnell notes, is no conservative.

Here's part of the column cited by McConnell:

The day after the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) gave its qualified blessing to the version of health reform produced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Quinnipiac University poll of a national cross section of voters reported its latest results.

This poll may not be as famous as some others, but I know the care and professionalism of the people who run it, and one question was particularly interesting to me.

It read: "President Obama has pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our federal budget deficit over the next decade. Do you think that President Obama will be able to keep his promise or do you think that any health care plan that Congress passes and President Obama signs will add to the federal budget deficit?"

The answer: Less than one-fifth of the voters — 19 percent of the sample — think he will keep his word. Nine of 10 Republicans and eight of 10 independents said that whatever passes will add to the torrent of red ink. By a margin of four to three, even Democrats agreed this is likely.

11/21 09:57 AMShare

Palin on Reid 'In the Midnight Hour'   [Jack Fowler]

The Senate is set to vote Saturday night, right before the holiday, on a motion to proceed on its latest health care government take-over bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is pushing for yet another weekend vote (commonplace now for the party of “transparency”) because he knows that the American people will be none too happy about the Democrats’ proposal the longer they have to look it over. 

A vote against the Democrats’ motion will help stop Obamacare before it gets any closer to becoming a reality. While this Saturday night vote might seem like a procedural matter, at the end of the day a vote against Senator Reid’s motion is a vote against massive new government spending and a take-over of 1/6th of the U.S. economy; it’s a vote against billions in tax increases and penalties; it’s a vote against federal funding of abortion; and it’s a vote against ignoring responsible tort reform.

And in case you hadn’t heard – just a reminder that you’ll start paying higher taxes to fund this scheme in 2010 even though it doesn’t start up until 2014. Only in Washington does that make any sense. Among the provisions in this bill will be a $2500 cap on Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs). The IRS allows families with special needs children to use FSAs to cover educational expenses. This new $2500 cap will hit these families especially hard and cost them hundreds of dollars in new taxes every year.

 

Contact your senators and tell them to vote against the motion to proceed tomorrow night. The American people don’t support this – we support the commonsense solutions that have been proposed, but totally ignored by (at this point) some out-of-control Washington politicians. Let’s put a stop to Obamacare before it goes any further.

11/21 09:48 AMShare

From the Belly of the Beast   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

From a $100 NRO contributor:

I'm in the belly of the beast, two blocks away from the president's home in Hyde Park. Thanks, NRO, for making a University of Chicago student's life a little more sane, even as Mr. Obama and Congress seem hell-bent on destroying everything that Milton Friedman and the Chicago School once stood for.

Contribute to NRO here.

11/21 09:00 AMShare

Open a Bible, Learn Stuff   [Mike Potemra]

Last week, I poked some innocent fun at the idea of The American Patriot’s Bible: The Word of God and the Shaping of America. I have been looking at a copy of it, and am pleased to discover it’s not as bad as I had feared. I did, however, catch a typo in the actual Bible text (Daniel 5:27); I’ve had my hands on countless Bibles over the years, and you’d be surprised how rare typos in the Biblical text have become. (Gone for good are the days of the “Wicked Bible” of 1631, which inadvertently left out the word “not” in “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”)

And I learned something from this Patriot’s Bible that I was amazed that I had never heard before. A note in the text of Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians reads: “Bill Clinton placed his hand on Galatians 6:8 as he took the presidential oath of office in 1993.” Galatians 6:8 reads: “For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.” Now, I’m no Clinton hater, and I’m not going for a cheap putdown of the 42nd president here, but come on: a warning about “flesh” and “corruption” in Minute One of his presidency? A comic novelist would be faulted for making that up. (Was it perhaps intentional — i.e., that Clinton recognized the specific weaknesses to which he was prone and that could get his presidency in serious trouble, and was therefore wise enough to ask God’s help against them?)

11/21 03:02 AMShare

Friday, November 20, 2009

These Are the E-mails I'm Getting This Friday Night   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Subject: I usually contribute each year anyway, around 100 dollars, I'm willing to-

-tag an extra 50 on this year if you post on the Corner:

"Meanwhile back at the ranch, Ma was in the cookhouse whippin' up a big Mesopotamia; but I Babylon.

