It appears as if the Obama administration is laying the ground work for a second stimulus package, even though only 10% of the funds from the original package have been spent.

Many of the spending priorities in the original stimulus plan have been criticized as wasteful and unnecessary and the spending has failed to create the 600,000 jobs President Obama promised voters.

My question for you; is what would you spend the second ($787 billion) stimulus on?  Reality or fantasy.  

You might purchase Major League Baseball, annex Tobago, stabilize the banking industry, eliminate poverty, build a high-speed rail link to Wasilla, offer free tuition to any student with a GPA over 2.5, or re-pay China?  

No suggestion will be ridiculed, as the entire idea of borrowing a second $787 billion, seems unimaginable enough.

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.

When she made her debut at the Republican National Convention in 2008, Sarah Palin was described by Cindy McCain as a “hockey-mommin’, basketball shootin’, moose huntin’, fly-fishin’, pistol-packin’ mother of five.” Sarah Barracuda, the tough-minded reformer who rooted out corruption in the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission, took to the stage, the Queen of the North, and hit a grand slam during her speech.

Before the infamous Bush Doctrine question, before Tina Fey, before the Couric interview, we were all led to believe that Sarah Palin was a no-nonsense, take-charge kind of girl. The one we’d been waiting for – our Obama, except with a clear head on her shoulders.

A few months later, Sarah Barracuda has been transformed into victim-in-chief. The prevailing dogma amongst the Republican base is that the chief goal of the mainstream media (the “gotcha media”) is to annihilate Palin, and that she is the target of a vast conspiracy. At the National Review, a man named David Kahane blasts the left for having the gall to criticize her: “And so the word went out…Eviscerate Sarah Palin like one of her field-dressed moose. Turn her life upside down. Attack her politics, her background, her educational history. Attack her family. Make fun of her husband, her children.”

By the simple method of observation, one can note that this is pretty much par for the course in the game of politics. But even if we accept these dubious rules, I seem to recall that Barack Obama’s politics, background, and educational history were all attacked by…Sarah Palin.

The charge that Palin’s family was attacked should be seen in its proper perspective. Although there were occasional over-the-line attacks (I actually sided with Palin against David Letterman), it should be remembered that it was Palin herself who made her life story — and that of her family’s — a focal point of her appeal. Live by identity politics, die by identity politics.

Palin, bizarrely, acquiesces to the victim narrative and eagerly plays up her prescribed role. Offended nearly to tears by David Letterman and “bloggers in their mother’s basements,” she mysteriously packed up her bags and left in the middle of her gubernational duties. Unable to deal with the pressures, simply egotistically plotting a run for the presidency — who knows? Deem it what you will, but it isn’t exactly “reform-minded” or tough. No pistol-packin’ mama is the Sarah Palin of late. You won’t have Sarah Palin to kick around anymore.

Given this, it might strike some as rather odd that Part Two of the Sarah Palin dogma in Republican base circles today is that she is somehow “feared.” David Frum answers this charge wittily by noting that we Republicans who subscribe to the philosophy of merit most certainly do fear that her brand has a terrifyingly large following in the GOP.

But does the left fear Sarah Palin? If not, why must they tear her down so relentlessly?

But the premise is wrong: the left does not fear Sarah Palin — rather, it adores her. It quite desperately wants to brand the GOP as the Party of Palin. Remember how Barack Obama would attack George W. Bush all the time during the 2008 campaign? Do you think it was because he was “afraid” of him? There’s no hidden agenda when it comes to Palin. Those shrieks you hear are not ones of fear, but of laughter.

The left might have had something to fear — and intellectual conservatives might have had something to love — if Palin had truly been the reform-minded, pistol-packin’ mama with a clear head on her shoulders that she was made out to be. But alas, one cannot be both victim and warrior. Sarah Palin has hedged her bets. Let’s treat her like she’s being asked to be treated.

Congratulation to Anthony Dalke and his soon-to-be better half, Amy.

Big Step

Even though he was sitting pretty from the opening bell, and way ahead on all the scorecards, wiry welterweight, ‘Chain Gang’ Charlie Crist, nevertheless surprised many this afternoon by knocking the fit, young challenger, Marco Rubio, to the canvas. If the scrappy Cuban-American is unable to withstand these flurries of demoralizing blows from the veteran Floridian fighter with most of the crowd in his corner, we may soon learn whether Marco’s chin is made of iron or glass, and consequently, whether he’ll be able to answer the bell for the 2nd round.

The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza is reporting:

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R) collected more than $4 million in his first quarter of active fundraising for the state’s open Senate seat race, an eye-popping total that may well effectively end his primary fight against former state House Speaker Marco Rubio.

Crist announced earlier today that he had collected $4.3 million in just 50 days of active fundraising between his formal entry into the race on May 12 and the end of the period on June 30.

He proclaimed himself “humbled” by the amount of support in a release touting the numbers. “I take their support seriously and continue to work every day to honor the trust and confidence they have placed in me,” Crist added.

In a vacuum, Crist’s number — while very impressive — isn’t all that surprising. Crist proved his fundraising ability during his 2006 run for governor when he collected $14 million in the primary and another $20 million in the general election to financially overwhelm his opponents in each race.

But, the import of Crist’s fundraising is made clearer when compared to the paltry $340,000 raised by Rubio during the same time frame.

Rubio and his team have cast the race as a fight for the heart and soul of the Republican party but given the fundraising totals for the two candidates it’s shaping up more like a walkover.

The Rubio team — doing the best they can without much to work with — stuck to their basic argument that this is a race about ideology, not money.

“Charlie Crist will need to spend every last cent trying to convince voters that his support for wasteful stimulus spending, cap-and-trade schemes, tax increases and liberal judges are acceptable Republican practices,” said Rubio spokesman Alex Burgos.

