What The Healthcare Debate is Really About

The Senate is on recess this week for the holiday, but will return to commence official debate of ObamaCare next Monday. Senator Reid will need 60 votes to invoke cloture and end that debate, and once he invokes cloture, he’ll only need a majority vote to pass legislation. At this point, however, we’re not even debating how to fix healthcare.

Reid’s bill will raise Medicare payroll taxes that will be used not only for Medicare, but to fund future entitlements.

Robert Samuelson explains that ObamaCare would rob the young to pay for the old, perpetuating the cost-shielding that is a main cause of inefficient healthcare spending.

Cato reminds us that our current system makes the U.S. the leader in medical innovation, and that price controls of government healthcare would put that innovation in jeopardy.

ObamaCare would also put a heavy burden on state budgets. How can a state like California afford a 50% increase in Medicaid expenses?

HSAs and FSAs would also take a hit in the Reid bill.

There are seemingly countless reasons not to implement the healthcare system Congress is considering, so why do it? What are the reasons for ObamaCare?

To insure everyone? No, because neither the House bill nor Senate bill would, and even if they did, insurance doesn’t guarantee access to care.

To decrease healthcare spending? No, because we’ve seen even the best estimates for the House and Senate bills predict only minimal savings over ten years, but the bills will likely increase the deficits in the long term.

To regulate the insurance industries and make the insurance market fair? Perhaps, but why spend what could be trillions to do so? Even the public option currently being considered is watered-down and won’t completely serve its intended purpose.

Congress is not trying to fix healthcare anymore. Democrats just want to pass something, as the liberal wing knows that they can get where they want to go later as long as they set the wheels in motion. What Congress is really doing now is trying to find a way for Democrats in red and purple districts to survive passing an unpopular overhaul.

Senator Blanch Lincoln of Arkansas, one of the swing votes on ObamaCare, is facing pressure from both sides in her state. Senator Bennet of Colorado has a similar problem. Senator Landrieu bragged about the $300 million that bought her vote on Saturday. What more evidence do we need to see that Congress is trying to construct a something-for-everyone bill that gives Democrats political cover, even if the bill isn’t what is best for healthcare?

Senate Healthcare Vote Sets Up Crucial Showdown

The Senate voted to proceed with the Reid version of ObamaCare Saturday night, as Senators Landrieu and Lincoln gave Reid the 59th and 60th votes for cloture. Let’s be clear about what this vote means: This was a procedural vote to move to consider the bill. In other words, the cloture vote opens official debate.

Debate is scheduled to begin on November 30. This means voters will have the holiday week to make their case to their Senators. What Harry Reid will have to do to pass ObamaCare is gather 60 votes for cloture to end debate. The upcoming cloture vote is the vote that has the future of our medical system and our economy riding on it.

Senators may vote for cloture and then vote against the bill because the passage of the bill only needs a majority. Those Senators will use their vote against the bill as cover, but Americans shouldn’t buy it. A vote for cloture is a vote for the government takeover of healthcare. It is that clear.

The upcoming cloture vote is not a guarantee, so opening the debate is a big gamble for Reid, as he might not be able to end it. There is still much disagreement among Democrats (some of these quotes from Senators with key votes suggest that they were happy to start debate, but aren’t guaranteed to vote to end it). Michelle Malkin shows there is some wheeling and dealing going on behind the scenes though.

Seeing how easy it was to buy Senator Landrieu’s vote, it is hard to remain optimistic about stopping this legislation. If Senators are willing to vote against something so unpopular because of some handouts, they must feel they can buy enough votes in their own states with those handouts. It’s going to take significant pressure to stop this.

Granted, passing the bill in the Senate would still lead to a reconciliation of the House and Senate versions that don’t completely match up. House Democrats who voted for that bill because of the abortion amendment might not appreciate the language in the Senate version. Though there is no guarantee of enacting legislation even if something passes the Senate, however, the battle for the vote that would likely represent the overhaul of American healthcare has officially begun.

Understanding the Terror Trials, Part II

Aside from a few attempts like this one, there hasn’t been much defense for the KSM trial. Attorney General Holder tried to make his case in a Senate hearing this week, and this exchange with Senator Lindsey Graham further highlights the issue:

Andy McCarthy analyzes this part of the exchange:

SEN. GRAHAM: Yeah, nor do I. But here’s my concern. Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?

ATTY GEN. HOLDER: [ACM: LONG PAUSE] I don’t know. I’d have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I’ve made –

SEN. GRAHAM: We’re making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I’ll answer it for you. The answer is no.

ATTY GEN. HOLDER: Well, I think –

SEN. GRAHAM: … The Ghailani case — he was indicted for the Cole bombing before 9/11. And I didn’t object to it going into federal court. But I’m telling you right now. We’re making history and we’re making bad history.