11/20 09:51 PMShare

Re: Your Stimulus Dollars at Work   [Veronique de Rugy]

From Oregon’s capitol city, Salem.  $13.5 million to release druggies back into the community against the voter’s expressed wishes to keep them in prison longer.

Award Description: Oregon voters passed Measure 57, a citizen initiative that increased prison sentences for non-violent property and drug offenders. The Oregon Criminal Justice Commission (CJC) will use (these funds) to divert some of the offenders convicted of Measure 57 crimes from prison if they complete intensive drug court type programs. These programs will focus on intensive supervision and treatment, and immediate sanctions and rewards. These programs are expected to serve approximately 720 offenders per year for four years.”  ($4687.39 per offender per year! – Your Reader).

No matter what one's position is on the drug war, it's hard to see how this spending is consistent with the promise of creating jobs that was made by the administration.

11/20 06:40 PMShare

From a $100 NRO Contributor   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

You had me at "immanentize."

Contribute to NRO here.

11/20 06:30 PMShare

'It All Leads Back to Rahm Emanuel'   [Mark Krikorian]

I love it that the Hispanic Caucus hates Rahm so much, in this case because he pushed for the illegal-alien restrictions in the health-care bill. I can't wait to hear what they'll say about him when their comprehensive amnesty bill fails to go anywhere!

11/20 06:07 PMShare

Profile in Courage   [Mark Krikorian]

Carly Fiorina has just started in politics and she's already weaseling out of direct answers:

In a question-and-answer session with reporters, the just-announced Republican candidate for U.S. Senate and former CEO of Hewlett-Packard straddled the fence on issues ranging from climate change to immigration, refusing to give specific answers on the most controversial aspects of those debates.

She deemed climate change a "serious issue" but at the same time suggested the science surrounding global warming is less than conclusive. She said she supports "controlling the border" against illegal immigration and establishing a better temporary worker program, but she declined to say whether she would vote to create a path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants now in the country.

English translation: Yes, she would vote to create a path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants now in the country.

11/20 06:05 PMShare

You Have to Show Respect and Consideration to Allies? Really?   [Rich Lowry]

The Washington Post has a fascinating and encouraging piece today on the administration's approach to Karzai. Turns out the ham-handed bullying was counterproductive and the administration's hitting "re-set." A snippet:

The U.S. approach to the election had the unintended consequence of strengthening Karzai's hand. "Nobody wanted to coalesce around a single candidate because they each thought they were America's favorite," said Ali Jalali, a former interior minister who briefly considered running.

Karzai was able to pull key opposition figures to his side by promising them positions in the new government. Fear that he no longer had U.S. support also prompted him to name Mohammed Fahim, a prominent former warlord alleged to have been involved in drug smuggling and corruption, as one of his vice presidential candidates.

"We created a political-diplomatic isometric exercise," said Ronald Neumann, a former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan. "The more we pressed him to remove people, the more he thought we were trying to undercut him, and we drove him back to the worst actors for support."

By the May 8 filing deadline, it was clear to many in Washington that Karzai would almost certainly win a second term. But there was no substantive effort to recalibrate the relationship. Although the administration maintained a neutral stance with regard to the election, Karzai saw it differently, according to his advisers.

"He was sure," one said, "that Washington wanted him to lose."

We've editorialized on what a mistake the administration made in not forging a more cooperative relationship with Karzai. Of course, there's a balance to be struck between holding his hand and pushing him, but the administration — made up of self-styled diplomatic masters — went way too far in pressuring, haranguing, and basically alienating him. From the Post again:

"You have to show him respect and consideration," said Zalmay Khalilzad, a Bush administration envoy to Afghanistan who remains close to Karzai. "You cannot lecture him. You have to listen to his explanations, why he thinks something cannot be done, and then respond to that in a constructive way."

You'd think that'd be obvious, but it's very good news if it's sinking in now.

11/20 06:02 PMShare

From a $50 NRO Contributor   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Know what I think we need? More NRO-bell!

Contribute to NRO here.

