The pace of “stimulus” spending has plummeted. Good time to shut off the spigot entirely, but it probably won’t happen until we at least restore some sanity to the Hill next year.
Meanwhile, cap and trade appears to be dead in the Senate for this year (and let’s hope forever). This is bad news, of course, for the Blue Dogs in the House who Pelosi strong armed into voting for it. They made a politically painful vote against their constituents’ wishes with nothing to show for it. Let’s hope that it turns her from Speaker Pelosi to Minority Leader Pelosi next year (if not dumping her from the leadership altogether).
And another sign that the people are waking from their trance — a clear majority of likely voters now say that no health-care bill is better than anything resembling this bill:
This does not mean that most voters are opposed to health care reform. But it does highlight the level of concern about the specific proposals that Congressional Democrats have approved in a series of Committees. To this point, there has been no Republican support for the legislative effort although the Senate Finance Committee is still attempting to seek a bi-partisan solution.
Not surprisingly, there is a huge partisan divide on this issue. Sixty percent (60%) of Democrats say passing the legislation in Congress would be the best course of action. However, 80% of Republicans take the opposite view. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 23% would like the Congressional reform to pass while 66% would rather the legislators take no action.
Don’t just do something — stand there!
It’s partly because of this:
One reason is skepticism about Congress itself. By a two-to-one margin, voters believe that no matter how bad things are Congress could always make it worse.
Yup. Michael Barone expands on where the Democrats went wrong:
…the Democrats have a problem here. The party’s leadership currently tilts heavily to the liberal side. Barack Obama is from the university community of Hyde Park in Chicago. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is from San Francisco, and important House committee chairmen are from similar “gentry urban” locales — Henry Waxman from the West Side of Los Angeles, Charles Rangel from a district that includes not only Harlem but much of the Upper West Side of Manhattan, Barney Frank from Newton, Mass., next door to Boston.
Of the 21 top leadership members and chairmen, five come from districts carried by John McCain, but the average vote in the other 16 districts was 71 percent to 27 percent for Obama.
All these Democratic leaders understand that their home turf tilts far left of the rest of the nation. But a politician’s political base is ultimately his or her reality principle. Moreover, most of these leaders — though Obama obfuscated this in his campaign — have strong, long-held convictions that are well on the left of the American political spectrum.
These are the people — the House leaders more than Obama, surprisingly — who have shaped the Democrats’ stimulus package, cap-and-trade legislation and health-care bills. The rules of the House allow a skillful leader like Pelosi to jam legislation through on the floor, although she’s had more trouble than expected on health care. But their policies have been meeting resistance from the three-quarters of Americans who don’t describe themselves as liberals.
The leftists were deluding themselves when they saw the November election as a mandate for socialism. Most of the independents who voted for Democrats were voting against Republicans, and many of the people who voted for Barack Obama were just voting for generic “change” without paying much attention to what kind of change was being promised. Now that they see what it actually means, they’re in revolt. And coming up with better commercials isn’t going to get the dog to eat the dog food when it tastes like crap.
Finally, a bonus: If Sarah Palin is so stupid, and Barack Obama so brilliant, how did she win the argument?
One can hardly deny that Palin’s reference to “death panels” was inflammatory. But another way of putting that is that it was vivid and attention-getting. Level-headed liberal commentators who favor more government in health care, including Slate’s Mickey Kaus and the Washington Post’s Charles Lane, have argued that the end-of-life provision in the bill is problematic–acknowledging in effect (and, in Kaus’s case, in so many words) that Palin had a point.
If you believe the media, Sarah Palin is a mediocre intellect, if even that, while President Obama is brilliant. So how did she manage to best him in this debate? Part of the explanation is that disdain for Palin reflects intellectual snobbery more than actual intellect. Still, Obama’s critics, in contrast with Palin’s, do not deny the president’s intellectual aptitude. Intelligence, however, does not make one immune from hubris.
It’s also because he doesn’t have good arguments. All that he has is charisma, and people are starting to see through the lies and the fraud. No wonder the markets are cheering.
