Rossputin.com: Rational Thinking About Our World

Happy Leap Day, everyone.

For today's reading, I offer you this interesting (I think) interview/article I wrote for Human Events describing the slow but sure movement of people I consider to be the heart of the Republican "base" toward supporting John McCain.

see "Can You Support McCain?", Ross Kaminsky, Human Events, 2/29/08
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25236

Last week, I saw Dick Morris on Bill O'Reilly's show "The Factor" exhorting Texas Republicans to vote for Obama the in Democratic primary on March 4th (which is permissible in Texas).

Morris is a smart guy but in this case, his deep personal hatred for Hillary Clinton is clouding his judgment.

If Republicans were to participate in the Democrat primary rather than their own, they should without doubt be supporting Hillary. I say this as someone with nothing but disdain for her, and as someone who is roughly ambivalent between the concepts of her as president and of Obama as president.

First, while it's unlikely that Hillary can keep Obama from the nomination at this point, she appears to be substantially more beatable in the general election than Obama would be. (Of course, it's very early and things could change.)

Second, and more importantly, Republicans should do everything we can to keep Hillary in the race, wearing down Obama's energy, reputation, and especially money. The last thing we need is Obama's huge money-raising ability focused on building a largest-ever campaign war chest for the general election, especially since McCain's fund-raising will probably be weaker than the average contestant.

I don't know that I'd go as far as Morris, as a general practice, of encouraging voters to participate in the primary of the other party, but if you want to go down that road, the worst thing a Republican could do at this point would be to vote for Barack Obama.

Buckley truly did change the world...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/27/business/media/27cnd-buckley.html?

Thanks to Christopher for sending this along...

Here's another of an increasing number of articles being released which question (or simply disprove) most of the "scientific" arguments around global warming alarmism, and which point to either decreasing warming or actual cooling.

In particular, since the alarmists always scream about sea ice levels, it's interesting to see the massive increase in Arctic ice this year. Of course, the mainstream media never tells you that Antarctica's ice pack and ice shelves, which hold the vast majority of all the world's ice, have been thickening for many years.

See "Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age", Lorne Gunter, National Post (Canada), 2/25/08
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=332289

Wisdom seems frequently to come from unexpected corners. The following article, by Julian Kenny writing for the Trinidad and Tobago Express, offers refreshing realism about the IPCC and global warming hysteria.

see "Global warming mists", Julian Kenny, 2/26/08
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_opinion?id=161284135

And here is my letter to the editor in response to Mr. Kenny's article:

I would like to offer my thanks and congratulations to Julian Kenny for using reason and experience as a scientist to question the current dangerous fad of global warming alarmism. Mr. Kenny exposes flaws in the science and the politics of the UN global warming cult which are so deep that it's shocking anyone believes the IPCC report. The next logical step in Mr. Kenny's analysis would be to expose the economy-destroying costs of the alarmists' policy proposals, some of which are impractical and the rest of which are impossible. Al Gore and his ilk are not "friends of the earth"; they are enemies of freedom and supporters of government control of everything under the sun. They are using a gullible public to implement plans designed to benefit the unions and anti-free trade groups which fund them. Indeed, global warming alarmism poses the single biggest threat to the world's economy, something which people who live in an export-based economy like Trinidad and Tobago's should be especially concerned about and especially determined to fight against.

While it's not a secret that I, as a non-social-conservative, am not interested in having a President Huckabee, I nevertheless could not help being impressed by Governor Huckabee in a speech he gave to the Leadership Program of the Rockies' annual retreat at the beautiful Broadmoor Hotel in Colorado Springs on Friday.

Huckabee was signed up by LPR before he made such traction in the campaign. Since LPR is a non-partisan organization (though its focus on liberty and free markets tends to make it more appealing for Republicans and libertarians than to Democrats) Huckabee did not give a campaign speech.

Instead, he spoke about history and principles, with just vague reference to specific political positions.

Speaking of what's happening in our nation, Huckabee made repeated references to our Founders, the constitution, and the Declaration of Independence. He criticized the expansion of the scope and cost of government with clarity and passion. Although I disagree with him that the "Fair Tax" is the best solution to our tax system mess, he made an impassioned case for overhauling or eliminating the income tax, and the IRS along with it.

