Joust The Facts

The Back-Bencher In The White House

From the Wall Street Journal editorial page, discussing the 'hard choices' Mr. Obama made in reducing spending with his proposed budget.

The White House actually touts as tight-fisted a budget proposing a record $1.645 trillion deficit for fiscal 2011, due largely to a new surge in spending to 25.3% of GDP. That's more spending than in any year since 1945. Federal debt held by the public—the kind we have to pay back—will rise to 75.1% [of GDP] in 2012, which is the highest since 1951 and more than double what it was as recently as 2007. [chart at the link]

This $3.73 trillion budget does a Cee Lo Green ("Forget You," as cleaned up for the Grammys) to the voter mandate in November to control spending. It leaves every hard decision to the new House Republican majority. And it ignores almost entirely the recommendations of Mr. Obama's own deficit commission. No wonder the commission's Democratic co-chairman, Erskine Bowles, said Monday that this budget goes "nowhere near where they will have to go to resolve our fiscal nightmare." And he's an ally.

How unserious is this budget? Although the White House trumpets $2.18 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade, those savings are so far off in the magical "out years" that you can barely see them from here. More than 95% of the savings would happen after Mr. Obama's first term in the White House is over, and almost two-thirds of the promised deficit reduction would arrive after 2016. Pretending to cut deficits by pushing all real cuts into the future is Budget Flimflam 101.

Mr. Obama's budget put him in the position of back-bencher, not national leader.  By letting the House Republican majority make all of the hard choices on programs and entitlements he and his minions in the media will be able to demagogue the 'cuts' and cruelty of the needed spending restraint.  Well, back to what worked.  He cut his teeth in politics by railing against the evil George Bush administration; why not rail some more against the evil Republican budget plan?

And don't give me these meaningless ten year totals, designed simply to make the sum total sound impressive.  The out-years always change.  There's no obligation on future congresses and future presidents to even use those projections as guidelines.  And this budget has little if any spending reductions.  The tax increases ("expiration of the Bush tax cuts" in liberal-speak) Mr. Obama is counting on for 2013 will probably be just as bad an idea then and won't pass a Republican House.

He's abdicating responsibility on spending restraint because, frankly, spending restraint is hard.  Better just to vote "present" and let grown-ups make the hard choices.  And then denounce them.

But Of Course He Does

Politico has, today, the  type  of story that we're going to see repeatedly until Republicans actually, finally, choose a candidate to run against the incumbent president in 2012.  How much more meaningless can polling be than polling a presidential contest between the current White House resident and someone who hasn't even declared candidacy and isn't supported - yet - by even all Republicans, let alone independents.  This is comparing apples to ... imaginary oranges.

If the presidential election were to happen today, Barack Obama would win eight swing states and one electoral vote-giving congressional district that he won in 2008 but George W. Bush won in 2004, a new poll has found.

Obama would win all his match-ups against four likely presidential candidates — Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney — according to surveys conducted by Public Policy Polling over the last three months.

In Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia and Nebraska’s second congressional district, Obama would win by an average of seven points.

Romney does the best in match-ups against Obama, trailing by an average of six points. Huckabee trails by eight points, Gingrich by 12 and Palin by 16 points.

I have several thoughts.  First, only seven points on average?  That should shock the president's team. This is a man who's  actually seen his flagging support stabilize and improve slightly, now that, overwhelmingly, the country put a checkrein on his most liberal impulses.  And it's seven points against people who haven't declared?  Wow.

Second, Ms. Palin only trails by 16 points?  That's remarkable, considering the universal media venom spewed upon her every utterance and written word.  Sure, she's some things that could be questioned.  Who hasn't?  But it's not as if she suggested that drugs should be illegal to prevent an economic benefit.  Huh?  Ms. Palin has also stirred the pot in ways that no other conservative could.  "Death panels"* indeed.

Finally, the only reason these polls -  and PPP is a Democratic polling firm - are being done is to provide support for the media-preferred narrative of re-election inevitability.  There's a certain percentage of  the population - 2, 3, 4% - who simply want to know they're voting for the guy/gal  who will win.   Fewer Democrats and Obama-leaning independents will bother to traipse to the polls if they think their effort is futile.  Some polling takes the voters temperature, and some is designed to cool them off or heat them up.  This is the latter, and Politico.com is happy to report the narrative.