[All collected via Instapundit]
[Early afternoon update]
The telecoms apparently don’t want to be stimulated:
With today the deadline to apply for $4.7 billion in broadband grants, AT&T, Verizon and Comcast won’t be going for the stimulus money, sources close to the companies said.
Their reasons are varied. All three say they have enough cash to upgrade and expand their broadband networks on their own. Some say the grant money could draw unwanted scrutiny of their business practices and compensation programs, as seen with automakers and banks that got government bailouts.
And privately, some complain about the conditions attached to the money, including a net-neutrality rule they say would prevent them from managing traffic on their networks in the way they want.
“We are concerned that some new mandates seem to go well beyond current laws and FCC rules, and may lead to the kind of continuing uncertainty and delay that is antithetical to the president’s primary goals of economic stimulus and job creation,” said Walter McCormick, president of USTelecom, a trade group that represents companies including AT&T and Verizon.
Emphasis mine. And of course, it’s not at all antithetical to his true goal of giving the government ever more power over the private economy.
[Mid-afternoon update]
Andy McCarthy has related thoughts:
Obama has never been as popular as advertised — not even as personally popular (his policies have always been far less popular than his person). It is worth remembering, as I’ve noted before, that even with a Republican candidate who inspired little enthusiasm among conservatives, almost 60 million Americans voted against Obama. That’s more than voted for every winning presidential candidate in our history except Bush ’04. The president has gotten by to this point on the bipartisan goodwill almost every new president gets and a media that has projected him as wildly popular — appearances being crucial in politics. Given that the president is a fierce partisan extremist and that picture of plenary enthusiasm for him was an illusion, that bubble wasn’t likely to last very long, and now it’s been punctured by an issue about which people care deeply. In those straits, a clever communication strategy is not going to solve the problem. It can’t change the substance of what he’s trying to sell.
Bill Clinton recovered from this problem (after he lost the Congress) by “triangulating” and moving to the center. I don’t think that Barack Obama is capable of doing that, despite his pretense of being a moderate — he’s too much of a knee-jerk statist. And the people are wising up to the fraud (nine months too late).
I’d point out that Pelosi isn’t just from SF now, she’s originally from Baltimore. She learned how to keep her enemies and favors list from her dear old dad.
President Obama is brilliant
Perhaps Obama has some charisma and is a smooth talker, but these are common traits of most any successful sales person. I’m still waiting for any evidence that Obama demonstrates brilliance in creating workable solutions to complex problems and then leading people to accepting those solutions amongst competing ideas. Perhaps I’m asking too much, but then I’m just a lowly engineer with poor BSing skills.
The President has a nice radio voice, and can read a teleprompter with great smoothness. Six months into it, he can hopefully deliver a speech without the teleprompter.
As for presiding? Well, there are presiding officers, and there are Presidents. The former have the public faces that conceal what the puppetmasters are doing. The latter actually lead, and fight puppetmaster activities — sometimes without success. The latter are troublesome to the elites, and can encounter lots of pushback from the puppetmasters’ minions in the executive branch.
Six months into it, he can hopefully deliver a speech without the teleprompter.
Is there any evidence this is the case? Bush had great failings as a communicator, but for the most part he could handle himself pretty well with extemporaneous comments in front of a crowd. Bush simply stayed in areas he was comfortable talking about and his failure for the most part was getting tongue tied rather than on content. Obama, on the other hand, strays all over the place and simply makes sh*t up. He doesn’t get tongue tied over individual words like Bush, but Obama’s neither smooth talking nor are his ideas coherent without a teleprompter. I honestly believe he is being seen by more people every day as a complete BS artist.
Like many ideas coming from the left, network neutrality sounds good as long as you don’t examine it, and there have been real problems it pro-ports to answer. And like so many solutions from the left it would tend to cause as much harm as good, if not more harm. For a true answer you need to look to classic principles such as contract law and the free market. When I contract with a network provider, I’m arranging for a certain level of service. So long as all their customers get their contracted level of service they have no grounds to complain if another customer gets better service for whatever reason.
But can’t expect such solutions from a mis-government concerned more with gaining more power than real solutions.
Do people really think Obama does well reading from a teleprompter? I swear I can hear the line breaks.