He mentioned his support for a "Human Life Amendment" to the Constitution, which I don't support and which I find inconsistent with someone who (properly) criticizes government intrusiveness.

But the highlight of Huckabee's speech was when he described a trip to Israel during which he took his daughter to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem. While taking his daughter, whom he said was 10 years old at the time, Governor Huckabee was concerned that the images might be overwhelming for her, or that she was too young to grasp significance from the memorial. At the end, there was a visitors book to sign which had space for comments. After writing her name and address, Huckabee's daughter wrote in the comment section "Why didn't somebody do something?"

Huckabee's point was clear: If we elect someone who doesn't recognize the threat to civilization posed by Islamic terrorism, a future 10-year old girl may ask the same question about the formerly great United States of America, as well as Western Europe.

He made the point as compellingly as I've heard anyone make it.

Although I've expressed some extreme opposition to Huckabee on these pages, his words on Friday gave me a much greater respect and appreciation for him. Still not enough to want him as our President, but enough to show me that the man has read and thought about more than just the Bible. Still, although this speech showed him to have more breadth than I thought, I continue to believe that his depth is too narrowly focused in religious issues.

I love this story...

see "GM Exec Stands by Calling Global Warming a 'Crock'" (Reuters, 2/22/08)
http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN2237297620080222

I recently met with Paul Chesser, formerly of North Carolina's John Locke Foundation, who is tracking down the influence of an extreme environmentalist organization on "climate policy" in many states.

Here's an important article about the group's effects in Colorado:

http://www.facethestate.com/articles/critic-questions-backers-ritter-environmental-policy-cabinet

Here's one of those moments that makes life memorable (for me)...my daughter laughing at a scene in a Curious George movie:

You can download it or play it in your own video player rather than YouTube with this link:
http://www.rossputin.com/blog/media/LiliLaughing.wmv

You can send the YouTube link to people:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0LYuYD4R-w

re "Senate race a different story from four years ago" (Boulder Daily Camera, 2/17/08)
http://dailycamera.com/news/2008/feb/17/senate-race-a-different-story-from-four-years-to/

To the Editor:

While there’s no doubt that 2008 will be a difficult year for Republicans, Bob Schaffer has a big factor in his favor: He’s the better and smarter candidate, and the more you know him the more you like him. The same can’t be said for Udall, who isn’t a bad guy but who doesn’t impress you more over time.

Udall’s legislative career is largely environmental and the rest of his record is indeed that of a “Boulder liberal”. His public statements give no reason for anyone’s view of him to change. It’s clear that should Udall win election, he would simply continue to be an environmentalist Boulder liberal, just in a different office.

Schaffer, on the other hand, has a different challenge. He has been painted by liberals (Boulder and otherwise) and by the mainstream media as a conservative extremist. As someone who has spoken with Schaffer many times, it is clear that he considers his (and others’) religious views to be personal, generally not the province of government, and certainly not its (or his) primary focus. He may vote with social conservatives on occasion, but he won’t be leading them.

Schaffer is far more interested in sound economic and foreign policy, and far more capable of understanding and delivering them than Mark Udall. Those who compare Schaffer to religious zealots like Mike Huckabee simply don’t know Bob Schaffer. Unlike Huckabee, Schaffer has a deep understanding of our constitution and what really drives free-market economies. If he is able to reach enough voters to overcome his unfair portrayal by the media, Schaffer should have strong appeal to independents and to people (like me) who support good government but are not social conservatives.

Schaffer’s biggest electoral problem is that many voters don’t have the true picture of him. Udall’s problem is that we do.

Today I offer you my article at HumanEvents.com discussing Hillary Clinton's economic plan (and by implication Obama's plan):

see "Hillary's Anti-American Economic Plans"
Ross Kaminsky, HumanEvents.com, 2/21/08
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25117

Last Tuesday, the Senate voted on a provision to allow wiretapping of suspected terrorists outside the United States. In an excellent article on HumanEvents.com, Andrew C. McCarthy explains the legislation in detail and how our three current leading candidates for president dealt with what McCarthy calls "the most important vote on national security in years."

It is this type of issue which is why there's still a small chance I can be convinced to vote for John McCain.