11/20 06:00 PMShare

If Only Wishing Made It So   [Rich Lowry]

It's always a peril of political punditry to assume that because we support or oppose something, it's therefore good or bad political strategy respectively (see post below on the interpretation of elections routinely offered by pro-choicers). There's a great example today. Paul Krugman attributes the troubles of the Democrats to their insufficient toughness on Wall Street. That may be a contributing factor, but he wants to look the other way when it comes to the unpopularity of the auto bailouts and the massive spending spree so far. If only Democrats had structured things a little differently, he wants to believe, the public would be clamoring for even more government action and spending. Behold the awesome power of self-delusion.

11/20 05:49 PMShare

The Pro-Lifers Did It!   [Rich Lowry]

After the Republicans lose any election, the explanation is trotted out that the party's social conservatism is responsible. This was less persuasive than ever after 2008, but still we heard it. And now consider: A pro-lifer has just won the governorship of New Jersey; for the first time since Roe, a friend reminds me, there's a fully pro-life governor of Virginia (neither Allen or Gilmore fit that bill); a sweeping pro-life measure passed the House in the form of the Stupak amendment on a strong, bi-partisan vote; and opinion polls show an up-tick in pro-life sentiment. The Republican party had, and still has, plenty of problems, but its support for life isn't one of them.

11/20 05:40 PMShare

Palinism v. McDonnellism   [Rich Lowry]

First Read today mentioned the fight between Palinism and McDonellism. This will be a journalistic trope for a while, so it's worth noting what a false choice it should be. First, if we accept the terms for the sake of argument, Palin was a McDonnellite before McDonnell, since her success in Alaska was based on addressing practical issues of governance with a common-sense conservatism that appealed to the right and the center. Second, you really can't have one without the other. You need both an energized grass roots attached to an indisputably conservative candidate (which I'm guessing is a key part of what First Read would define as Palinism), together with a compelling policy agenda that appeals beyond the conservative base (so-called McDonnellism). McDonnell had the first (he was an unabashed social conservative, indeed I hazard to guess is as conservative as Palin) and added the second in the way winning conservatives have across the decades, from Newt Gingrich to Ronald Reagan. As I wrote earlier this week, I really don't think there's a Palinism per se. And if Palin is going to run for president and succeed as a candidate, she'd need to return to her McDonnellism, advancing a specific agenda and winning over the center as well as the right. The always-impressive Patrick Ruffini was particularly good on this basic question in the immediate wake of McDonnell's victory:

Republicans in Virginia have struggled to make their prescriptions relevant to swing voters. Our issues in local elections have traditionally been issues like taxes and immigration that don't always lend themselves to policy heft. And a lack of policy heft has translated into an intangible sense that there's not enough "there there."

This was the central challenge facing the McDonnell campaign at its outset, and so it systematically sought to dismantle this critique by branding McDonnell as a practical problem solver without compromising his conservative principles.

Republicans can be specific, detailed, and confident in putting forward solutions relevant to the middle class, while also being more conservative than we have been in recent years (especially with the Bush era spending binge). There's not an either/or tradeoff between conservatism and a policy focus, something the McDonnell campaign proved in Virginia this year.

The lesson of the McDonnell campaign: Maintain your conservative principles, but make the election about policy. And whatever the issue, make sure you've got an app for that.

11/20 05:38 PMShare

From a $32 NRO Contributor   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

I canceled Newsweek after being a subscriber for 10+ years. This was the refund for unmailed issues. Keep up the good work.

Contribute to NRO here.

11/20 05:30 PMShare

Whiny Spoiled Brats   [Anthony Dick]

The University of California system took some predictable steps to tighten its belt this week in the face of the state budget crisis, cutting some services and boosting student tuition. Equally predictably, students across the state have responded with a series of self-concerned protests, taking over campus buildings at Berkeley and UCLA.

Perhaps most predictably of all, the New York Times has started in with its faux-poignant protest coverage, as illustrated in this slide show (complete with a don't-tase-me-bro moment). Two things about this mess:

First and foremost, the protests are about privileged kids demanding subsidies from working people. The UC system will continue to be heavily subsidized by taxpayers, and the students who attend are among the most naturally gifted, with the highest future earning potential, in the country. This is especially true at the system's flagship schools of Berkeley and UCLA, where the protests have been most intense. Narcissism and self-absorption are the norm on college campuses, but it really is pushing the limits to throw such a tantrum at the idea that you will be getting a smaller amount of free money taken out of the paychecks of strapped taxpayers, most of whom could never dream of the advantages and opportunities you enjoy.