Do people really think Obama does well reading from a teleprompter?
Well, I don’t. I’ve never been as impressed with his oratorical skills as the media demands that I be. But he is better on teleprompter than off. At least, there’s a better chance that what he says will make sense.
Finally, a bonus: If Sarah Palin is so stupid, and Barack Obama so brilliant, how did she win the argument?
She “won” by telling a big enough lie* to arouse fear among really gullible people — the same kind of people who are afraid that the government is going to take away their Medicare (ignorant of the fact that Medicare IS a government program).
*Seriously Rand, do you honestly believe there was a provision for government death panels?
…do you honestly believe there was a provision for government death panels?
Certainly not by that name. How do you know there isn’t?
Certainly not by that name. How do you know there isn’t?
The same way I know the moon landings weren’t faked. By its nature it’s a ridiculous claim. But unlike the moon landing conspiracy theory, it’s being used to further a political agenda, and apparently there are people out there who are will to believe such nonsense.
Actually, Dave, since they just removed the portion of the bill referred to, because of its potential for abuse, Palin outright won that one and you, as always, look like an idiot. It wasn’t a conspiracy theory, it’s an actual fact. But you do seem to be suffering from classic infantilism and paranoia, along with a complete inability to judge ridiculous claims.
Now there’s no explicit provision, just the inevitable rationing this bill would cause. There won’t be a panel, it’ll be a point-system or some such, age plus prexisting conditions, minus political connections, over a certain score and you no longer get treatment.
The same way I know the moon landings weren’t faked.
One of these things is not like the other…
And I’m wondering what “political agenda” is being furthered by moon-landing conspiracy theories…
And I’m wondering what “political agenda” is being furthered by moon-landing conspiracy theories…
My point was that moon-landing conspiracy theories don’t further any political agenda, it’s just whack.
Actually, Dave, since they just removed the portion of the bill referred to, because of its potential for abuse, Palin outright won that one and you, as always, look like an idiot. It wasn’t a conspiracy theory, it’s an actual fact.
I don’t dispute that they removed something from the bill, and sure, you can call that a win for Palin, though maybe not the consumer. I suspect you already know this, but the thing they removed wasn’t a ‘death panel’ or even something like that by another name. What they removed were provisions to authorize Medicare to pay doctors for counseling patients about end-of-life care, if the patient chooses such counseling. That’s it. To call it a ‘death panel’ is a fear-mongering lie, with the purpose of inflicting political damage.
But you do seem to be suffering from classic infantilism and paranoia, along with a complete inability to judge ridiculous claims.
By the way, John, attacking character is poor form.
Dave, if you had character I’d feel bad about attacking it, but it appears I was dead on. You inaccurately and rather stupidly dismissed criticism of one of the worst aspects of the health care bill, and were proven wrong. Then you continued to spew bullshit, and proved you don’t know anything about the bill except for partisan talking points. The end-of-life counseling wasn’t part of the removed section, the review for determining who needs it (which could rather accurately, albeit brutall, be called a ‘death panel’) was the extracted section. And as I noted, the rest of the bill continues enough damage to continue to oppose the entire thing.
Have you ever been right in your life?
John, you’ll have to cite the moment when I was so decisively proven wrong, I missed that part. While you’re at it, you should cite the language in the bill that describes this “review for determining who needs it”. Here, I’ll help you out — you can find the text in that vast left-wing conspiracy site known as snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/euthanasia.asp
And really, all the “have you ever been right in your life” stuff is pretty boring in an adult conversation.
What they removed were provisions to authorize Medicare to pay doctors for counseling patients about end-of-life care, if the patient chooses such counseling.
What they removed was a financial incentive to get every senior an end-of-life plan. The history of medicare is that “if you pay for it, they will consume it.” Death panels per se would be the unintended consequence, and those are rarely spelled-out in law. But John here has the right of it:
Now there’s no explicit provision, just the inevitable rationing this bill would cause. There won’t be a panel, it’ll be a point-system or some such, age plus prexisting conditions, minus political connections, over a certain score and you no longer get treatment.