Here’s the problem with that logic. If Crist raises and spends $15 million on the primary and Rubio raises and spends $2 million (or less), then primary voters will hear the Crist case (a common sense conservative who is right on social issues) a whole heck of a lot more than they will hear Rubio’s case against him.

Add to that the fact that Crist begins the primary far better known statewide than Rubio and you begin to get the sense that this race is over before it ever really started — unless, of course, Rubio can find a way to make a major bounce-back in the next fundraising quarter.

I see three big openings in 2012: an alternative to Romney for moderates who were turned off by Romney’s true-conservative 08′ pitch; a credible option for the grassroots- now that Palin looks unlikely- who doesn’t have any glaring RINO-red flags and; a credible def-con, for the security first conservatives.  At first-blush, these openings seem meant for three different candidates, but I’d argue that there are obvious ways to bridge the gap and fit into all three niches.  Here are three suggestions on the issue:

1.  Soft-sell social issues-  The party’s most outspoken moderates have a particular bug in their ear about social issues.  In their narrative, Arlen Specter was pushed from the party not for his stimulus support, but rather due to his tolerance on social issues.  Not that these folks opposed the stimulus, mind you, but they’re less likely to pin the “extremist” label on fiscal conservatives.  For now anyway.  This doesn’t mean that a social moderate will be any more palatable for the rest of the party in 2012; it does mean that a social conservative would be well advised to sound more like Fred Thompson and John McCain, than Mike Huckabee.

2.  Play-up the disconnect between Washington and the public-  Sarah Palin’s supporters are particularly receptive to anti-Washington, anti-elite pleas.  Almost every non-Senator Presidential Candidate has tried this narrative on though few did so as explicitly as Palin.  Still, it has real historical legs; Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan used it effectively for example.  Point out that while Americans go without luxuries in troubling financial Times, government is spending it’s way into bankruptcy.  Example speech:  “They promised us recovery.  4 years later we have less money, fewer jobs, and thinner wallets.  But, a few things have gotten bigger.  Unemployment has increased; nearly doubled in some places.  Inflation has increased, and the dollar of today will only buy what 3 quarters would have bought you at the beginning of this administration.  And government grows, without bounds, without reason, gorging itself, feeding it’s lackeys with our money as the middle class dwindles”  etc.  This allows a candidate to appeal to Palin’s conservative base without moving substantially to the right.

3.  Criticize Obama on foreign policy mistakes early-  The next GOP nominee will be a Governor or former Governor; bank on it.  Securing the def-con vote won’t require, as it would have in 2008, a illustrious war-record or expert crisis management amid burning rubble.  It will require a willingness to engage Obama on foreign policy, even if these criticisms don’t initially seem natural coming from a Governor.  Demonstrate some comfort on foreign issues and these folks will be forced to give you a look.

I don’t see why a candidate couldn’t be forcefully anti-Washington/establishment, a mild social conservative, and vocal about the importance of defense, thereby filling all three gaping holes, and making some sense of a muddled GOP electorate.

-

Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com

Here are the latest Rasmussen numbers.

For the first time ever, the “approval” versus the “disapproval” numbers are a statistical tie.

In other news, the Senate has just announced that they are tabling “Cap-and-trade” until September at the earliest. Of course this has nothing to do with the first bit of news.

Of course.

I’m fairly sure this will require chopping down trees and eliminating a large degree of the world’s population.

UK Times Online:  ”G8 leaders claim historic breakthrough on new deal to tackle global warming”

They also agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.

______________________________________________________________

Benjamin Hodge co-owns the Web site KansasProgress.com, based in Johnson County, KS, in the Greater Kansas City area.  You can contact Hodge on Facebook, through his Web site, and on Twitter.

While I am not such frequent of a poster here as in times past, I do feel the need to step in with a differing voice on the Mass. Health Care system.

To make it short, this site is pretty much not based on reality. In other words, it’s hyper-partisan, more so than I believe would describe the average primary voter. So, it comes as no surprise (albeit humurous) to see some pretty innocuous comments by Gov. Pawlenty turned into (by some in the comments section who probably just need to go out for a bike ride or find a girlfriend) some sort of shrewd political chess move.

With that in mind, I wouldn’t be so quick to say Romney’s health plans will hang like a millstone around his neck, or carry him to victory. Like anything, the statistics we choose to consider will be subject to personal opinions, and the merits of the plan will appeal to some and repeal to others. But let’s look at Eric Fehrnstrom’s points he made on the health plan in a recent Boston Herald article:

Liberals attack it because it’s not single-payer, and some conservatives object to the individual mandate, but 69 percent of the public expressed its approval in a recent survey. It passed with support of the business community, hospitals, private insurers, Republicans and Democrats. In the 200-member Legislature, there were two dissenting votes, a bipartisan miracle.

The market-driven Massachusetts approach is simple: Strip away regulations to lower the cost of private policies, require everyone to have coverage just as they must for their autos, and convert the money we already spend on free care into subsidies to help the needy buy insurance.

Is it perfect? No, like any bold experiment, it’s going to require fine-tuning. But already some of its best features are being copied by President Barack Obama, such as a health insurance exchange where individuals and small businesses can shop for affordable plans.

Critics who complain about the cost of the subsidies overlook the progress in reducing state payments for free care, a nearly 40 percent drop from $661 million in 2007 to $410 million in 2008. Having achieved near-total coverage, there’s no reason Gov. Deval Patrick can’t further reduce that number. He can drive costs down even more by making adjustments in benefits and by requiring everyone to contribute something to the cost of their insurance.

What does this mean? That nascent health care genius “Tim Pawlenty” has indeed outwitted that rascally Mittens in a masterful-subversive-covert-2012-chess-game-for-political-insiders-only?

Small update: To re-state part of what I wrote in the comments section:  ”How can I be any clearer that this is not a hit piece?   Do I really need to write even more than 5 disclaimers?”

Romney is one of my top choices, as of today.  That may change, and it may not change.  A lot can and will happen between now and 2012.

