BHO does a Pinocchio on health care

Listening to President Obama explain "his" health care plan, I can't help but wonder if he actually believes his own words. Maybe it's been so long since the adoring press corps has held him accountable for his innumerable exaggerations, omissions and misstatements that he believes he can create a new reality simply by speaking it into existence. However, for anyone who's been paying attention, the President's recent health care pep rally disguised as a press conference was littered with statements that just don't square with reality:

• Obama: "So let me be clear: if we do not control these costs, we will not be able to control the deficit."

Here, the President comes so close to the truth as to stare into its eyes before veering away like an over-correcting teenage driver on a country road.

Medicare and Medicaid, the government's previous forays into health care, are devouring the budget and exploding deficits. Controlling the costs of those programs should be the target, but few in Congress have demonstrated the courage to do so.

Instead, Obama's prescription is to fix these fiscal disasters by expanding government's authority over what's left of the voluntary private health care market. That's like your doctor wanting to break your right arm to be sure he sets your broken left arm correctly.

• Obama: "I have also pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade — and I mean it."

Reminds me of the famous "read my lips" pledge by the first President Bush. We all know how well that worked out.

Congress has consistently under-estimated the costs of government health care programs. Medicare cost $3 billion when first implemented in 1966. At that time, costs for 1990 were estimated at $12 billion (allowing for inflation), but actual costs in 1990 were $107 billion — or 791% greater.

When the Congressional Budget Office pegs the cost of ObamaCare at an opening bid of $1 trillion (others estimate as much as $4 trillion), that should scare the pants off anybody who cares about how deeply in debt we bury our children and grandchildren.

• Obama: "In addition to making sure that this plan doesn't add to the deficit in the short-term, the bill I sign must also slow the growth of health care costs in the long run."

CBO economists recently told a Senate committee that the current legislation, which the President admits he "isn't familiar with," would actually make matters worse by "significantly expand(ing) federal responsibility for health care costs." Over the long run federal spending would keep rising at an "unsustainable pace."

• Obama: "It will keep government out of health care decisions, giving you the option to keep your insurance if you're happy with it."

What's the point of this huge expansion of the federal health care bureaucracy if not to put government — instead of silly, selfish citizens — in charge?

If the President really believes what he says, then the prescription is simple: repeal federal laws governing private health care. That's the surest way to "keep government out of health care decisions."

That, however, would undermine the nanny-statists inherent desire to regulate and tax everything that might adversely affect your health. And then why would you need government?

Instead, Obama and the Democrats demand that you purchase insurance, micro-manage the coverage you must buy, empower the IRS to penalize you should you refuse, and establish a government commission to decide which treatments your doctor can provide for you.

All this from the President who says, "When you hear the naysayers claim that I’m trying to bring about government-run health care, know this: They’re not telling the truth."

Whatever you say, Pinnochio.

Mark Hillman served as Colorado Senate majority leader and state treasurer. To read more or comment, go to www.MarkHillman.com

Ceding power to Congress: priceless

When I pick up the morning newspaper these days I am often reminded of that old Chinese proverb "may you live in interesting times".  I'm sure that every generation sees their "time" as interesting, and full of change. And so it should be -- with mankind's inexorable march toward the future, change (both good and bad) comes with each tick of the clock. The world moves forward, even if often the "forward" seems more like "backward". Our forward sure seems a lot like backward. Fortunately, it turns out that all this vacuous talk during the campaign about "hope and change" is now catching up to some realities:

-- A majority of the American people don't want a government controlled health care system -- A majority of the American people don't think more government is a good idea -- A majority of the American people have decided that Barack Obama is "more liberal" than they thought he was (big surprise -- not!) -- The economic "crisis" that Obama tried to capitalize on is not as bad as he would like us to think it is -- The failure of Obama to control the agenda -- by ceding power to Congress -- has unleashed the left-wing of the Democrat Party and has led to partisan, left-wing legislation -- That legislation has tanked any chance at bi-partisanship and has turned off the American people

Indeed, the American people are starting to understand that our would-be emperor is wearing no clothes. If you bothered to watch the President's prime time health care news conference this past week you saw a man grappling for answers, talking to "run out the clock" and making very little sense. Makes you long for the simple colloquiums of George W. Bush! Seriously -- the President is so in love with the sound of his own voice and the elegance of his teleprompter that he thinks what he says doesn't matter.