Call me when one of these candidates officially declares, and I'll open my eyes.  Call me again when the campaigning starts and I'll  get up from my chair.  Call me once more when a Republican frontrunner emerges, and maybe I'll start checking out a poll or two.  Until then this falls firmly in the category "propaganda."

*"Death panels" is in quotes because that's how she wrote it in the original

Madden 11 Was Wrong

Green Bay fought through a ton of injuries this season, and then had three more key injuries in the first half of Super Bowl XLV (you've got to love the Roman numerals).  They lost two defensive backs, including one of the best defensive players in the league in Charles Woodson, and lost number one wideout Donald Driver.  They had a rough third quarter, and had difficulty running the ball.  They were facing an experienced team, one that had seemed to find just what it needed when it needed it, and whose defense was often impenetrable when it needed to be impenetrable.

And Madden 11 predicted a Steelers win.  That's an awful lot to overcome.  Well, consider it overcome.

Rodgers, the game's MVP, thrilled his legion of Cheesehead fans with a spectacular six-game string that should finally erase the bitterness of the Brett Favre separation in Green Bay. He's not equal with Favre in Super Bowl wins, yet he extended the Packers' record of NFL titles to 13, nine before the Super Bowl era.

The Packers QB threw for three touchdowns, two to Greg Jennings, and the Packers (14-6) overcame even more injuries, building a 21-3 lead, then hanging on to become the second No. 6 seed to win the championship. Coincidentally, the 2005 Steelers were the other.

Rodgers threw for 304 yards, including a 29-yard touchdown to Jordy Nelson, who had nine catches for 140 yards to make up for three big drops. Rodgers found Jennings, normally his favorite target, for 21- and 8-yard scores.

Rodgers, the game's MVP, was outstanding, but the best thing the Packers did was avoid mistakes (other than taking some bad angles and getting sucked inside on some Pittsburgh running plays, and dropping perfectly thrown Rodgers passes).  They had no turnovers; Pittsburgh had three.  Jordy Nelson dropped some of those pinpoint passes, but also caught a bunch including a touchdown pass.  Greg Jennings wasn't really all that open on those seam passes up the middle, but Rodgers found him anyway. 

The second best thing the Packers did was to - somehow - neutralize Troy Polamalu and James Harrison, the latter having one tackle, for a sack, in the entire game.  Rodgers saw some pressure, but he had time to throw on most dropbacks, and found the open guy with regularity.  No wonder they didn't run much.

The Packers will be back again next year, presenting a strong defense of their championship with their injuries having the summer to heal.  And the Patriots will be my favorite to represent the AFC.  Sweet.

I Blame Global Warming

Either that or animal cruelty.  Apparently we in New Hampshire are not the only ones experiencing "unusual weather."

CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico — Thirty-five animals at a zoo in the northern Mexico state of Chihuahua have frozen to death during the region's coldest weather in six decades...

Temperatures have dropped to 9 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 13 Celsius) in the area, the coldest weather in 60 years.

Is the coldest weather in 60 years in Mexico a sign of the earth warming?  I forget.

Here's an interesting play on the claims of the warming alarmists, via Ace of Spades.

The global warmistas have a similar tactic. When asked to explain why their predictions keep failing, they will say "Well, the environment is a very complicated thing and of course we don't have a perfect model of it yet."

But when their core claims are challenged, they claim the exact opposite: They have a perfect model of everything, with all variables perfectly weighed in the equation (that's why they know, to a moral certainty, that the sun has no more than a trivial effect on changing climate), so shut up, we got this, all of this.

Well which is it?

Is Madden Going To Disappoint Me?

Gosh, I hope not.  As you may know if you're one of my 12 or so regular readers, I'm a Green Bay Packers/NE Patriots fan (with a side of Philadelphia Eagles - although the Michael Vick fling is doing nothing for that).  EA Sports Madden 11 has predicted that this years game will go to the Steelers by four in a fourth quarter comeback.  Ugh.