What About Reid’s Senate Healthcare Bill?

Harry Reid introduced his 2074 page version of ObamaCare on Wednesday night. This means that, following the 72-hour rule that several Democrat Senators committed to, the earliest consideration of the bill in the Senate could occur Saturday night.

Leader Reid cleverly constructed the bill so that it would score favorably with the CBO, who says that the bill will reduce the deficit over ten years by $130 billion. Don’t be fooled, however, as this number is misleading. As Bob Laszewski notes:

Reid delays most of the spending in the bill to 2014—a year longer than in the House. More importantly, his new taxes start in 2010. That is ten years of taxes and only six years of the expensive entitlement expansion! Who wouldn’t want to use that gimmick to balance their books?

He once again avoids the $250 billion Medicare doc fee fix—apparently he didn’t get the message when the Senate voted down his attempt to pay the docs off with the $250 billion but just add it to the deficit. Since everyone knows the docs will get their money just add $250 billion to his $850 billion cost. (Unless you are one of those who says since the SGR was wrong in the first place so we shouldn’t count it–and I want my capital losses back from last year because the financial crisis was wrong.)

He collects billions in new long-term care program premiums—a program that will have relatively low first year outlays—and lets that income offset the bill’s costs elsewhere making the overall bill’s net costs far better than they really are. That gimmick gives Reid about $70 billion of his $130 billion “deficit reduction.” Sort of like spending the kids’ college savings and claiming your family budget is balanced.

And these CBO numbers are based on this: “These longer-term calculations assume that the provisions are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades” (p. 17 of CBO letter). Anyone believe that will happen?

It’s good that Laszewski mentions the physician payment bill, because the CBO actually analyzed the House version in combination with the House healthcare bill, and found that the combination would actually add to the deficit.

This summary of the CBO analysis of the Senate bill shows that, among other things, the projected 10-year savings of the Reid bill would be wiped out by last month’s spending alone. James Capretta at National Review crunches the numbers and estimates that the 20-year cost of this bill would end up around $5 trillion.

How about abortion? The bill allows federal funds for that, which would surely cause problems in the House, where the Stupak amendment allowed that version to pass. Taxes? Here is a summary of those in the Reid bill. Public option? Check, and while states can opt out, they’ll have to pass legislation to do so. Employer and individual mandates? Those too.

Businesses aren’t happy with the bill, and neither are many others. Who, other than the White House and liberal Democrats, is happy with this bill?

Reid will try to commence discussion on the bill Saturday night. He will still need 60 votes to get cloture. He’ll need the support of a few Democrat senators on the fence, like Senator Landrieu, who will receive $100 million from Reid’s bill to buy her vote. Will that be enough? You can let Senators Landrieu, Lincoln, Nelson, and Bennet know what will happen if they vote for this bill by contributing to Reverse the Vote.

Reverse the Vote was organized by the NRCC to raise money to oust Democrat Congressmen who voted for ObamaCare in the House and who represent districts that have a chance at being won by Republicans next year. If the Democrats in the Senate who represent swing votes look at the polls and see the money flowing into Reverse the Vote, maybe they’ll get the message.

Right now, it’s clear that this bill should be scrapped.

Understanding the Terror Trials

We’ve followed the major events relating to the detention and prosecution of suspected terrorists since we started this blog. We’ve presented arguments on both sides of this important issue of balancing civil liberties and national security. We’ve even linked a few informative books.

Because there has been a lot of analysis of the decisions to move 9/11 terrorists to civil trials in New York, while opting to send the USS Cole attackers to military commissions, it’s hard to keep up. So, I’ve compiled the links of expert commentary that should be considered to understand what is going on and why. These links are additional to what I’ve already posted.

Let’s start with Andy McCarthy, who is a go-to source on these issues and has explained and analyzed a lot about the recent decisions:

Obama in the Senate: KSM Will Get “full military trial”

Via Bretibart, a clip of then-Senator Barack Obama discussing the Military Commissions Act of 2006:

The key lines:

You’ll hear opponents of this amendment say that it will give all kinds of rights to terrorist masterminds like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. I want to repeat that is not true. The irony of the underlying bill as it’s written is that someone like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to get, basically, a full military trial with all the bells and whistles.

Unless “basically” means “not at all,” then it looks like Obama had a major change of heart that he should have to explain.

What Is Wrong With Military Commissions?

Much of the debate over how to prosecute terrorists hinges upon whether or not we believe our military commissions afford these terrorists with enough rights as defendants. Way back when Boumediene was handed down from the Supreme Court, we were just starting this blog. I noted at the time the curious comments made by Obama in praise of the Boumediene decision, in which he highlighted the Nuremberg trials as an example of good principle in line with the ruling.

