Taxes in House Healthcare Bill

Courtesy of Americans for Tax Reform, here is a comprehensive list of taxes in the House healthcare bill (H.R. 3962 – “Affordable Health Care for America Act”).

PhRMA notes the CBO analysis, which says the mandatory Medicare Part D rebates in the House bill will lead to less research and development and higher premiums for seniors.

(DISCLOSURE: My employer is a member of PhRMA)

California to Withhold Additional 10% From Paychecks; Newsom Drops Out

Ed Morrissey comments on the additional withholding that California will implement this week, as the state legislature continues to act irresponsibly. While residents should get that money back in tax returns, does anyone believe that the state would make that money more valuable than the people who earned it? What if the state has to issue IOUs again?

In other California news, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is withdrawing his candidacy for Governor.

Dick Cheney Speaks About Obama’s Foreign Policy

Via Power Line, here is Dick Cheney’s speech at the Center for Security Policy. I’ll add some excerpts and comments soon.

UPDATE: Here are some key excerpts and the full transcript. Since those are already available, and since this speech makes compelling arguments for topics I’ve been covering here, I don’t have much to add. I will say, however, that Dick Cheney is winning these arguments by default, since the White House hasn’t offered much in response (Just attempts to marginalize critics).

If anything, Cheney is raising the level of discourse. His arguments are serious, and should be considered. The effect may be a change in public opinion of the policies of the Bush and Obama administrations. We may not see much effect right away, and President Obama can probably afford to let much of Cheney’s arguments go unchallenged right now, as the public focus is more on the economy and health care.

At some point, however, Cheney’s arguments should be addressed by serious people who wish to win the American public. The Bush administration may have largely failed to make its case to the public and to hit back at critics, but Cheney is very much doing that now.

Michael Mukasey: Civilian Courts Are No Place to Try Terrorists

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey has an interesting op-ed in the WSJ in which he makes a case against moving detained terrorist suspects to civilian courts where we used to try terrorists before 9/11.

Others like Andy McCarthy, Dick Cheney, and Michael Hayden have been vocal in their opposition to President Obama’s detention and interrogation policy proposals. Mukasey’s piece is another valid contribution to the discussions about national security and civil liberties.

Legislative Games With Healthcare

We talked about the idea of using reconciliation,  but the Democrats’ attempts to force through healthcare reform have become even more creative. Now, in an attempt to pretend to keep the cost of the healthcare bill down, Democrats are considering breaking off a $245 billion chunk and passing a separate bill to pay the doctors. This would be done with a procedural maneuver that would bypass the normal Senate process.

Bob Laszewski explains what Democrats are trying to do:

How many times have you heard the President say that any health care bill must be “deficit neutral?” How many times have you heard conservative and moderate Democrats say they won’t vote for a health bill that isn’t paid for?

What are the Democrats about to try?

Peeling out one of the biggest components of health care and quickly spending $245 billion to bolster physician fees over the next ten years, doing it separate from the “deficit neutral” health bill, and just adding the $245 billion cost of this to the deficit!

In other words, the joke is on us. Americans shouldn’t buy it though, and they haven’t so far. Yet the Democrats continue to ignore the public.

Another good example of a legislative move to watch out for could involve cloture in the Senate. In order to end debate on whatever bill comes out of the Senate bill merger, moderate Democrats and Republicans may be asked to vote for cloture before being allowed to vote against the final bill. Cloture needs 60 votes, but passage only 50.

Therefore, we might see a John Kerry-esque “I voted for it before I voted against it” situation. Senators may vote for cloture, almost ensuring the passage of a bill, but then they could vote against passage and tell their constituents they didn’t support the bill. The cloture vote, however, would be the key vote. Senators who vote for cloture would need to be held accountable for the passage of a disastrous healthcare bill.

A blogger at Hot Air is frustrated by Senator Snowe’s call to history in support of her vote in the Senate Finance Committee. While her explanation is indeed weak, I wouldn’t criticize her “paternalism and ego” if she indeed believes that she is doing the right thing.

George W. Bush held his ground in the wars when public opinion was unpopular, and if enough people disagreed with him, they could have elected John Kerry. As I’ve said, we shouldn’t fault people for simply standing on principle (and I don’t claim to know if Senator Snowe is doing that). The beauty of Democracy, however, is that people can vote out their representatives if they don’t agree with what the representatives are doing. Applied to healthcare, if you don’t like the jam-down and scheming, you can express that at the polls.

One Step Closer To Dismantling American Healthcare

As expected, the Senate Finance Committee voted in favor of the Baucus healthcare bill today. Also on cue, Senator Olympia Snowe performed her “reaching across the aisle” act to provide the only supporting Republican vote. Ed Morrissey questions Senator Snowe’s explanation, which was “When history calls, history calls.”

The Senate will now try to merge the Finance Committee and HELP Committee bills. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell says the bill “will never come before the [full] Senate.” But, Democrats may use every trick at their disposal. This piece discusses the sneaky way in which the Democrats may try to pass this legislation.