On Romneycare — To be clear, I would oppose the Massachussetts mandate in Kansas.  I have not seen conclusive evidence to suggest it works, and I’ve seen evidence to suggest it’s not working; but perhaps not enough time has passed to know for certain.  Regardless, I view it as an enormous breach into my liberty.  I support Massachussett’s right to pass the legislation, as a Kansan.

On TARP:  Look at the headline, and you’ll find “other GOP presidential contenders.”  I think one is reading into this post unfairly to assume that I’m “aiming” this at Romney, alone.

_____________

The two that come to mind are TARP and the Massachusetts whatever-you-want-to-call-it health care program (I’ll call it an improper government intrusion into the lives of citizens).

A few notes:

1. My focus is not on past errors.  No leader is without fault.  The best term that I know of that applies is the religious one “repentance,” a two-step process:  acknowledging error, then moving forward in a different (and corrective) manner.
2. Leaders must be willing to acknowledge (at least privately) past error. And it can be a sign of courage for one to admit fault in a public manner.
3. Sometimes, the best leaders are those with the courage to try something, knowing it may or may not work.  Though, I will differentiate “something” with “anything,” particularly when it comes to expanding the size and role of government.
4. I recognize that it’s often best to first attempt large government changes/programs at the state level, before the federal level.
5. With specific regard to RomneyCare — I’m not well-read on the wheelings and dealings that occurred prior to the enactment of the legislation, and I do want to acknowledge that Romney was dealing with a ridiculously-large Democratic legislature.  Some may argue that there was going to be some veto-proof, massive state health care program, regardless, and Romney did what he could to make it better.

______________________________________________________________

Benjamin Hodge co-owns the Web site KansasProgress.com, based in Johnson County, KS, in the Greater Kansas City area.  You can contact Hodge on Facebook, through his Web site, and on Twitter.

Check out the editorial over at the New York Times about Obama breaking his promises. First paragraph:

When candidate Barack Obama broke his promise to use public financing as a brake on lavish presidential campaign spending, he left another promise in its wake: to overhaul election financing and the federal commission that regularly undermines rather than enforces campaign law. President Obama has yet to deliver.

Normally this sort of language concerning Obama gets buried deep within a story, if covered at all. Yet there it is right on the top. AND it is an official NYT editorial. Not a columnist. Not a reporter. A missive from the editorial board of the NYT.

Take note of the push phrases, “broke his promise” and “lavish presidential campaign spending” among others. That is verbiage generally reserved for Conservatives and Republicans. Yet here we find it being used against “The One” by the New York Times, no less.

The natives are indeed getting restless.

Respect for the proper role of government and what’s necessary out of Nancy Pelosi. Until now this has been conspicuously absent.

MJ resolution not necessary, says Pelosi:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has a message for Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee: Beat It.

The Texas congresswoman — who held aloft her copy of a proposed House resolution honoring Michael Jackson at the King of Pop’s L.A. memorial service — won’t get her wish, the speaker just told reporters at her weekly press conference.

“I don’t think it’s necessary,” said Pelosi, who thinks bringing the measure to a vote would “open up contrary views” about the singer that the House doesn’t need to deal with “at this time.”

The 7,392nd “symbolic resolution” honoring the role of slaves in America was very, very necessary, though.

I think Nancy Pelosi just doesn’t care about black people.

Despite sporting a -14% favorability, Coleman fairs quite well in potential match-ups against former U.S. Senator Mark Dayton, Speaker of the House Margaret Anderson-Kelliher, and Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak:

Public Policy Polling (D) 2010 Minnesota Governor Poll

• Mark Dayton (D) 41% – Norm Coleman (R) 39%
• R.T. Rybak (D) 43% -Norm Coleman (R) 37%
• Norm Coleman (R) 42% – Margaret Anderson-Kelliher 34%

Favorable/Unfavorable

• Norm Coleman (R): 38 / 52 (-14%)
• Mark Dayton (D): 36 / 37 (-1)
• R.T. Rybak (D): 37 / 24 (+13)
• Margaret Anderson-Kelliher (D): 24 / 33 (-9)

Did the way Norm Coleman handled the recount in his Senate race make you more or less likely to support him in a future campaign for Governor or some other office?

• More likely – 26%
• Less likely – 54%

7/7-8/09; 1,491 registered voters, 2.5% margin of error.

I am not (yet) wealthy*, I will sometimes buy food for the people begging for change, I think some executives at large corporations are vastly overpaid, and I truly want as many people to be as well off as possible.  I have been asked several times by liberal friends of mine why I am conservative.  It isn’t in spite of these facts, it’s because of them!

First and foremost, I try to be pragmatic.  Liberal policies cannot succeed because human nature won’t allow them to work.  If I thought massive giveaways could have costs contained and would result in a significant and sustained period of improvement, I would be a liberal.  If utopia were reachable, I’d strive for it.

Why does liberalism fail?  Let’s walk through the implementation of a liberal policy aznd see what happens.  First, a need is noted (housing, healthcare, food, you name it).  An assessment is made as to how many people currently will need it, and a gov’t plan is put in place.  When people find out there’s a giveaway, however, they will overuse the service, increasing costs exponentially.  To combat costs, reductions in staffing are made (or insufficient staff was employed in the first place), resulting in long waits.  Quality declines as cost pressures increase.  Repeat until you go bankrupt, and you STILL haven’t addressed the needs of many of those still waiting in line, expecting their handout.  Of course, you can mask the cash difficulties by promising the benefits well out into the future (ala Soc Sec), but all you’re doing is making the fall that much harder in the future.

Ok, so that’s why I don’t follow liberal policies, but why be a conservative (whatever that means)?  Doesn’t that mean I don’t care if grandma eats dogfood because she can’t afford her meds and regular food at the same time?  Of course not, but this is the soundbite that conservatives have allowed to be told of them for the last several decades, and have been completely inept in debunking. (more…)

As Instapundit (h/t) says, “The natives are getting restless.”