But it does, of course -- and though the left's basic premise is that people aren't smart enough to take care of themselves, the reality is that the American people aren't stupid. They see Congress as a partisan place with parochial interests and where transparency and honesty are in short supply. They thought that Obama would transcend this -- by pledging a "post-partisan" and "newly transparent" government. What they got was just another left-wing politician who has actually moved to strengthen Congress' role -- not weaken it. While this may be admirable for "strict constructionists" who believe that there should be greater balance between Congress and the Executive branch, the reality is that this Congress is run by highly partisan ideologues who aren't interested in consensus. On such huge issues -- like Cap and Trade and health care reform, partisan policy is never good for the country.

By design, of course, there has always been a tension between the executive branch and the Congress, and it is necessary for both branches to be active in balancing each other. But, perhaps one of the reasons why former legislators have rarely become president (and those who have are largely ineffective in the job) is because this balance is easily distorted. When you learn to think like a Senator, with the primary goal of satisfying interest groups, it is hard to put on the CEO hat and understand that your role as president is a unique one. Yes, it is about bargaining, but it is truly (or should be, anyway) about the interests of the nation as a whole and the office of the President. Thus far, Barack Obama's relationship with Congress resembles more like that of a Majority Leader and less like the Chief Executive of the nation.

I'm thankful, of course, that the President has gotten it wrong -- for it shows clearly to the American people that he is a neophyte, without true conviction. I knew that eventually his words would ring hollow, and it would be his actions that would become the focus. We are now at that point, and his actions are clearly not up to the job.

For more along this line of thought: Charles Krauthammer: Why Obamacare is Sinking

Kimberly Strassel: How Obama Stumbled on Health Care WSJ: A Better Health Reform

Iran's election shows Obama is a lot like Bush

Barack Obama apparently has more in common with his reviled predecessor, George W. Bush, than anyone on the left would like to believe. We've seen, of course, some grounding in Obama's national security policy since the election that has prompted him -- and other Democrats -- to maintain many of the Bush era's tactical policies in the war on terror (oops -- I meant "the fight against man-made disasters".) And while it true that he has recently sidled left on many issues -- releasing Gitmo detainees to Bermuda and Palau so that they can bask in the sun, for example -- the Obama administration has not gone nearly as far in rolling back the Bush national security regime than the left-wing base of the party has wanted. But the Obama administration's response to the Iranian elections shows a different kind of "Bushism", one that is less about policy and more about temperament and judgment. It seems that Obama's tepid response to the protests and the obvious fraud in the results may be a response to the president's simple inability to adjust his strategy to new information on the ground. As Robert Kagan writes in the Washington Post today, Obama has a plan for dealing with Iran, and it is based on having a stable leadership in place:

One of the great innovations in the Obama administration's approach to Iran, after all, was supposed to be its deliberate embrace of the Tehran rulers' legitimacy. In his opening diplomatic gambit, his statement to Iran on the Persian new year in March, Obama went out of his way to speak directly to Iran's rulers, a notable departure from George W. Bush's habit of speaking to the Iranian people over their leaders' heads. As former Clinton official Martin Indyk put it at the time, the wording was carefully designed "to demonstrate acceptance of the government of Iran."

This approach had always been a key element of a "grand bargain" with Iran. The United States had to provide some guarantee to the regime that it would no longer support opposition forces or in any way seek its removal. The idea was that the United States could hardly expect the Iranian regime to negotiate on core issues of national security, such as its nuclear program, so long as Washington gave any encouragement to the government's opponents. Obama had to make a choice, and he made it. This was widely applauded as a "realist" departure from the Bush administration's quixotic and counterproductive idealism.