Whether Senator Snowe was simply too moved by history, wanted positive press coverage, or just caved to pressure is irrelevant. Her show of “bipartisanship” provides another good teaching opportunity though. While Senator Snowe may be a good representative for the state of Maine, she is not going to lead any conservative movement or even uphold fundamental conservative interests.

Why bring this up? Because Senator Snowe is from the same camp as John McCain. She is praised by the MSM for working with Democrats, just like the Maverick, and just like the Maverick, she would fail to carry a large constituency. This is a lesson the center-right needs to understand, because people like John McCain and Olympia Snowe are unlikely to win national elections, and they’ve shown they surely cannot be trusted to stand for center-right principles.

Senator Snowe claims to still have reservations about the legislation, but that is no cover for voting for a bill that will ruin the private insurance industry. PricewaterhouseCoopers has a new report that the insurance industry is leaning on to show the damage that would be done to middle class Americans by Obamacare. Industry experts like Bob Laszewski agree. Keith Hennessey also foresees higher premiums and lower wages as a result of Obamacare.

About the only thing going for the Bacus bill was a CBO projection that it would cut the budget deficit by $81 billion, and even Democrats aren’t sold on that projection. Yet, Senator Snowe will be revered for crossing the aisle again to pass this publicly unpopular bill, which really isn’t even a bill yet. Her vote will pressure moderate Democrats to also support the legislation. This is the kind of leader the Republican party chose in 2008. Let’s hope the party is wiser next time.

“Decline Is a Choice”

Charles Krauthammer’s piece on New Liberalism and America’s role in the world is a must-read.

The America They Want

The news that President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples” was surprising to many people yesterday. Regardless of what his policies are, he hasn’t achieved anything yet. If President Obama doesn’t deliver significant results with his efforts, the prize will be even less serious than it already is (Even the MSM is skeptical).

And make no mistake: The prize has become illegitimate. Over the years, the award has been given to some radicals and to some whose efforts have largely failed. Even still, Hugh Hewitt hopes the award will motivate the President to do the right thing in Afghanistan and Iran. While the President struggles to make a decision on Afghanistan that has his administration, base, and military leaders split, the responsibility for American lives surely weighs heavily on him.

The Nobel people, however, seem to be sending a preemptive message to President Obama. Giving the prize to Obama now is a hint at what they want him to do. In other words, if President Obama wants the positive recognition of the European liberal elites, he needs to be the anti-Bush. So far, President Obama’s foreign policy has been mostly a continuation of the Bush policies, with the exception of the missile defense plan and his rhetoric (and one could argue Bush would have handled Honduras differently).

Some of what this prize is about, however, is the vision that these European elites have for America. Jen Rubin summarizes nicely the conflict of views:

But this is where liberals and conservatives part company: liberals think it’s a good thing that the “international community” (i.e., the collection of regimes that intensely disliked George W. Bush, and he them) likes us now. Ignatius explains: “The Nobel committee is expressing a collective sigh of relief that America has rejoined the global consensus. They’re right. It’s a good thing.”

No, it’s a bad thing, a very bad thing, because he got it — as one must to snag a Nobel Peace Prize — by denigrating American values and exceptionalism, demonstrating an aversion to moral clarity, refusing to call out despotic regimes (the Iranian students will be thrilled to know that they give prizes to leaders who think of them as an annoyance), disarming America, repeatedly distorting history to fit false narratives, refusing to stand up to international bullies (excuse me, members in good standing in the international community), and spinning a great deal of hooey about global wealth-sharing and environmental extremism.

And here’s the thing: these regimes don’t like America any more than they used to. They love a U.S. president who shares their disdain for America’s role in the world. So they gave him a prize. “America Isn’t That Great” Man of the Year isn’t something to cheer. Well, unless you work at the White House.

That is the harsh reality. President Obama is being awarded for expressing a view of America that is in line with that of the European elites, and for adopting a moral relativism that Europe has become accustomed to, and they want him to practice what he’s been saying. The bottom line, as Jen Rubin says, is that the international community doesn’t like America any more today than they did a year ago.

The international community may like Obama’s view of America, but that wasn’t enough for the IOC to award Chicago the Olympics, and it sure hasn’t been enough to stop Iran and other rogue regimes. So, what is the actual benefit to America that these elites approve of Obama’s view, which Obama himself hasn’t exactly followed in his foreign policy?

UPDATE: Mark Steyn asks what the President accomplished in the twelve days between his inauguration and the deadline for the Noble nomination.

An Image Plan or a Missile Defense Plan?

No, I’m not going to criticize the President for the outcome of the Olympics. I’ve been trying to find time to discuss the President’s foreign policy and missile defense plans, so let’s focus on that instead.

The announcement that we are abandoning plans to install systems in Poland and the Czech Republic lead to much public commotion, and rightfully so. About two weeks ago, Defense Secretary Robert Gates explained the new plan in an op-ed:

The bottom line is that there will be American missile defense in Europe to protect our troops there and our NATO allies. The new proposal provides needed capacity years earlier than the original plan, and will provide even more robust protection against longer-range threats on about the same timeline as the previous program. We are strengthening — not scrapping — missile defense in Europe.