You can read the whole article here:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25017

And here is a clip of just the part of the article which talks about what those three Senators did:

By a quirk of fate, this week’s action in the Senate happened to occur on the same day as the so-called “Potomac Primary” -- the presidential nomination contests in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia. Which is to say: right in the shadow of Capitol Hill. The geographical demands of campaigning would be no excuse: Our three principal contenders for the Oval Office, Republican John McCain and Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, all happen to be United States Senators and all happened, on Tuesday, to have business right in the neighborhood. There was no reason they couldn’t do their day jobs.

Senators McCain and Obama did theirs, and in starkly different ways. For McCain, it was an opportunity to show national security conservatives that his preening on coercive interrogation methods does not mean he fails to grasp the primacy of intelligence collection in our current threat environment. He strongly supported the bill.

By contrast, Senator Obama opposed the provision across the board, backing each (unsuccessful) amendment to weaken or scrap it. Exhibiting a Carteresque insouciance about national-security, he would not only vest our enemies with privacy protection while exposing our citizens to heightened peril; he would deny protection to the very telecoms whose cooperation he would sorely need if elected president.

Understand how limited is the immunity we are talking about here: the telecoms would be protected from suit only if they either did not help the government’s warrantless surveillance program at all or helped it only in good faith reliance written assurance from the government of its legality. Denying immunity would not just be counterproductive -- creating disincentives for cooperation from the industry whose expertise provides us with a technology edge over the people trying to kill us. It would be grossly unfair and eventually prompt the industry to question all government directives -- even court orders -- for fear that compliance would lead to ruinous litigation costs. In essence, Obama was laying the groundwork for a catastrophic breakdown in intelligence and law-enforcement that would wound his own presidency.

You have to hand it to Obama, though. Dangerous as his convictions are, he was willing to be accountable for them. The same cannot be said for the junior senator from New York, who proved herself a profile in no courage.

Less than a month ago, at their slugfest of a debate in South Carolina, Senator Clinton pointedly rebuked her rival, snarking, “Senator Obama, it’s hard to have a straight up debate with you because you never take responsibility for any vote.” Homing in on Obama’s record as a state lawmaker in Illinois, Clinton singed him for failing to stand up and be counted on core Democrat issues, such as abortion rights. “On issue after issue,” she inveighed, “you voted ‘present’” -- refusing to take an accountable position.

Well, at least he was present. On Tuesday, for the most important national-security vote of her eight-year senate career, Clinton was a no-show. With the eyes of the country watching to see whether she would opt to continue pandering to the hard Left or protect the lives of the American voters at whose presidency she is clawing, Hillary made a calculated decision to sit it out.

re "Hillary Agonistes"
Wall Street Journal, 2/15/08
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120303455150570087.html

To the Editor:

Hillary Clinton’s “grotesque”-ness does not come from her desire to win. She is grotesque for other reasons. One is her reputation for being mean and conniving (such as with TravelGate, FileGate, etc). But more important is the apparent reason for her desire to win. Namely, to reach a position from which she can attempt to micromanage the most important aspects of Americans’ lives.

Hillary is the ultimate representative of the Nanny State. And for those citizens who aren’t sure whether Nannyism is so bad, remember that Hillary’s vision can only take hold through the decimation of liberty, both personal and economic, and through attacking our free enterprise system (i.e. the source of your job.)

Yes, Hillary’s extreme aggressiveness to win might seem unwomanly to some, but that’s irrelevant. What is truly repellent about her is her desire to be Big Nanny, offering “shared prosperity” in only a slightly prettier way than did Mao or Lenin. Hillary Clinton is a pants-suit version of what Orwell tried to warn us about, and that is why she’s “grotesque”.

It's a day off from trading and blogging for me, in honor of our presidents, but especially Lincoln and Washington, each of whom had his own day when I was young, but who were relegated to sharing a day with other (lesser) men. (Lincoln's birthday was not a Federal holiday, just a holiday in certain states, but at least mentioned pretty much everywhere in America, unlike today.)

Wikipedia says that Presidents' Day grew due to a "push from advertisers" in the late 1980s and that it's basically a marketing gimmick. Still I can't help but wonder if the advent of Martin Luther King Day, celebrated just a month earlier, led to the lessening of respect for our two arguably greatest presidents.