Listen to the laughter at Obama’s expense. I have not heard that before. Is the Daily Show live or is that just a laugh track?

Guess what, Barry. It’s your economy now.

During an interview with Pawlenty the issue of Obama’s healthcare  plan came up and Pawlenty used that opportunity to warn against going down the route of the Massachusetts healthcare plan.

Pawlenty characterized the Massachusetts healthcare reform of Mitt Romney as an “incomplete reform” that focused “just on expanding access to those who are uninsured” instead of focusing on the 90% of people who have insurance but can’t afford increasing healthcare costs.

In the 2012 primary healthcare reform may be an issue where sparks fly and there are clear differences between the candidates.

Edit: Pawlenty has already outlined some of his thoughts on what direction healthcare reform should take.

Check out this AP article. Its title is “PROMISES, PROMISES: Obama tax pledge unrealistic”

Bear in mind that this is the AP we are talking about here, not Fox News or another conservative source.  This all coincides with the drop in Obama’s approval rating as noted by almost all the polls.

Rasmussen New Jersey Gubernatorial Survey

• Chris Christie 53% (51%)
• Jon Corzine 41% (38%)
• Some other candidate 2% (5%)

Favorable / Unfavorable [Net]

• Chris Christie 57% (54%) / 36% (35%) [+21%]
• Jon Corzine 43% (41%) / 56% (58%) [-13%]

Which gubernatorial candidate do you trust more on taxes?

• Chris Christie 55% (48%)
• Jon Corzine 32% (33%)

Which candidate do you trust more to cut government spending?

• Chris Christie 54% (50%)
• Jon Corzine 29% (27%)

Which candidate is more likely to crack down on government corruption?

• Chris Christie 57% (55%)
• Jon Corzine 28% (28%)

How would you rate the job Jon Corzine has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 16% (16%)
• Somewhat approve 24% (26%)
• Somewhat disapprove 14% (17%)
• Strongly disapprove 44% (41%)

(more…)

As some of the FPP’s on Race42012 have been suggesting, but what many in the media believe (and many readers believed) to be contrary, the views of Republican voters and the candidates they support in 2012 are significantly complex and unexpected.

Aron has posted several polls in the last month that focused on Republican voters, issues and the prospective 2012 field. Looking inside the numbers yield some surprising results.

Summary:

Palin and Huckabee are not necessarily competing for the same voters.

Huckabee continues to struggle on economic and national security issues.

Many secular or non-evangelical Republicans consider themselves conservatives.

Mike Huckabee’s polling numbers resemble those of Barack Obama, less popular on issues, more personally popular.

Republican voters agree with Romney and Palin on the issues.

Sarah Palin appeals to younger and surprisingly, secular conservative voters.

In less than one year, economic issues have become more pertinent then national security issues to Republicans.

At the moment, Republican voters seem to learn towards personal appeal in their candidates, rather then agreeing with them on policy issues.  Newt Gingrich continues to be the only wild-card candidate outside of the big three candidates.  Will Gingrich join the top-tier of candidates in polls before the primary season begins, or will his campaign have to develop a 2000 McCain-style campaign strategy of focusing on one or two States to propel him to the nomination?

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.

PPP (D) Sarah Palin Survey

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• 46% (43%) / 45% (49%) [+1%]

Among Republicans

• 79% (75%) / 16% (20%) [+63%]

Among Independents

• 45% (44%) / 38% (42%) [+7%]

Among Conservatives

• 77% (72%) / 17% (21%) [+60%]

Among Moderates

• 27% (33%) / 59% (58%) [-32%]

Do you think that Sarah Palin is fit to be President?

• Yes 37%
• No 55%

Among Republicans

• Yes 68%
• No 24%

Among Independents

• Yes 39%
• No 50%

Among Conservatives

• Yes 67%
• No 26%

Among Moderates

• Yes 19%
• No 71%

Among Men

• Yes 43%
• No 50%

Among Women

• Yes 32%
• No 59%

Did Sarah Palin’s announcement that she will resign part way through her term as Governor of Alaska make you more or less likely to support her in a possible future campaign for President?

• More likely 30%
• Less likely 57%

Among Republicans

• More likely 48%
• Less likely 32%

Among Independents

• More likely 26%
• Less likely 54%

Among Conservatives

• More likely 49%
• Less likely 31%

Among Moderates

• More likely 18%
• Less likely 70%

Survey of 923 voters was conducted July 6-7. The margin of error is +/-3.2 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 41% (D); 37% (R); 23% (I). Political ideology breakdown: 41% Conservative; 37% Moderate; 23% Liberal.  Results from the poll conducted June 12-16 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Among voters with a favorable opinion of her 21% do not say she is fit to be President. Among voters with an unfavorable opinion of her only 1% say she is fit to be President. Both of these numbers present problems for Palin. The first one shows that even among a decent chunk of voters who like her they don’t think she’s suited to be leader of the free world. The second one shows that there’s little hope of her earning the respect of her detractors. For instance many Democrats, while holding an unfavorable opinion of John McCain, would still say that he is fit to be President. But when it comes to Palin they don’t like her or take her particularly seriously.

What does it mean? She’s absolutely beloved by the party base and there’s no doubt she can be a hit for years to come at fundraisers and GOTV rallies. And she may even be popular enough with Republicans to score the party’s nomination in 2012 if she wants it. But national polls we conducted between March and June showed her trailing Barack Obama by an average of 16 points, worse than Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and even Newt Gingrich. And the numbers within this most recent poll would seem to further confirm that barring some major rehabilitation of her image, nominating her in 2012 would be a GOP death wish.

I doubt she’ll run in 2012 but if she does my guess is that she only ends up getting nominated if Barack Obama’s reelection seems inevitable and Republicans just want to vote for someone who makes them feel good, ala Barry Goldwater in 1964. If they think they have a real chance of winning they’ll probably nominate someone who is perceived to be more electable.