Second, these protesters claim the mantle of the free-speech movement, but it is a betrayal and a subversion of the principles of free speech to forcibly occupy a school building and block out its rightful owners and occupants (including other tuition-paying students). The very idea of free speech is to facilitate the peaceful exchange of ideas, without allowing the use or threat of force to distort the process. The whole enterprise suffers when thugs begin breaking out the chains and barricades and committing property crimes in order to get their way.  

11/20 05:12 PMShare

Hidden Meanings   [John Derbyshire]

With the long winter nights drawing in, what NRO readers need is a puzzle to while away the hours. I have just the thing.

I subscribe to The Economist, and the November 21–27 issue arrived in the lunchtime post. The Economist has both text and pictures, of course. Most of the pictures are photographs, but some are little drawings meant to illustrate some point or other. Taken out from the surrounding text, these drawings are often very enigmatic — often teetering on the edge of surrealism, in fact.

Here are three from the current issue. You may either (a) try to figure out what news topic they are illustrating, or (b) supply spoof captions in the manner of the New Yorker weekly competition, or (c) just quietly congratulate yourself on being a wide ocean away from this sort of Brit-journalistic whimsy.

First picture

Second picture

Third picture

11/20 05:08 PMShare

From a $50 NRO Contributor   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

In the recent magazine, Mr. Nordlinger writes: "[H]is words give comfort and heart — plus ammunition — to those bewildered or dismayed by the present period, and unable to express themselves as a Krauthammer can."

I would say the same of all who write for National Review.

God Bless.

Contribute to NRO here.

11/20 05:00 PMShare

The Missing Contributor   [Rick Brookhiser]

Any contribution from Lil Cthuhlu yet?

11/20 04:42 PMShare

From a $100 NRO Contributor   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Ditto Yale, ditto So Cal.  To complete the sad trifecta, I also work in Hollywood.  For my penance, I will now give $100, say 10 Hail Marys, and thank You Know Who for Jack Dunphy.

Contribute to NRO here.

11/20 04:30 PMShare

What Does Sarah Palin's Rogue Week Mean?   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

I asked Ralph Reed, who, thinking she's probably not going to run for president in 2012, says: "Unless she runs, not much."

Reed doesn't doubt that Sarah Palin may consider running for president of the United States, but recommends a little space between 2008 and when she does. He adds: "My sense is that she is going to be a major force in the party—-and a force for good, by the way...."

So who in 2012? Reed says:

One thing you can count on in every presidential cycle in the Republican party: There is always a surprise.  That was true for Pat Robertson in 1988, Pat Buchanan in 1996, John McCain in 2000, and Huckabee and Palin in 2008. No matter how many times you chart the primaries, you can't predict the unpredictable, and someone you least expect catches fire. Who will that be in 2012?  By definition, we really don't know. 

11/20 04:25 PMShare

Audit or Arrest?   [Mark Krikorian]

Rep. Lamar Smith, ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and immigration-enforcement stalwart, wheedled updated statistics out of DHS and found that, in the words of the Washington Times story:

Criminal arrests, administrative arrests, indictments and convictions of illegal immigrants at work sites all fell by more than 50 percent from fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2009.

And note that Obama's crowd didn't take over until after the first third of FY 2009, so the numbers are likely to fall even further next year. At a DHS conference on immigration yesterday for employers, J-Nap's comments made it clear that she would permit no illegals to be arrested at worksites — only Americans (employers) would be arrested, if even that.

Keep reading this post . . .

11/20 04:11 PMShare

Kind of a Pattern by Now . . .   [Victor Davis Hanson]

11/20 04:08 PMShare

From a $100 NRO Contributor   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

I work for Big Pharma, and have recently dropped out of my company's PAC. Please enjoy a portion of my former contribution.

Contribute to NRO here.

11/20 04:00 PMShare

Iraqi Detainees Use Favre to Tease Wisconsin Soldiers   [Pete Hegseth]

As a Minnesotan, this is certainly the only time I'll side with Iraqi detainees over U.S. guards.

Click here to read the news article from a Milwaukee news station.

Too funny. Go Vikes!

11/20 03:58 PMShare

A Dirty Word   [NRO Staff]

What to do about ‘Teabagger’? Jay Nordlinger responds in an episode of Off the Page today.