Remember, what we’re witnessing now is an inter-generational struggle between aging Baby Boomers entering their Medicare years and Gen-Xer now coming into power. The Boomers are (perhaps rightly) fearful for the health care resources they are and will be consuming for the next couple of decades. Meanwhile, Gen-X Obama is clearly out to “spread the wealth around” by directing more of the public largess to the younger folk. This is exactly why appeals to yesteryear’s socialized medicine in Europe, Canada, et. al. miss the mark: they *too* are experiencing generational hardship and the worst is yet to come. This is why freedom is paramount — it provides the agility to deal with problems like this. Our so-called leaders would serve their time better (and likely secure re-election) were they to fix medicare/medicade and target solutions to the problems they keep talking about instead of “hey everyone, get on board the single-payer slippery-slope failboat!”
Where’s Jim? Crying in his beer?
I’m waiting for Dave to respond to Titus. The provision removed could have provided an incentive for doctors to talk patients out of life extending care and line their own pockets at the same time. Any group of doctors involved in such “counseling” would, indeed, be a death panel. If you want to engage in semiotics, let me go get Goldstein at PW.
Well, while we’re waiting, let me point out the obvious — the go-to guy for end-of-life planning is not a MD but an attorney. An advance medical directive, along with estate and insurance planning etc., is just part of the puzzle. Except in the rare cases where a seasoned citizen has been diagnosed with a terminal illness, I’m not exactly sure why one would need the input of a MD to create a living will.
What they removed was a financial incentive to get every senior an end-of-life plan. The history of medicare is that “if you pay for it, they will consume it.”
No, there was no incentive. Even with the provision, talking a senior citizen through advance directives and living wills is not a money-maker, at best it’s a break-even proposition for the doctor. She’d make more money doing procedures. Insurance companies pay for routine office visits, but I don’t get calls from my doctor asking me to come in so that they’ll have something to bill.
Which is why Isakson (R-GA) originally wanted the sessions to be mandatory: if you didn’t talk to someone about advance directives you’d lose Medicare coverage.
Also note that the provision to reimburse for these sessions was approved by unanimous vote of its committee: there were no dissenters from either party. It was only when Palin mischaracterized it that it turned into a political hot potato and was dropped. The fact that one crazy Facebook posting can thwart a sensible, bipartisan provision this way leaves one disappointed in the U.S. Congress, media and voters.
Death panels per se would be the unintended consequence, and those are rarely spelled-out in law.
Again, and more emphatically, no. The only reason for these sessions is to get the patient’s wishes into the record in a legally binding form, to make it more likely that when things get dicey, it will be the patient’s wishes — and not the spouse’s, or doctor’s, or hospital administrator’s — that are followed. An advance directive or living will is the precise opposite of a “death panel” — it restores the decision making power to the patient, rather than leaving a vacuum that may have to be filled by others.
If Sarah Palin is so stupid, and Barack Obama so brilliant, how did she win the argument?
I do think that, in making the “death panel” remark, Palin has exhibited a sort of dark genius. There’s an old joke about the difference between a used car salesman and a computer salesman being that the computer salesman doesn’t know when he’s lying. Palin is remarkably unconstrained by conventional notions of intellectual honesty, and unusually in tune with what her audience wants to hear and believe. Those are qualities that Joseph McCarthy possessed as well. In both cases the thing that troubles me most is the willingness of others of their party to give them a pass. Eisenhower knew that McCarthy was a fraud, but was afraid to say so publicly. Newt Gingrich is on the record pushing for advance directives and living wills as of a few months ago, but now he’s on the death panel bandwagon. Senators who should know better, like Orrin Hatch and Charles Grassley, won’t or can’t distance themselves from the “death panel” nonsense.
Where’s Jim? Crying in his beer?
No, having a pleasant weekend by the ocean with my family. I’m disappointed in the health care setbacks, and what they say about the ability of the U.S. political system to deal with serious policy issues, but I think in the end there will be a health reform bill that will provide next-to-universal coverage. That alone would make Obama the most successful domestic policy president since LBJ.
I do think that, in making the “death panel” remark, Palin has exhibited a sort of dark genius….Palin is remarkably unconstrained by conventional notions of intellectual honesty, and unusually in tune with what her audience wants to hear and believe.