Scott Johnson at Power Line is examining those comments again, and he debunks the premise that the Nuremberg trials afforded more protections to defendants than our military commissions. Here is Obama’s statement again:

I mean, you remember during the Nuremberg trials, part of what made us different was even after these Nazis had performed atrocities that no one had ever seen before, we still gave them a day in court and that taught the entire world about who we are but also the basic principles of rule of law. Now the Supreme Court upheld that principle yesterday.

Read the rest of Scott Johnson’s post. The point is that our military commissions offer more protections than the Nuremberg trials did, so pointing to those trials as a model for our commissions hurts the argument that the commissions are insufficient. As Scott asks in the title of the post, why are we trying KSM in federal court?

For more detailed debate over the prosecution of terrorists, I’ll post again the transcript of Hugh Hewitt’s interview with Andy McCarthy and Katherine Darmer from this past March.

UPDATE: Military commissions must not be completely unacceptable, as they will be used on five other Guantanamo detainees, including the accused orchestrator of the attack on the USS Cole. This further calls into question any reason for bringing 9/11 terrorists to federal court.

Craig Resigns While 9/11 Terrorists Move to Civilian Court and Obama Balks on Afghanistan

The newest sequence of events concerning national security is quite troubling. White House counsel Greg Craig is resigning. Whether or not Craig wasn’t planning on staying much longer in the position, he is a scapegoat for a botched overhaul of national security policies that include detention and interrogation. Perhaps most notably, Craig was supposed to oversee the closing of Guantanamo, which we knew was a false promise that will now be further delayed. Craig’s replacement, Bob Bauer, isn’t exactly an inspiring choice either.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration will transfer five 9/11 terrorist plotters to New York for criminal trials. One of them is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (H/T Ed Morrissey). I’ve examined on this blog the arguments for and against civilian trials for these types of cases. I’ll defer to Andy McCarthy, who posted an appropriate excerpt from his book Willful Blindness (located in our Recommended Reading section) today. McCarthy also posted an update to his theory on Eric Holder’s agenda to make life miserable for Bush administration officials.

Willful Blindness clearly explains the risks of treating terrorism as a strict law enforcement issue and trying suspected terrorists in civilian courts. It is written in a way that is easy for any reader to understand; you don’t need to be a legal expert. In his post today, McCarthy sums up the danger of a civilian trial for these terrorists:

We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence. That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al. It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda’s case against America. Since that will be their “defense,” the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc., and — depending on what judge catches the case – they are likely to be given a lot of it. The administration will be able to claim that the judge, not the administration, is responsible for the exposure of our defense secrets. And the circus will be played out for all to see — in the middle of the war. It will provide endless fodder for the transnational Left to press its case that actions taken in America’s defense are violations of international law that must be addressed by foreign courts. And the intelligence bounty will make our enemies more efficient at killing us.

On top of this set of issues, President Obama has rejected the options presented to him for Afghanistan. We shouldn’t doubt that President Obama is taking this decision seriously, and that he feels the weight of American lives on his shoulders. Being President, however, means making difficult decisions. We should hope that his decision is driven more by national security concerns than by politics. We should also hope that he makes a good decision soon, for as he contemplates, troop morale is reportedly declining in Afghanistan.

Needless to say, this hasn’t been a great week for the President on national security. Heading into the weekend, we’ll probably hear plenty about these topics and about the scheduled Senate healthcare debate next Tuesday.

UPDATE: The Obama administration recommended to the Supreme Court on Friday night to avoid a ruling on a torture case appealed by four former Guantanamo detainees. This seems to further support Andy McCarthy’s theory that the Obama administration would rather avoid going after Bush administration officials directly, but is happy to allow trials and investigations that would ultimately make the lives of those officials miserable, and that would allow the Obama administration to avoid blame.

Another Stimulus, and the Liberal Economic Strategy

Keith Hennessey picked up on President Obama’s hint at another stimulus. As Hennessey notes, there are a few reasons the President might want to again increase infrastructure spending:

Bad economic news means he thinks he needs to pull hard (again) on the short-term fiscal policy lever.

Bad economic news means he thinks he needs to look like he’s doing something, even if the actual macro policy impact is trivial.

Congress has told him privately they’re going to do something more whether he wants it or not, and he’s trying to “get ahead of it.”

Hennessey also suggests that Paul Krugman’s recent column signals how liberals will try to define the political debate over the economy. Krugman writes (as noted in the link):

For what we may be seeing is America starting to be Californiafied. … And if Tea Party Republicans do win big next year, what has already happened in California could happen at the national level. In California, the G.O.P. has essentially shrunk down to a rump party with no interest in actually governing — but that rump remains big enough to prevent anyone else from dealing with the state’s fiscal crisis. If this happens to America as a whole, as it all too easily could, the country could become effectively ungovernable in the midst of an ongoing economic disaster.