11/20 03:32 PMShare

From a $30 NRO Contributor   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

I give up surfing the web during Lent every year, although I always grant myself a dispensation to read NRO — giving that up would entail too much suffering.

Contribute to NRO here.

11/20 03:30 PMShare

Your Stimulus Dollars at Work   [Veronique de Rugy]

The stimulus money was supposed to be directed to job creation, remember? Well, you will be happy to know that instead the government thought, in this economic context, it would be a good idea to spend $452,000 on "Respiratory Health Impacts of Wildfire Particulate Emissions Under Climate Change," which is basically a study that will likely show that wildfires cause smoke and that smoke can cause respiratory issues.

We are also spending $233,825 on a study that looks at the question "why do Africans vote they way they do?"

To find the waste in your neighborhood, go here.

11/20 03:26 PMShare

Behold, the New National Review   [NRO Staff]

There's Ponnuru (for SCOTUS!). There's Dalyrmple. Jeff Bell. Alex Alexiev. Brookhiser. Nordlinger. Brookhiser. Steyn. Rob Long. Kevin Hassett. And much more.

Subscribe here.

11/20 03:22 PMShare

Speaking of TV   [Jonah Goldberg]

How come seasons 1-4 of the Shield aren't on iTunes?

11/20 03:21 PMShare

Because It's Friday   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Oh happy day! Scarecrow & Mrs. King will finally be available on DVD — the first season is in pre-ordering season here.

11/20 03:17 PMShare

Surtaxes are the New Black   [Veronique de Rugy]

Surtaxes are the new rage this year. Nancy Pelosi wants a 5.4 percent surtax on the rich to pay for half of the health-care-reform costs and now senior House Democrats have introduced legislation that would impose a surtax beginning in 2011 to cover the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Congressional Quarterly has some of the details:

The bill would require the president to set the surtax so that it fully pays for the previous year’s war cost. But it would allow for a one-year delay in the implementation of the tax if the president determines that the economy is too weak to sustain that kind of tax change. It also would exempt military members who have served in combat since Sept. 11, 2001, along with their families, and the families of soldiers killed in combat.

Here is my question: If the Democrats believe that fairness requires that everyone shoulders a piece of the cost of the war, why shouldn't that rule also apply to health-care reform?

11/20 03:13 PMShare

When Harry Met Saturday   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Have you checked in on our Critical Condition health-care blog today? Have you read our editorial? Have you read Bob Costa's Senate state-of-health-care play piece? Have you read everything Stephen Spruiell learned about Demcare from NPR (you'll be surprised). Have you read David Sanders on what Blanche Linoln's going to do? And there's more to read. Just mosey on over to the homepage.

11/20 03:07 PMShare

Re: The EU and Global Governance   [Iain Murray]

It appears I got my transcripts of yesterday's press conference confused. The remarks about global governance were not made by Baroness Ashton — although she doubtless agrees with them — but by the new president of Europe himself, Herman Van Rompuy.

11/20 03:05 PMShare

From a $100 NRO Contributor   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

I gave earlier this week. Here is another $100. I'm inspired and fired up to take our country back. Keep fighting the good fight.

Contribute to NRO here.

11/20 03:00 PMShare

Tantalus Reaches for Amnesty   [Mark Krikorian]

Amnesty keeps receding into the future. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, the amnesty point man in the House, had pledged to introduce a bill in October, then promised it in November, and this week, in a conference call hosted by the Campaign to Reform Immigration for America ("a project of the Tides Advocacy Fund"), announced that he'll be introducing a bill in December. I wouldn't even count on that, given that lawmakers might not want to go home for Christmas break and hold town halls where people complain about both health care and immigration (which is why Chuck Schumer has said his Senate companion bill will be introduced in January, after lawmakers are safely back in Washington).

11/20 02:58 PMShare

Krauthammer's Take   [NRO Staff]

From last night's Fox News All-Stars.

On the Reid health-care bill:

Where do you start? This is a really unbelievable bill.

Because the provisions that the CBO looked at are so jiggered, even though CBO's numbers are real, it's about an unreal assumption.