This is darkly hypocritical, coming from an Obama acolyte.
We need, “Pot, kettle on line 2.”
I’m waiting for Dave to respond to Titus.
Jim’s response is adequate. I’ll also point out that even the AARP — yes, the AARP — called bullshit on the Death Panel characterization. But don’t take my word on it, read about it here:
http://www.aarp.org/aarp/presscenter/pressrelease/articles/mccaughey_statement.html
Which is why Isakson (R-GA) originally wanted the sessions to be mandatory: if you didn’t talk to someone about advance directives you’d lose Medicare coverage.
Yes, the number-crunchers want to bound the financial risk. As more of the expenditures fall on the single-payer over the next couple of decades, the bill-payers want to bound their liability instead of having it being open-ended. You’re just arguing my point. 🙂 For my part, I don’t think there was anything sinister in it, just good intentions (q.v. where good intentions lead, however…)
Regardless, the point is moot now. Not just for this, but for a vast government-run health care system right now: the winds have changed, and while stiff-necked Gen-X Obama may not have realized it, the remnant Boomers (who understand that compromise is fundamental to governance) have. They may suffer at home if they pass a monster, but they won’t suffer if they don’t — Obama will. Congressional Dems know that it is still they who rule the roost, and Obama was just a nobody as early as the Wisconsin primary. Dems bury their dead, and they’ll have no trouble burying him if necessary.
More good news: looks like Obama is caving on the “public option.” 🙂
@Titus: Michelle Malkin doesn’t believe it.
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/17/white-house-public-option-ploy-a-trial-balloon-not-a-white-flag/
Too obvious of a trojan horse to not be a trojan horse? Yeah, probably…
The AARP is one of the most socialistic groups around. They take old people’s money and spend it on ultras liberal Democrats who would like nothing more than to shuffle the old folks off until they’re needed to vote. Look who runs the AARP and their associations.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Obamacare-could-kill-AARP-8036046-51988312.html
“Meanwhile, Gen-X Obama is clearly out to “spread the wealth around” by directing more of the public largess to the younger folk. ”
Obama is a baby-boomer. He was born at least 4 years before the Gen-Xer/Baby Boomer divide.
Even with the provision, talking a senior citizen through advance directives and living wills is not a money-maker, at best it’s a break-even proposition for the doctor.
[…]
Which is why Isakson (R-GA) originally wanted the sessions to be mandatory: if you didn’t talk to someone about advance directives you’d lose Medicare coverage.
In economics, getting penalized for not doing an action is an incentive to do the action. Also, would a doctor be required to present said information or could a cheaper substitute do? After all, most of a living will would probably be generic information. I imagine businesses that specialize in presenting such information could form, freeing the doctor’s time for a fixed fee per patient.
Obama is a baby-boomer. He was born at least 4 years before the Gen-Xer/Baby Boomer divide.
By Strauss and Howe, whom I consider definitive in this regard for their work in Generational Dynamics, 1961 puts him at the earliest Gen-Xer. In action and attitude, he’s pure Xer. He stands in stark contrast to our two boomer presidents, GWB and Clinton.
After all, most of a living will would probably be generic information. I imagine businesses that specialize in presenting such information could form, freeing the doctor’s time for a fixed fee per patient.
You can prepare a living will on your own or with discount legal services. Why would you need to bring your conflict-of-interest doctor into it? So that he can help draw the line near the capitation of his fees from Medicare? “Yes, I’ll keep you alive until the public money runs out, thank you for coming in for your obligatory meeting…just see the nurse on your way out and don’t call it a death panel!”
You can prepare a living will on your own or with discount legal services. Why would you need to bring your conflict-of-interest doctor into it?
Indeed. The whole point of the living will is for the patient to determine who should direct their care, when they are no longer able to tell the doctor what to do. Perhaps a person prefers the doctor’s advice, but if that’s the case, a living will is hardly necessary. It is only necessary, in the case of a doctor deciding events, if the patient does not trust family to make the right choices. If you don’t trust your family, a lawyer should be consulted.