When your bio-fuel-muddled friends try to sell you on the benefits of ethanol, remind them of what you learn in this article:

see "Greenhouse Affect", WSJ, 2/13/08
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB120286874755264143.html

I offer you my article, originally published yesterday, at HumanEvents.com about the Clinton campaign's racism:

Racism from the Democrats Again
Ross Kaminsky, HumanEvents.com, 2/15/08
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25019

re "McCain and the Talk-Show Hosts"
By Mark Helprin, Wall Street Journal, 2/12/08
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120277844588960675.html?

To the editor:

Mark Helprin’s beautifully written criticism of conservative talk-show hosts reminds us of why he is one of the world’s great authors. But even the brilliant can miss an important point, and Mr. Helprin has. The opposition to John McCain does not revolve around his being unorthodox, but rather that so much of his unorthodoxy is distinctly against the vast majority of conservative voters’, politicians’, and, yes, talk-show hosts’ views. Indeed, although McCain trumpets his “82% positive” conservative rating, that makes him the lowest of all the Republican candidates who were rated by the ACU.

Mr. Helprin correctly offers some of the same criticisms of Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee that we have heard from all corners this election season but implies that similar criticism of John McCain is simply demonization. Why does Mr. Helprin inconsistently suggest that it is permissible to note Mike Huckabee’s frequently populist positions but wrong to disapprove of John McCain’s tentative support of conservative economic policy, his distinctly Democratic immigration and energy plans, and especially his responsibility for McCain-Feingold, the most serious attack on the First Amendment since the Alien and Sedition Acts?

Mark Helprin’s critique of talk-show hosts' motives may have substance, but that does not mean criticism of John McCain’s record is any less valid.

Steve Moore, one of this country's best thinkers on political economy, offers this interesting (video) discussion of Barack Obama's economic policies:

http://online.wsj.com/public/page/8_0004.html?bcpid=86195573&bclid=212338097&bctid=1414665553

I found it fascinating to get these two articles within a short time of each other:

First, from Stratfor, an article called "The International Implications of a McCain Presidency", which says, in part:

While calling any election months ahead is hardly an exact science, at this point, it appears that McCain is the candidate to beat. This is not a Stratfor endorsement for McCain or a statement of opposition to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama (so please do not flood us with hate mail); this is an analysis of the proclivities of the U.S. electorate, the quirks of the U.S. electoral system and its impact abroad.

To be perfectly blunt, the Clinton and Obama campaigns both suffer from eminently exploitable flaws. Clinton, while by far the most intelligent candidate in the field, is not well-liked — even among the left. Obama, despite being the most inspirational candidate, sports the middle name “Hussein.” And the much-discussed Clinton-Obama (or Obama-Clinton, if you prefer) ticket simply would marry these problems.

But even if the Clinton and Obama campaigns were not facing such obstacles, McCain would still be the candidate to beat for one reason: The Democrats are locked into a Clinton-Obama death match for the loyalty of the left, while McCain — who has secured the political right — can begin courting the center and run for the presidency itself (rather than for the nomination).

And then this, a few days later, from Salena Zito of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

Obama is the odds-on betting favorite
Posted February 11, 2008 8 :19 PM

According to sports gambling and handicapping expert Steve Budin of Sportsinfo.com, Barack Obama has surpassed Hillary Clinton to become the odds-on betting favorite -- at 4-5 -- to win the presidential election. Sportsinfo.com is the world’s largest online sports pay-per-view analysis conglomerate.

Clinton is now listed at 3-2, along with GOP front-runner John McCain.

Mike Huckabee is listed at 25-1 in the race for the White House, followed by Ron Paul at 100-1. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has repeatedly said he has no plans to enter the race, is listed at 5-1.

Here is the current betting odds for each of the 2008 presidential candidates, according to Steve Budin of Sportsinfo.com:
Name Party Odds
Barack Obama D 4-5
Hillary Clinton D 3-2
John McCain R 3-2
Michael Bloomberg R 5-1
Mike Huckabee R 25-1
Ron Paul R 100-1

In other words, an analysis firm which is certainly no slouch (or group of slouches) has the opposite opinion from the general (or at least the betting) public on who is the favorite to win the race. It's interesting that the estimation of Hillary's chances have fallen so far; she was the betting favorite not so long ago.