It would be surprising if Obama departed from this realist strategy now, and he hasn't...Whatever his personal sympathies may be, if he is intent on sticking to his original strategy, then he can have no interest in helping the opposition. His strategy toward Iran places him objectively on the side of the government's efforts to return to normalcy as quickly as possible, not in league with the opposition's efforts to prolong the crisis.

So it appears that the tail (Obama's original strategy of engaging Iran's hard-line government in diplomacy) is now wagging the dog -- namely the unprecedented grass-roots democratic movement that is collectively risking life and limb on the streets of Tehran. The goal of the U.S. government should be to encourage and empower true democracy in Iran -- not to legitimize the totalitarian Islamic regime that is in power. By the luck of the Iranian regime's sheer arrogance, that opportunity now exists. But Obama is too vested in his original course of action to change, and can't seem to see that a new approach might now be warranted. He's following a strategy that is almost certain to fail; most people can clearly see that the prospects of real progress with the theocracy in Iran is poor at best. It's a double down on a bad hand.

The parallels with Bush in Iraq in 2005-2006 are striking. During the height of the insurgency and the sectarian strife that followed, Bush stuck far too long with the failed "attrition" strategy of Gens. Abizaid and Casey, preferring to double down on a bad hand of his own. The tactics of the American military in Iraq were clearly not working; month-after-month the evidence was coming in that things were getting worse and not better. Bush knew that his strategy in Iraq was failing, and yet seemed paralyzed to make the kind of strong, decisive decision to change that he was known for. Not until early 2007 did the surge take root with real changes in tactics, strategy and personnel.  For far too long, Bush didn't have the judgment and temperament to look closely at the results of his previous policies.  The result was that the successful surge of 2007-2008 could have likely been done earlier,  in 2004-2005, with much better results for both America and Iraq.

Obama is in the midst of a similar paralysis; he needs a "surge" on Iran, but he is afraid to tear up his script. His policy of "negotiating without preconditions" with Iran is a cornerstone of his foreign policy plan, and his deep belief in the power of his own diplomatic skills in getting some trans formative change from Iran is dominant. Its where hubris meets naivete -- and its a dangerous place for America to be.

Open season on conservatives

Jonah Goldberg points out how the left is stringing together two disconnected acts, the killing of abortionist George Tiller and the Holocaust museum shooting, to paint conservatives in dangerous light. Here's the link.The crux of the argument should be no surprise to anyone who reads the mainstream media -- namely, that angry right-wingers are taking their guns and going hunting for women, minorities, disabled people and anyone else who stands for "truth, justice and the (progressive) American way". Such broad, general linkages are in themselves offensive, of course -- but that doesn't get in the way of what Goldberg rightly calls "the whole point of these exercises (which) is to paint the Right as an undifferentiated blob of evil."

An equally interesting aspect of Goldberg's argument is the link he sees to a particularly virulent strain of anti-Semitism on the left. The left seems to think that U.S. foreign policy is in the clutches of the Jews -- a grip that liberal commentators link clearly to Bush-style neoconservatism:

After all, for years, mainstream liberalism and other outposts of paranoid Bush hatred have portrayed neoconservatives - usually code for conservative Jews and other supporters of Israel - as an alien, pernicious cabal. "They have penetrated the culture at nearly every level from the halls of academia to the halls of the Pentagon," observed the New York Times. "They've accumulated the wherewithal financially [and] professionally to broadcast what they think over the airwaves to the masses or over cocktails to those at the highest levels of government."

NBC's Chris Matthews routinely used the word "neocon" as if it was code for "traitor." He asked one guest whether White House neocons are "loyal to the Kristol neoconservative movement, or to the president." Von Brunn may have wondered the same thing, which is why he reportedly had the offices of Bill Kristol's Weekly Standard on his hit list.