If you start with 2015, which is essentially where the benefits start, and you go into the future, every ten years you will have a plan that is not [costing] $800 billion. It will be [costing] $1.5 trillion. Which means that except for the early years — in which there are no benefits paid out and a lot of taxes paid in — you're going to have a huge net deficit which will probably be around half a trillion every decade.

Secondly, even if you had the revenue neutrality, which you won't, everybody assumes: Well, that is going to help us economically. In fact, to achieve revenue neutrality, you have to increase taxes, and you're going to have to have spending cuts.

Those increases in taxes, and cuts in spending, are now not available in reducing the other deficits outside of health care which are going to amount to $9 trillion over the next decade.

So you create a new entitlement, you support it with new taxes and spending cuts which you cannot now use in reducing the outside — the other — deficits, which are destroying the dollar and the federal budget.

… Of all the ways in which you can raise revenue, in the Reid bill it's done with raising the payroll tax in the middle of a recession with over 10 percent unemployment — exactly at a time when you want to encourage employment and lower the payroll tax. It's perverse.

On the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force’s mammogram recommendations:

People are reacting as if we never had a panel or a recommendation before. Years before, we had a recommendation from a panel like this who said start at age 40. Every day the FDA is deciding this new drug is a good one or not — and if it's not, you don't ever see it.

So it is not as if these kinds of independent commissions don't exist and determine what we get and what we don't. So the issue here is not panels in general or recommendations in general, it's the recommendation in and of itself.

… And the problem here is a mammogram is extremely inaccurate. One in ten tests which are returned as cancer are not, so you have a 10 percent false positive, which causes not just anxiety and suffering, but new tests, more [diagnostic] radiation, even a [surgical] procedure, and perhaps other harms …

And the balance of this is — how much that is worth [vs.] how many … real cancers are caught.

So when you have inexact tests and inexact screenings, you have to make a determination and decide how to balance them. I think the report is a fairly good recommendation. It's not aimed at saving money. It would, but that's not what its recommendations are based on.

11/20 02:47 PMShare

From a $100 NRO Contributor   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

NRO was the only thing that got me through the depths of my 2008 political depression — keep up the great work!

Contribute to NRO here.

11/20 02:40 PMShare

Mandates   [Ramesh Ponnuru]

In the primaries, Obama distinguished himself from Clinton on health care by opposing an individual mandate. In the general election, he distinguished himself from McCain by opposing taxes on health benefits. So now he is trying to pass bills with both an individual mandate and taxes on health benefits — and his supporters are saying that Congress should go along because he won the election.

11/20 02:23 PMShare

From a $54 NRO Contributor   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

In honor of the 54th Anniversary of the first issue of NR(ODT). I only regret that I can't donate more. NRO is a bargain at any price!

Contribute to NRO here.

11/20 02:20 PMShare

I'm Not Sure I Believe   [Ramesh Ponnuru]

this poll saying that a majority of Republicans believe that ACORN stole the election from McCain last year; I'd like to see some other pollsters ask the same question. But if it is true, it suggests a widespread disconnection from reality that's pretty troubling. It's not as though it was a close election.

On which point let me quote Henry Olsen:

McCain's share of the national popular vote also signaled trouble. On the surface, his total, 45.6%, seemed respectable. Many Republican presidential candidates had received less in recent memory. But all of those candidates save one, Barry Goldwater, had run races with serious third-party candidates. Goldwater aside, McCain's showing was the worst GOP result in a two-party race since Wendell Willkie garnered 44.8% in 1940. To look at it another way, Obama's 52.9% was the second-highest for a non-incumbent Democrat in American history, trailing only FDR's 57.4% in 1932.

11/20 02:16 PMShare

From a $100 NRO Contributor   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Maine Republican who is a fan of Sarah Palin, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, which means I am pushing the left side of your supporters. Many would consider me a RINO, so "going rogue" here in making a contribution to NRO, but truly appreciate your reasoned thoughtful conservatism. Big fan of Rich, Jonah and Mark.

Contribute to NRO here.

11/20 02:00 PMShare

From a $25 NRO Contributor   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Thanks for your effort, I read and appreciate NRO writers every day. I just today emailed Senator Sherrod Brown asking him to rethink his political future, if he goes against Ohioans on health insurance legislation.

Contribute to NRO here.

11/20 01:40 PMShare