Republicans have been critical of the Obama health care plan, making comparisons to Britain’s and Canada’s health care system, but in fact the Obama plan offers Americans a far inferior system to that of our parliamentary competitors. 

In his most recent post, “Euphemizing the Health Care Debate“, Alex Knepper highlighted some of the weaknesses of the Obama-Dodd-Kennedy plan;

To be sure, our current system is riddled with a seemingly endless list of inefficiencies and problems. We spend more money per-capita on health care than any other nation on Earth, and yet seem to get results that don’t live up to such exorbitant spending. We can get more for less — but not by handing the system over to the federal government. It should be remembered that it is the private sector that created absolutely everything that the federal government is dangling over the heads of voters as goodies. Government cannot create. It can only seize and redistribute wealth that has already been produced. It isn’t an accident that America produces far more new life-saving drugs than Europe on an annual basis. Are we really ready to slay the goose that lays the golden eggs?

The Obama-Dodd-Kennedy health care plan will do very little in the way of reducing costs and increasing competition.   By going the route of creating a massive government insurance program (funded by increased taxation on private businesses and taxpayers), without addressing the cost disadvantages, bureaucracy and inefficiencies in our existing public and private systems, the plan will place the United States further behind nations that have adopted a single payer system.  The McCain 2008 platform would have addressed these concerns, by offering such reforms as allowing Americans to purchase insurance across State lines and replacing the employer tax free exemption with a direct tax credit to individuals and families.  The McCain plan would have empowered families, by eliminating red-tape  and allowing for more choice and competition.   

The British and Canadian governments leverage their single payer systems to cap health care costs and removing the funding burden from private industry.  As an example, in most single payer systems a single government agency negotiates the acquisition and retail costs of non-OTC pharmaceuticals, thus resulting in lower drug costs on consumers and private plans.  The trade off is a lack of access to the most expensive and sometimes most effective pharmaceutical treatments.  A near identical process applies to the acquisition of critical equipment.  In the Province of Ontario, the majority of residents lack access to PET scans for cancer treatment.  Even though the PET scan is the most advanced and accurate method for detecting non-leukemia, lymphoma and other blood cancers, the high cost of acquiring this equipment and the lack of competition in the Ontario health care industry had delayed the availability of this procedure.  Even though residents are suffering from a lack of access to this procedure, it has allowed the government to maintain inflationary costs below the US industry.  Even though this is the least attractive method for maintaining costs, Canada boasts a per-capita of health care funding of 9% of GDP, compared to that of 15% of the United States.      

President Obama is grossly mistaken if he believes he can create a government insurance program that adopts the ‘equal-service for all’ methodology of a single payer system, while maintaining a parallel private sector system.  By retaining the existing, over-regulated and monopolized private sector insurance programs, the federal government will endeavor to compete with an industry that our projected tax revenues cannot afford.  Even though President Obama’s goal is to provide the same substandard care to Americans as citizens in Canada and Great Britain receive, the United States will continue to suffer from the highest inflationary costs for health care services and pharmaceuticals.  Obama is offering our country the worst of both programs, asking taxpayers to compete with a broken system that is facing annual inflation costs of nearly 10%. 

Added to the already heavy burden heath care costs place on our economy, the Obama plan will implement a head tax on companies that cannot afford to provide coverage and a tax on employer benefits to those companies who do provide coverage.  This re-distribution of wealth/tax-shifting logic seems especially incomprehensible as the United States faces the most serious economic downturn since the great depression.  Obama may become successful with insuring 30-40 million additional Americans and replace the private insurance for tens of millions more, but their employment and wealth will be sacrificed in doing so.  Many US companies have filed for bankruptcy, not entirely based on a decrease in sales, revenue or production output, but because of the rising costs of health benefits to their employees.      

The single payer advocates in Canada and Great Britain were much more clever than President Obama.  They at least understood that the decision to expand bureaucracy and inefficiency by eliminating competition in their health care industries, would drive up administrative and long-term care costs.  To offset, these governments used legislation to cap salaries for health care providers and restricted infrastructure and pharmaceutical acquisitions.  Unlike the Obama-Dodd-Kennedy plan, the governments of Canada and the United Kingdom placed the funding burden on the income tax system, not private enterprise.  Unlike the Obama plan, the heath care systems in Canada and the United Kingdom are decentralized to one degrees or another.  In these countires, the second and third levels of government maintain control of spending prioritization and policy.  In fact, many of these local governments have offered private delivery alternatives to federal services and mandates. 

There are several other benefits to adopting the single payer insurance program over the Obama-Dodd-Kennedy plan.  Private sector operating costs in key sectors such as the automotive industry are already significantly lower in many of the single payer systems compared to the United States.  Some estimates have identified the price of producing a General Motors automobile in Canada at over $1,200 lower per unit, then in plants located in the United States. Forcing private enterprise to fund the Obama-Dodd-Kennedy plan will only drive up this divide and further reduce America’s competitiveness in the global economy.

Make no mistake, adopting a single payer system will devastate the quality of care the majority of Americans receive today.   The Obama-Dodd-Kennedy plan will not address the shortage of doctors, nurses and other practitioners which will result when tens of millions of Americans receive coverage later this year.  But, since our government is determined to expand coverage to those who live without, the single payer system remains the best of the worst options our Congressional leadership is offering to our nation.  The Obama-Dodd-Kennedy program will not fail because the plan will sacrifice our world-class health care quality for universal coverage, but because it fails to address the greatest threat to our private and public health care programs, the rising cost of care and the lack of competition and choice in the system.  Make no mistake, if implemented, the Obama-Dodd-Kennedy plan will bankrupt the federal government and drive employment overseas.

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.

Some people misconstrued my last post as suggesting that Mavericks are unprincipled and/or make poor leaders. That was not my point.

Mavericks often make excellent leaders. They seldom, however, make excellent executive leaders.