The betting sites (not just the one quoted) clearly say that people think Barack Obama is our next president. On the other hand, they also once gave Ron Paul a nearly-10% chance and Mike Huckabee an over-20% chance...and the Patriots were 82% to win the Super Bowl.

I don't agree with Stratfor, even though I don't think betting sites are anything like flawless predictors (especially lately), but I find their prediction interesting, especially because it's so different from the current "common wisdom".

That said, things have changed with such rapidity in this election season that it would be just silly to give any particular outcome too low (or too high) a probability.

Although Tuesday's "Potomac Primaries" aren't the biggest contests this primary season, the resounding wins by John McCain in DC and Maryland, and his 10-point victory in Virginia, a state which Mike Huckabee had hoped to make competitive, were reminiscent of a car with a good head of steam running into a wall.

The losses emphasize something that Huckabee supporters continue to try to deny: Huckabee is really only popular with evangelical Christians, of whom there are not enough to win an election. Other modest support comes from people who consider John McCain not conservative enough, but that support has to fade as people really look at Huckabee who has not governed particularly conservatively outside of social issues. Although he's talking a good game now, I see Huckabee as a "squish" who would like to impose a Christian version of Sharia on the nation.

While I still haven't been able to convince myself to support John McCain despite some good arguments by conservatives, I'd take McCain over Huckabee in a heartbeat. It's about time that more of the nation realizes that Huckabee does not represent the greatness of America any more than Hillary Clinton does.

He has the best handle on the media of any candidate, not surprising for a preacher who has been a radio and television personality. He gives nearly flawless interviews, which include a great job of avoiding answering many questions. The one place where he tries to be particularly conservative outside of social issues is by supporting the "Fair Tax", to replace the income tax with a national sales tax and eliminate the IRS. The problem is, based on my research, the "Fair Tax" tax rate would have to be much higher than its proponents claim in order to be revenue neutral. It also would turn almost everybody into collection agents for the government. It would almost certainly not eliminate the IRS because someone would still have to administer the tax collection. And most frighteningly it would leave room for Congress to re-instate an income tax and put us in a position like people in Western Europe, most of whom pay high income tax rates as well as national sales tax rates in the high-teens or even twenties.

In any case, I hope that Tuesday's results in the fairly mainstream states of Maryland and Virginia show Huckabee's success so for as some combination of a fluke (due to the GOP not having any good candidate left), of excess influence of the religious right in GOP primaries, especially in Iowa, and of a temporary brain cramp by voters seduced by Huckabee's smooth talk...much as voters on the left are being seduced by Barack Obama.

...at the apparent decline and fall of the house of Clinton.

Within the past few months, Hillary Clinton traded at a 50% probability of being our next president on internet betting site intrade.com.

As I write this, she's trading around 18%.

I have to say that even seeing her picture makes me shudder, in part because I know that she stands for everything that hasn't made American great and in part because she somehow reminds me of a short-haired Cruella DeVille:

I believe that Obama's policy positions are probably worse than Hillary's in most areas, but she is so remarkably repellent that it amazes me to see even naive single women vote for her. While all politicians, especially at that level, have a thirst for power, her desire to give us Hillary-world, because she just knows better, causes her to be shrill, insincere, and utterly unappealing to anyone who is actually paying attention.

I never liked Bill Clinton, but he's turned into a particularly large negative in this campaign. His remarks in South Carolina were probably the tipping point in moving black voters from supporting the wife of "the first black president" to supporting the actual black candidate. If Hillary goes down in flames, something which appears more possible now than ever before, people will look back on it for a long time wondering if Bill was the arsonist.