Unhinged Bush-hater Andrew Sullivan insists that "The closer you examine it, the clearer it is that neoconservatism, in large part, is simply about enabling the most irredentist elements in Israel and sustaining a permanent war against anyone or any country who disagrees with the Israeli right." Leading liberal intellectual Michael Lind warned about the alarming fact that "the foreign policy of the world's only global power is being made by a small clique" of neoconservative plotters.

Even with Bush out of the picture, some see the problem emerging again. Just this week, Jeremiah Wright, the president's longtime mentor and pastor, whined that "Them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me."

It is easy to see why I and others see Obama as a less-than-stalwart friend of Israel. The sentiment Goldberg outlines -- a view that has been echoed by prominent academics John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt in their book "The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" seems consistent with Obama's recent pressure on Israel to roll-back West Bank settlements and pursue a "two state" solution with the Palestinians -- not to mention his desire to engage in high-level diplomacy with the greatest existential threat to Israel -- the Islamic Republic of Iran His recent speech in Cairo to the "Muslim world" also carried a theme that was critical of Israel's efforts at self-defense -- a message that wasn't lost on the Israelis. Taken together, it is clear that the Obama administration sees the stalwart support of Israel -- a bedrock of U.S. Foreign Policy since the state of Israel was formed in 1947 -- as a something that is consistent with Bush Administration Middle East policy that it is trying to distance itself from.

At the root of all this, of course, is an effort to de-legitimize conservatism by linking it to radical movements that the left can easily define as "evil". It allows commentators in the mainstream media to demonize conservatives as being on the fringe, and thus makes it acceptable to make disparaging remarks against them. When Carrie Prejean, the former Miss California, had the guts to give her opinion on gay marriage, the left wing media pounced, calling her all kinds of names in a bevy of personal attacks. Such is also the case with Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and others. If you can successfully paint those who hold conservative views as worthy of scorn, it is open season. Is this is the post-partisan, hope-filled change that Obama has promised?

Donald Douglas, who I have linked to frequently, has an important take on this -- and it is worth reading. He calls it nothing short of a "civil war" -- traditional values versus a "postmodernism" that has moral relativism as its foundation:

As regular readers well know, it's my personal belief that radical left-wing ideology is the greatest threat to the country today. Leftist radicalism and demonology is manifested not just in the corrosive political discourse of the online fever swamps, but on television with the likes of David Letterman and Keith Olbermann. Most importantly, radical postmodernism has reached the apex of power, with President Barack Obama's post-structural presidency. In general, the present danger from the left isn't the potential for violence or rebellion, it's the slow erosion of right and wrong in politics, and the steady weakening of America's exceptionalism and moral resolve in the face of domestic and international crises. The United States will be just another nation, if the leftists have their way. Excellence will be prohibited. Everyone will be "equal." No foreign nations will threaten us, and in time the U.S. will go the way of all other great hegemonic powers.

This is perfectly said -- and a wake up call to those who see the United States as a good and decent country where the tradition of hard work, individual liberty and political and religious freedom make it the envy of the world. Those values are under attack now from all quarters, and we ignore it at our peril.

Illusionist in Chief

I've long argued that the basic premise behind liberalism is that you, as an individual, aren't capable of taking care of yourself properly. You need help. You need to be protected from your own mistakes, and further inured from being hurt by the countless others out there who are equally inept at life. Its a confederacy of dunces out there -- a mass population of the victimized, vanquished and violated. You need help, you poor thing. You can see this now at work in every aspect of the Obama presidency. Government has stepped in to remake industry and finance with your tax dollars to ensure that the UAW keeps their jobs and that banks don't have to suffer the penalty of making bad decisions. On the horizon are massive new rules on what you can eat, what cars you can drive, how much heat you can have in the winter and how much air conditioning you can use in the summer. And don't forget the impending health care entitlement, which is going to force you into a massive government-run insurance program. You need the government to provide -- and ration -- health care, because you just aren't capable of getting the coverage you need on your own. You are helpless, after all -- so in the great spirit of paternalism, the government is going to treat you like the child you are give it to you. For your own good, of course.

Remember, people! You are s-t-u-p-i-d!