Executive leaders lead permanent organizations.  People are dependent upon the organization for their livelihood, even their lives sometimes. If the organization fails, people get hurt.  As Cary Grant said in Operation Petticoat, “the responsibilities [of executive leadership] far outweigh the privileges”.  Organizations grant power to their executives for the good of the organization, not the leader.  If the interests of the organization are not the interests of the leader, there is a problem.

Mavericks work best as ad hoc leaders. They identify a cause. They organize to realize the cause. They move heaven and earth to fulfill the cause.  The cause is fulfilled.  Any organization created to accomplish the task is then disbanded. They move on to the next cause.

This fits with their strong independent streaks. Mavericks tend to have little loyalty to any permanent organization — quite the opposite in fact.  They are often contemptuous towards them. They see them as binding and restrictive. They want to be free to pursue the causes they believe in using tactics as they see fit.

This describes John McCain to a tee. His career in the Senate has been one ad hoc cause after another. Often he was the chief driving force behind them. A good many of these efforts were successful. To say that John McCain was a poor leader is absurd.

His Primary Campaign was such an ad hoc cause. If it failed, it would disappear and people would move on. McCain, being a good leader, led it to victory.

Once he became the nominee, however, things changed. He was no longer the leader of his own little temporary group. He was the leader of the Republican Party, a very large diverse permanent organization. He could no longer do as he pleased, making decisions on his whim. He was now responsible to the group. That was brought home very forcibly to him with his unsuccessful attempt at making Joe Lieberman his VP pick. John no longer had the luxury of spitting in the eye of the party.  The party depended upon him to make the decisions best for the party

Like it or not, McCain was now the executive leader of the party. The novelty eventually wore off. By October it was obvious to just about everyone (and since confirmed by John himself and his senior lieutenants ) that they weren’t having much fun anymore.  They were just going through the motions.

I suspect McCain has learned his lesson. He is now happily back to being an ad hoc leader in the Senate. He will not be repeating a run for the Presidency. He won’t be in any hurry to stick his foot into that beartrap again.

That is why I suspect Sarah Palin is done running for President — as least for a while. She is a Maverick, too.  That was one of the big reasons McCain chose her in the first place, remember?  She has come to realize that it’s not a lot of fun being an executive leader with all the limitations, responsibilities, and other headaches that come with it. Resigning as Governor allows her to do what she does best, to serve as an ad hoc leader for causes she believes in while being free from the restraints of executive leadership of the State of Alaska AND the Republican Party.   She is smart enough to have realized it.   Her fans need to respect that and not try to force her into fulfilling their fantasies about her.  As it is, she is going to be one mean mamma of a leader for the causes dear to her heart.

Let Sarah be Sarah.

“They want us to surrender.”

That is a direct quote from a mostly non-political observer I met during my recent vacation who confessed confusion with the mostly opposite takes of economic, foreign and other political events found on Fox News Channel vs the Drive-Bys (CNN, NBC, et al).

Yet, this non-ideological victim of the Great Recession reaches a quintessentially conservative conclusion succinctly reduced to layman’s terms: The ObamaDems want Americans to surrender their independence for dependence on government.

Stimulants vs. Depressants

What else can we conclude, given their obvious definition of stimulants that makes depressants obsolete?

During this gamecock’s respite from announcements of dawns, President Barack Obama and surrogates have floated a “second stimulus” trial balloon.”

A second stimulus? Yes, I remember the nomenclature of the first $780B bill accompanied by breathless demands for immediate passage lest unemployment reach as high as 7.9% before Christmas on the way to the eventual collapse of the American economy inherited from the Bush Administration. No mention of a Democratic Party-controlled Congress since 2007 that, with then Senator Obama’s votes, passed the budgets and the Fall of 2008 Housing/Credit Crunch bailout bill, but I digress.

The “Recovery Act” aka Stimulus was essential to arrest the “worst recession since the Great Depression” (never mind the worse numbers in 1981-2 about which we have more to say below) and, we were told, would “save or create” two million jobs. Congress passed it with but three Republican votes on a Friday. The President signed in 72 hours later. Guess “immediately” has a different meaning in Obama-tongue?

Weeks after the passage of the first stimulus, in an effort to stop the precipitous tanking of the stock market, the Obama Administration said that the economy wasn’t as weak as previously thought. Yet, in recent weeks the President follows Vice-President Joe Biden in blaming the skyrocketing unemployment rate and post-Bernanke printing press mini-rally, fall in the DOW on underestimating the severity of the inherited recession.

Dizzy yet?

Republicans warned at the time that the Stimulus would not live up to its name unless one meant to stimulate government by creating new, permanent federal bureaucrats to regulate what remains of a ravaged private sector and save state government jobs.

Republicans must quit saying the Stimulus has not created nor saved jobs. It has. The problem is that the jobs are those that taxpayers will have to fund in perpetuity and not the kinds that produce taxpayers with real jobs in the private sector.

Second? Obama has sold five bills as stimuli

That was the first stimulus, but we have been scared into accepting a monstrous budget that threatens to destroy the currency with a $1.8 trillion deficit in Obama’s first year as compared to Bush’s worst deficit of less than $450B. And oh yeah, the few shovel-ready jobs were mostly postponed until the second half of the next election year (curious) when the gardening implement more likely to be needed will be wheel barrows as inflation-adjusted wallets.

We have been told that the budget, the $400 Omnibus Spending bill, Cap and Trade (and tax and tax and tax…food and energy aka necessities that is a direct assault on the poor), and Nationalized Health Care are ALL necessary for recovery. Stimuli by other names stink the same, but do increase in price.

So, what do we conclude about the need for a second stimulus bill?

1980-82 vs. 2008-10: what works and what doesn’t

I’m waiting on the first one.

