You can pay more but you can’t buy less!
Speaker Pelosi’s reported pride in being able to reduce the estimated cost of the proposed democratic health care reform bill reminds me of a hapless math pupil having a conversation with his father:
“Hey Dad, I took the makeup exam and raised my score by a third, from 30% to 40%. See, I did better”
“Yes, son, it is an improvement. But you still FAILED!”
Too bad the Cash for Clinkers program required destruction of the returned vehicles, because many Congressional Democrats sound like used car salespeople on late night public access TV: “We’ve worked and slashed the price to a bone! Come on down to Crazy Nancy’s and save like never before! No credit? Slow credit? No problem, we’ve made sure that everyone is nearly bankrupt, including the government!”
Despite town hall meetings, massive public demonstrations, and numerous opinion polls, Pelosi, Reid, and Obama still don’t get it: If you want the American public to buy this, you’ll have to answer a few questions. Can you explain the proposed legislation? Why can’t change be legislated gradually? And just how is it that a health care program that creates an enormous new federal bureaucracy and extends benefits to currently uninsured individuals reduces the federal deficit?
During the 2010 election year Congressional Democrats (and a few Republicans) will boast of “having the courage” to do the right thing for America, and that Americans must “stay the course”. The only course most of our elected officials should see in 2011 will have holes graded as par 3, 4, or 5. Then again, even on a miniature golf course, their favorite phrase is probably “taking a mulligan.”
Update: Allahpundit at HotAir floats a likely theme for 2010 Republican attack ads: ‘“We’re in an excellent place with the cost” will make for a sweet punchline in next year’s GOP attack ads, every last one of which will be casting Madam Speaker in the role of boogeyman.’
Update 24 October 2009: Now it’s back up to over $1 Trillion. They forget it’s our children’s money, not theirs!
In the wake of the overwhelming Irish “yes” vote to the Lisbon treaty, some things seem almost certain: Poland will sign the treaty; the Czech Republic will be pressured to adopt it; Tony Blair may become “EU president”; an EU “Secretary of State” will be named; and there will be new impetus to add Turkey and several Balkan states to the Union.
What are the implications for the US? Giving Europe a single voice on common policy matters could ease US-EU trade relations and bolster joint defense programs. Adding Turkey to the EU will be a net positive for the US. The downside? A stronger, more unified EU could thwart or pressure American policy, but mutual economic interests and reliance on a joint US/Europe defense make this unlikely in most cases (with the exception of climate change and global warming policy, which seems to border on a religious obsession among many Europeans.)
There’s an opposite view though: In Europe nationalism usually prevails over pan-European sentiments. Citizens of the US refer to themselves primarily as Americans and secondarily as residents of their individual states, while Europeans still identify themselves as nationals of their own country first. Individual member states inevitably seek to maximize the welfare of their citizens, and the Lisbon Treaty contains several provisions to guard member state sovereignty.
Read more »
The 1 October 2009 meeting in Geneva between the so-called E3+3 (Britain, France, Germany, the US, Russia and China) and representatives of “Mahmoud and the Mullahs” was a not-so-surprising initial success. The Iranian leadership knows it’s being backed into a corner following the disclosure of the under-construction Qom enrichment facility. The only hope for them to stay in power and continue their program is to play along.
The outcome of yesterday’s meeting didn’t stop the centrifuges from spinning. Nevertheless, it’s a promising start, with an agreement to allow inspection of the Qom facility and to ship roughly 75% of Iran’s stockpile of 1,600 kg of low enrichment uranium (LEU) to France or Russia for enrichment to research grade. This is probably close to the total amount of LEU in Iran, given the number of operational centrifuges at the Natanz enrichment facility (see my post Iran’s Nuclear Program: By the Numbers for more details.) What’s left isn’t enough to make a bomb anytime soon.
There’s a few unanswered questions though:
Read more »
The American view that the French are wimps is ugly and undeserved but widely held, so French President Sarkozy’s statement implying that President Obama is one gets our attention. Apparently Obama didn’t want Sarkozy to upstage him at the UN in September. The result:
Sarkozy was so annoyed with Obama’s weak-kneed approach that he reportedly told Le Monde that “we live in the real world, not in a virtual one”, a cutting and mocking reference to the US president’s drive for a new arms control treaty.
More from the Wall Street Journal
President Sarkozy in particular pushed hard. He had been “frustrated” for months about Mr. Obama’s reluctance to confront Iran, a senior French government official told us, and saw an opportunity to change momentum. But the Administration told the French that it didn’t want to “spoil the image of success” for Mr. Obama’s debut at the U.N. and his homily calling for a world without nuclear weapons, according to the Paris daily Le Monde.
Read more »
You’d think that President Obama could spare a few minutes for a formal meeting with the leader of one of our oldest and most important allies while both are in town on business. Not so. According to the BBC:
The prime minister’s team were “frantic” after being unable to secure the talks at the UN summit in New York, a diplomatic source has told the BBC.
However, the president held private meetings with the leaders of Japan, China and Russia.
Downing Street said reports of a snub were “completely without foundation”.
Not a snub? Sounds like typical British “stiff upper lip” stuff so as not to create further tension and to minimize Brown’s domestic political embarrassment.
Read more »
Is President Obama unintentionally outsourcing US foreign policy?
A pattern emerging from recent events suggests so. Up first, of course, is the plan to scrap the US Missile Defense shield in Eastern Europe, a long-time thorn in the side of many European and US Liberals, not to mention Vladimir Putin. By putting the planned system on hold, Obama has simultaneously angered many of our European allies and appeased the Russians, who must be dancing in glee behind the walls of the Kremlin.
What’s the effect? The EU has neither the will nor resources to effectively deal with a resurgent and emboldened Russia looking to expand its influence, especially with former Eastern Bloc nations. This credibility-destroying decision cements Russia’s position as the other 800-lb gorilla in the room, and effectively outsources at least some European security decisions to them.
Read more »