And further proof is how Obama is saying one thing and doing another -- talking about "balanced budgets" and "being fiscally responsible", and yet embarking on the runaway spending that will result in crippling deficits for years to come. He has packages his health care reform as a "public option" -- that will preserve private insurance. But that's also a lie -- everyone knows that this is just a feint to a single payer system that ultimately forces out private insurance. Once there is a government (read "tax-payer" funded) option on the table, employers who are now footing the bill for their employee's insurance will quickly dump it. Why not have tax payers foot the bill? It's clear that Obama believes that the most important thing about universal health care is the "universal" part. The "health care" aspect -- meaning the quality of care -- is really secondary. Again, this is in line with the left's cornerstone belief that equality of access is more important than the outcomes it produces.

Today's Wall Street Journal has more on the Obama deception machine and its worth reading: Some things in politics you can't make up, such as President Obama's re-re-endorsement Tuesday of "pay-as-you-go" budgeting. Coming after $787 billion in nonstimulating stimulus, a $410 billion omnibus to wrap up fiscal 2009, a $3.5 trillion 2010 budget proposal, sundry bailouts and a 13-figure health-care spending expansion still to come, this latest vow of fiscal chastity is like Donald Trump denouncing self-promotion.

Check that. Even The Donald would find this one too much to sell.

But Mr. Obama must think the press and public are dumb enough to buy it, because there he was Tuesday re-selling the same "paygo" promises that Democrats roll out every election. Paygo is "very simple," the President claimed. "Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere."

That's what Democrats also promised in 2006, with Nancy Pelosi vowing that "the first thing" House Democrats would do if they took Congress was reimpose paygo rules that "Republicans had let lapse." By 2008, Speaker Pelosi had let those rules lapse no fewer than 12 times, to make way for $400 billion in deficit spending. Mr. Obama repeated the paygo pledge during his 2008 campaign, and instead we have witnessed the greatest peacetime spending binge in U.S. history. As a share of GDP, spending will hit an astonishing 28.5% in fiscal 2009, with the deficit hitting 13% and projected to stay at 4% to 5% for years to come.

The truth is that paygo is the kind of budget gimmick that gives gimmickry a bad name. As Mr. Obama knows but won't tell voters, paygo only applies to new or expanded entitlement programs, not to existing programs such as Medicare, this year growing at a 9.2% annual rate. Nor does paygo apply to discretionary spending, set to hit $1.4 trillion in fiscal 2010, or 40% of the budget...

The real game here is that the President is trying to give Democrats in Congress political cover for the health-care blowout and tax-increase votes that he knows are coming. The polls are showing that Mr. Obama's spending plans are far less popular than the President himself, and Democrats in swing districts are getting nervous. The paygo ruse gives Blue Dog Democrats cover to say they voted for "fiscal discipline," even as they vote to pass the greatest entitlement expansion in modern history. The Blue Dogs always play this double game.

The other goal of this new paygo campaign is to make it easier to raise taxes in 2011, and impossible to cut taxes for years after that. In the near term, paygo gives Mr. Obama another excuse to let the Bush tax cuts he dislikes expire after 2010, while exempting those (for lower-income voters) that he likes. In the longer term, if a GOP Congress or President ever want to cut taxes, paygo applies a straitjacket that pits those tax cuts against, say, spending cuts in Medicare. The Reagan tax reductions would never have happened under paygo.

The main political question now is when Americans will start to figure out Mr. Obama's pattern of spend, repent and repeat. The President is still sailing along on his charm and the fact that Americans are cheering for an economic recovery. But eventually they'll see that he isn't telling them the truth, and when they do, the very Blue Dogs he's trying to protect will pay the price. And they'll deserve what they get.

Obama is betting, of course, that we are all too dumb to see past the charm offensive, and that he can keep peddling his programs with a wink and a nod, talking about fiscal discipline all the while enacting the biggest expansion of government largess since...well...since forever.

Watch the shiny thing...see how it moves back and forth...isn't it pretty?