In 1980-1, Ronald Reagan inherited an economy from a filibuster-proof Democratic congress and President with inflation, unemployment and interest rates all worse that the one inherited by Obama from Bush and the Dems in 2008-9. President Reagan was able to get a real stimulus passed by a Democratic Congress. We know it was real because of the unprecedented, historic 25-year recovery that followed.

The private sector was stimulated by tax-rate and regulation cuts. Reagan’s party actually suffered Congressional losses in 1982 due to the drastic steps required to rein in inflation via restrictive monetary policy, but won a landslide in 1984 and later took over Congress for the first time in 40 years ushering in a conservative era that even Bill Clinton had to embrace.

It seems that the post-Clinton Democratic Party doesn’t prefer that “kind” of stimulus, as they have yet to even try to encourage small business formation. Rather, they demonize entrepreneurial producers and investors and continue policies that have kept them on strike, where they have been since the Democrats took over Congress in 2007 with promises not only of no more tax cuts but, rather, tax increases on those that actually stimulate the economy.

I favored the extension of unemployment benefits and would have loved to see more shovel-ready highway projects funded in 2009 to relieve suffering, but those provisions were a minuscule portion of the trillions in debt we have incurred to save and create jobs for government growthulus.

We need to repeal most of the five stimuli passed or proposed and pass a real stimulus that cuts tax rates and regulations; and which encourages expanded oil exploration and the building of oil refineries and nuclear power plants, all of which have been on hold for 31 years.

But then again, if ObamaDems were to do that, they would be surrendering their Utopian vision of a government-directed economy and populace to the old run of the mill, historically-tested means of stimuli that have come to be known as conservatism’s favored Free Market Capitalism.

The only question remaining is will the ObamaDems surrender due to election-prospect realities before too many recession-ravaged Americans surrender to Big Brother.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.

Quinnipiac 2010 Ohio Senate & Governor Poll

2010 Senate: Republican Primary

• Rob Portman 33% (29%)
• Tom Ganley 10% (8%)

2010 Senate: Democratic Primary

• Lee Fisher 24% (20%)
• Jennifer Brunner 21% (16%)

2010 Senate: General Election

• Lee Fisher (D) 37% (42%)
• Rob Portman (R) 33% (31%)

• Lee Fisher (D) 36%
• Tom Ganley (R) 30%

• Jennifer Brunner (D) 35%
• Tom Ganley (R) 31%

• Jennifer Brunner (D) 35% (40%)
• Rob Portman (R) 34% (32%)

2010 Governor: Republican Primary

• John Kasich 35% (23%)
• Mike Dewine 32% (35%)

2010 Governor: General Election

• Ted Strickland (D) 43% (51%)
• John Kasich (R) 38% (32%)

• Ted Strickland (D) 41% (48%)
• Mike DeWine (R) 40% (36%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Ted Strickland is handling his job as Governor?

• Approve 46% (57%)
• Disapprove 42% (29%)

Do you think that Ted Strickland has kept his campaign promises so far or not?

• Yes 34% (44%)
• No 40% (32%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Ted Strickland is handling the economy?

• Approve 33% (43%)
• Disapprove 53% (43%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?

• Approve 49% (62%)
• Disapprove 44% (31%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the economy?

• Approve 46% (57%)
• Disapprove 48% (36%)

Favorable / Unfavorable [Net]

• John Kasich 26% (22%) / 7% (7%) [+19%]
• Mike DeWine 39% (39%) / 22% (28%) [+17%]
• Rob Portman 21% (22%) / 6% (9%) [+15%]
• Lee Fisher 29% (37%) / 17% (13%) [+12%]
• Jennifer Brunner 27% (31%) / 16% (12%) [+11%]
• Tom Ganley 12% (6%) / 4% (4%) [+8%]
• Ted Strickland 42% (53%) / 37% (25%) [+5%]

Survey conducted 6/26/09-7/1/09 among 1,259 registered voters. MoE=2.8%. Results from the poll conducted April 28 – May 4 are in parentheses.

Public Policy Polling (D) Virginia Governor Poll

2009 Governor

• Bob McDonnell (R) 49%
• Creigh Deeds (D) 43%

Favorable/Unfavorable

• Bob McDonnell (R): 51% / 32%
• Creigh Deeds (D): 48% / 29%

Survey conducted 6/30-7/2/09 among 617 likely voters. MoE=4%.

… if only more elected officials would decide how we should live, re-allocate our money, and appoint the right top person, who would then appoint others, who would then hire the right people… (Shortening of headline dedicated to Alex — B. Hodge).

“DC Metrorail Operator Caught Texting on Job by Passenger.” The link has the YouTube video.

There’s more bad publicity for Metro after a YouTube video surfaces of a Metro train operator apparently texting while on the job.

Metro officials said the operator was disciplined after video showing him apparently texting while operating a train was posted online.

Metro spokeswoman Lisa Farbstein said the operator was suspended for a week without pay after officials learned of the June 5 incident. A passenger on the blue line in Alexandria apparently recorded the incident with a cellphone camera, then posted it to YouTube.

I must wonder why there are not union demands in place that prohibit suspension without a more lengthy investigation; the article says that the incident occurred on June 5 and that the operator has already served his time off work (we’re left to assume he still has his job).

At least there appears to be some discipline within that level of government. That’s more courage than New York city K-12 government officials have:

NEW YORK – Hundreds of New York City public school teachers accused of offenses ranging from insubordination to sexual misconduct are being paid their full salaries to sit around all day playing Scrabble, surfing the Internet or just staring at the wall, if that’s what they want to do.

Because their union contract makes it extremely difficult to fire them, the teachers have been banished by the school system to its “rubber rooms” — off-campus office space where they wait months, even years, for their disciplinary hearings.

The 700 or so teachers can practice yoga, work on their novels, paint portraits of their colleagues — pretty much anything but school work. They have summer vacation just like their classroom colleagues and enjoy weekends and holidays through the school year.