Forget Punxsutawney Phil -- Madden 11, EA's pigskin prognosticator, has emerged from its burrow just in time to make its annual wintery pick.

And it's going with Pittsburgh.

According to the simulation, the Steelers storm back from an early fourth quarter deficit to narrowly beat the Green Bay Packers, 24-20, nabbing their record seventh Vince Lombardi Trophy. With five catches for 111 yards -- including the game-winning TD -- Steelers wide receiver Mike Wallace wins the MVP.

Well, let's just say that I'm rooting for the game to make it's second mistaken prediction in eight tries.

Unconstitutional? So What's Next?

The Heartland Institute's Peter Ferrara tells you, over at The American Spectator.  First, a brief explanation of why the whole law collapses without mandated insurance purchase.

Without the individual mandate, the rest of Obamacare is transparently unworkable, as President Obama and the Democrats themselves said during the jihad for its enactment. That is because the bill also includes what is known as "guaranteed issue" and "community rating." Under those provisions, an insurance company must insure whoever applies, and charge them no more than anyone else, no matter how sick or costly they are when they first apply...

The skyrocketing premiums cause younger and healthier individuals to drop their coverage. That forces insurers to raise premiums even more because the remaining pool is even sicker and costlier on average. The younger and healthier than flee even more, knowing they can automatically get coverage later if they become sick! ...

...without the individual mandate, the whole system inevitably collapses as described above.

He proposes a couple of free market solutions: block grant Medicaid to states to cover their poorest with income-based vouchers for private insurance, and create state high-risk pools to assist with private coverage when insurance is prohibitive.  I would add the provision of insurance crossing state lines and (perhaps) the portability of insurance when changing jobs.

These are market solutions that maintain the private health care system while supplementing it for the most vulnerable.  It still allows people to go without, if they're young, healthy, and elect to do so.  Those individuals should be encouraged to buy low-cost catastrophic coverage so that unforseen disasters could be handled.  That's encouraged, not mandated.  But, as Mr. Ferrara notes, covering the masses was never really the goal.

The only reason President Obama and the Democrats would not even consider this approach is that it does not involve the government takeover of health care, which was the real goal all along, so the wise government could run health care in the interests of progressive "social justice" (which sometimes means denying people health care).

One area this essay doesn't touch is Medicare, which is in its own entitlement death spiral as the baby boomers reach 65.  However, putting Medicare on a more sound footing does not require dismantling and turning over to the government the best medical care in the world.  Retiree health care can certainly be addressed separately.

Everyone's worry is about Supreme Court swing vote Anthony Kennedy.  Frankly, it's a little hard for me to understand how any of the nine justices, if they are truly versed in the Constitution, could conclude any differently than Judge Vinson.  I'm certain the Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsberg and Breyer will find a way, but their minority opinion in the ultimate judging of ObamaCare will be a classic demonstration of contrived logic and avoidance of proper consideration of constitutional limits on federal power. 

2/2/11 1005: And what would be a discussion of constitutionality and limits on federal power without a preposterous response from someone purported to be a constitutional scholar.

First, the higher prices and taxes aren’t Vinson’s problem if the bill itself violates the Constitution. Judges are supposed to rule on the facts and the law, not on the policy choices they like best. The prices and taxes are Congress’ issue to solve, within the limits of their authority under the Constitution.  Prices might drop and taxes might go down if Congress nationalized all means of production, too, but that doesn’t make it legal or morally right.

Second, the role of the judiciary is to check the power of Congress and the executive.  That’s why actual Constitutional scholars refer to the “checks and balances” of the three-branch federal system.  Maybe Obama learned his Constitutional law at the same place Chuck Schumer learned civics, but applying a check to Congressional overreach isn’t “judicial activism,” it’s one of the main purposes of the federal courts.  “Judicial activism” occurs when judges create laws from the bench in the absence of legislative action.

"Judges are supposed to rule on the facts and the law, not on the policy choices they like best."  I hope the liberal bloc of SCOTUS remembers that.