Keith Hennessey believes the strategy here is:

Increase government spending, especially through rapidly growing entitlements.  At the state level it’s Medicaid.

Wait.  While you’re waiting, define deficits as the problem, rather than spending.

Try to label as radical and extreme those who argue for slowing spending growth and preventing tax increases.  The goal is to discredit these solutions as legitimate.

Once deficits get large enough, shrug and say we have no choice but to raise taxes.  This is especially true for entitlement programs directed toward the elderly, who have less ability to adjust to changed government promises.

Argue we must protect low and middle-income from higher taxes, so upper-income taxpayers must bear the entire burden increase.

Raise taxes on upper-income taxpayers.

Rinse and repeat.

This is not far-fetched, as the way the debate is framed is crucial and this wouldn’t be a new way of attempting to frame it. I noted President Obama’s attempts to frame debates in his favor during the campaign by using a combination of straw man arguments and mischaracterizations of opposing viewpoints.

Spending a state or the country into oblivion and then blaming deficits is a convenient and familiar political trick, but would only avoid the real problem of reckless spending. California is not in trouble because taxes aren’t high enough or because Proposition 13 deprives the state of needed tax revenues (liberals in the Golden State often make that argument). The problem is just the opposite of what Krugman and others would have us believe, but if Krugman’s side wins that debate, we would perpetuate a destructive economic philosophy.

Want an example? How about the housing market, where Krugman claimed that GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “didn’t do any subprime lending.” His side wants us to believe that free market conditions caused the financial crisis, just like refusing to raise taxes even more than California has is the cause of the state’s problems, but we know better and must emphasize the truth. Otherwise, we might make the same mistakes as before.

20 Years

Today is the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, a powerful moment in world history that still resonates with those of us old enough to remember it and the end of the Soviet Union. What better way to recognize the day than watching Reagan’s speech at the Wall in 1987?

You can read the transcript here. While the speech is remembered for Reagan’s to call to Gorbachev to “tear down this wall!” there are some other great passages in what is a wonderful speech overall. Here are some of my other favorite parts:

President von Weizsacker has said, “The German question is open as long as the Brandenburg Gate is closed.” Today I say: As long as the gate is closed, as long as this scar of a wall is permitted to stand, it is not the German question alone that remains open, but the question of freedom for all mankind. Yet I do not come here to lament. For I find in Berlin a message of hope, even in the shadow of this wall, a message of triumph.

I don’t want to make this about Obama, but listening to Reagan connect the Wall to the greater struggle for freedom makes me lament that, as good a speaker as Obama is, he’ll never make such a strong statement with that larger connection. We’ve already watched Obama miss chances in Iran and Honduras to make those connections.

The build up to the call to tear down the Wall is also fantastic:

In the 1950s, Khrushchev predicted: “We will bury you.” But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind–too little food. Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself. After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor.

And now the Soviets themselves may, in a limited way, be coming to understand the importance of freedom. We hear much from Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness. Some political prisoners have been released. Certain foreign news broadcasts are no longer being jammed. Some economic enterprises have been permitted to operate with greater freedom from state control.

Are these the beginnings of profound changes in the Soviet state? Or are they token gestures, intended to raise false hopes in the West, or to strengthen the Soviet system without changing it? We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace.

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

And, of course, the conclusion:

Perhaps this gets to the root of the matter, to the most fundamental distinction of all between East and West. The totalitarian world produces backwardness because it does such violence to the spirit, thwarting the human impulse to create, to enjoy, to worship. The totalitarian world finds even symbols of love and of worship an affront. Years ago, before the East Germans began rebuilding their churches, they erected a secular structure: the television tower at Alexander Platz. Virtually ever since, the authorities have been working to correct what they view as the tower’s one major flaw, treating the glass sphere at the top with paints and chemicals of every kind. Yet even today when the sun strikes that sphere–that sphere that towers over all Berlin–the light makes the sign of the cross. There in Berlin, like the city itself, symbols of love, symbols of worship, cannot be suppressed.

As I looked out a moment ago from the Reichstag, that embodiment of German unity, I noticed words crudely spray-painted upon the wall, perhaps by a young Berliner: “This wall will fall. Beliefs become reality.” Yes, across Europe, this wall will fall. For it cannot withstand faith; it cannot withstand truth. The wall cannot withstand freedom.

And I would like, before I close, to say one word. I have read, and I have been questioned since I’ve been here about certain demonstrations against my coming. And I would like to say just one thing, and to those who demonstrate so. I wonder if they have ever asked themselves that if they should have the kind of government they apparently seek, no one would ever be able to do what they’re doing again.

Thank you and God bless you all.

UPDATE: Steven Hayward, whose excellent new book on Reagan I’ve been reading, has a good article on the fall of the Wall and the events that lead up to it.