“You just basically sit there for eight hours,” said Orlando Ramos, who spent seven months in a rubber room, officially known as a temporary reassignment center, in 2004-05. “I saw several near-fights. `This is my seat.’ `I’ve been sitting here for six months.’ That sort of thing.”

Ramos was an assistant principal in East Harlem when he was accused of lying at a hearing on whether to suspend a student. Ramos denied the allegation but quit before his case was resolved and took a job in California.

Because the teachers collect their full salaries of $70,000 or more, the city Department of Education estimates the practice costs the taxpayers $65 million a year. The department blames union rules.

______________________________________________________________

Benjamin Hodge co-owns the Web site KansasProgress.com, based in Johnson County, KS, in the Greater Kansas City area.  You can contact Hodge on Facebook, through his Web site, and on Twitter.

I’m reposting this — an updated version — since, when I posted it before, it came 30 minutes before the Palin resignation announcement. I like the piece and would like to see it read.

—

Now on NewMajority.

—

Despite the fact that, according to a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll taken in late June, 89% of Americans are already satisfied with their health care, including 70% of the uninsured, the Democratic Party has convinced the nation that there’s a crisis of apocalyptic levels plaguing our nation’s health care system. (There is a forthcoming crisis in health care, actually: it’s Medicare’s inability to keep up with declining population growth, and it’s not going to pay for itself. But I digress…) To fix this “crisis,” Barack Obama and his cheerleaders are promoting what they call a “public” option to promote more “competition” in the health care market. Sounds awfully capitalisty. Competition and choice and all that, after all.

What they mean, of course, is a government option, funded by taxpayers, meant to naturally monopolize the health care market. But it isn’t “competition” for one side to start out with unlimited resources and three hundred million donors to the kitty. Lest one be under the illusion that the government option is going to merely “compete” with the private sector, he need only glance at the nation’s education system. “Public” “schools” are “merely” “competing” with the private sector. That’s “competition,” by the Obama standard. The problem with this equation is that the entire nation is forced to buy stock in the “public” option, whether they want to or not. The inevitable result is obvious. And such is the essence of socialistic policies: everyone’s covered. Poorly. But to the left-wing, it’s like the radical leftist historian Howard Zinn has said about the Soviet Union’s policies: hey, at least there was universal coverage, and at least there weren’t billionaires. In other words: the quality of your health care might decrease and your freedom might contract, but at least you get to stick it to the man, America. (Funny how government is never “the man” to these people, no?)

Perhaps one day we’ll be “universally covered,” just like Britain, and our government, too, will ban life-prolonging drugs when they’re deemed “too expensive.” Or maybe private care will be made illegal, like in Canada.

To be sure, our current system is riddled with a seemingly endless list of inefficiencies and problems. We spend more money per capita on health care than any other nation on Earth, and yet seem to get results that don’t live up to such exorbitant spending. We can get more for less — but not by handing the system over to the federal government. It should be remembered that it is the private sector that created absolutely everything that the federal government is dangling over the heads of voters as goodies. Government cannot create. It can only seize and redistribute wealth that has already been produced. It isn’t an accident that America produces far more new life-saving drugs than Europe on an annual basis. Are we really ready to slay the goose that lays the golden eggs?

Absolutely no one can “compete” with a behemoth “public” option. The multi-trillion dollar federal government is better-funded than any other operation in the universe and can crush everything in its path — just like it did to our schools. If you’re itching for the quality of the nation’s health care to be equal to the quality of our schools, then sign on to the Obama plan. But please, don’t call it “competition.”

Another positive note on the Fundraising front:

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The Republican Governors Association Tuesday announced it raised more than $12.2 million dollars for the first six months of the year.

The RGA’s announcement came just hours after the Democratic Governors Association announced that they raised a record-breaking $11.6 million in the first six months of the year.

The RGA also reported having a record $20.4 million cash on hand.

 

“The RGA’s ability to outraise the Democrats despite their control of the White House, Congress and majority of governorships, proves that
more people than ever believe a Republican comeback begins with the 39 governors’ races that are taking place over the next two years,” said RGA Executive Director Nick Ayers in a statement. “Our strong fundraising numbers and record cash on hand put us in position to compete in New Jersey and Virginia this year and in all our targeted states next year.”

This is a very different dynamic than we’ve seen in years past. The NRCC, and the NRSC to a lesser degree have also put up strong fundraising reports. This is unusual because the Democrats have the advantage of incumbency and big money should go to the Democrats because that’s where the influence is in government.

But the trend has been counter-intuitive with the GOP competitive or beating the Democrats in fundraising at every level. This contrasts with the 2008 cycle where the GOP struggled mightily with fundraising. This is probably the best sign that 2009 and 2010 will mark some sort of Republican resurgence that will cut into the Democrat edge that was built up as a result of the 2006 and 2008 cycles.

Most of us if asked would say Ronald Reagan was our favorite President. A few would rank him 2nd or 3rd.

My favorite modern President before Reagan was Dwight Eisenhower.

Eisenhower led the building of the Interstate Highway system that revolutionized America from a set of communities to a nation girded and unified with a concrete prairie. That accomplishment was as important as the uniting of the nation with rail only a century earlier.

Eisenhower faced down the threat of the Soviet Union with the determination of Harry Truman but with significantly more finesse. We first faced nuclear holocaust during Eisenhower’s terms.

On civil rights Eisenhower fit the mold of Republicans the vast majority of whom supported integration. Eisenhower signed the first civil rights acts since the 1870′s in 1957 and 1960. He also used the national guard to enforce desegregation in Arkansas schools.

On Supreme Court appointments Eisenhower was much less successful appointing only two competent judges (Harlan and Stewart) out of five appointments.

On the economy Eisenhower was the perfect fiscal conservative. He kept the debt low and kept the deficit under control. He was rewarded with near zero inflation during the 50′s.

On immigration Eisenhower enforced US borders and launched mass deportation of illegal immigrants.

So Eisenhower is my favorite President prior to Reagan and after Calvin Coolidge.