I am not predicting that Hillary will fail, as the Clinton's are masters of politics, and of dirty tricks at a level that Obama has never experienced. But with Obama's current momentum and with the Democrats' method of splitting delegates rather than winner-takes-all within a state, Hillary is going to need to do particularly well in Texas and Ohio, and then in Pennsylvania. It's not out of the question that we'll see Hillary concede in early April, but again I caution that the Clinton's are as power-mad a family as we have seen since the Kennedys, and they probably won't give up until it becomes clear that even dirty tricks or legal shenanigans won't work. (For example, they'll probably try to force the Democratic Party to seat delegates from Florida and Michigan while recognizing the results of those votes which were expressly un-sanctioned by the party because they moved their primary dates up too early.)

I actually think Obama would be a worse president than Hillary, but not by a lot. And at least, if a Democrat does win, he's prettier than she is and he doesn't have that fake shriek of a laugh which makes me worry that my scotch glass is going to shatter.

If the House of Clinton falls in the next two months, all I'll say is "good riddance" to your bald-faced ambition to enforce a Nanny State on us. Please get divorced, get on with your lives, and, as best your egos will allow, shut your mouths.

One thing I will predict: If Hillary loses, she'll say that the country wasn't ready for a woman. If Obama loses, he'll say the country wasn't ready for a black man. They'll both be wrong, but they'll be consistent with the type of identity politics which has typified the Democratic Party for a generation.

As we get further into election season, the biggest domestic issue will almost certainly be health care, even amidst a housing crisis and slowing economic growth (or even a possible recession.)

Of the three people who today seem to have the highest chances of becoming president, there is a fairly clear range of policy proposals; even the two Democrats have enough difference between their positions to be worth mentioning, something you might not say about their position on income taxes, for example.

John McCain's position on health care is a fairly standard Republican line, and therefore generally a good free-market position, emphasizing that our problem is too much government interference, not too little, and that there is too much of a barrier between those who pay for health care and those who receive it.

Hillary's plan is nothing short of socialized medicine for a large number of Americans, including allowing people to choose between their current coverage (if they have any), or becoming part of the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program ("FEHPB") which Hillary says with a straight face can be done "without any new Bureaucracy", or choosing a new public plan like Medicare. It would be amusing if it weren't so frightening that she suggests her plan will reduce costs. Has she never studied the history of Medicare, or any other government entitlement program?

Obama's position is also socialized medicine, but is different enough from Hillary's to be worth describing separately. He also calls for "universal coverage" and also discusses a plan "similar to" that of the FEHBP.

Hillary's plan and Obama's plan share some important leftist similarities. Here are just to, to give you a flavor:

Hillary: "Employers will help finance the system"
Obama: "Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan."

Hillary: "Insurance companies will end discrimination based on pre-existing conditions or expectations of illness and ensure high value for every premium dollar; while drug companies will offer fair prices and accurate information."
Obama: "No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions." and "Barack Obama will prevent companies from abusing their monopoly power through unjustified price increases. His plan will force insurers to pay out a reasonable share of their premiums for patient care instead of keeping exorbitant amounts for profits and administration."

However, although it's not entirely clear from Obama's web page, Obama (sensibly) suggests that even "universal" coverage need not cover everybody. This key point came up in the last Democratic debate and was the subject of a recent Wall Street Journal editorial which I offer below for your edification. This is a subject which Americans must become more familiar with, and which I'll try to help provide facts about over the coming months including such things as the myth of 47 million uninsured Americans.

Here's the WSJ article:
The Wages of HillaryCare
Wall Street Journal, 2/4/08
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120234937353949449.html

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama agree on most policy issues, but that makes their rare differences all the more revealing. To wit, their running scrap over Mrs. Clinton's "individual mandate" for health care, which Mr. Obama has now had the nerve to expose for its inevitable government coercion.

Mrs. Clinton's proposal requires everyone to buy health insurance, along with more insurance regulation, a government insurance option for everyone and tax hikes. Mr. Obama likes all that but his mandate would only apply to children. He argues that the reason many people aren't insured is because it's too expensive, not because they don't want it. Mrs. Clinton counters that coverage can't be "universal" without a mandate.
[Barack Obama]

But then Mr. Obama had the impudence to defend his views. His campaign distributed a mailer in key primary states that claimed the Clinton plan "forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it." It also featured an image of an anxious couple at a kitchen table. The Clinton apparat went apoplectic, claiming the flyer evokes the famous "Harry and Louise" commercials. A common article of liberal faith is that this "smear campaign" doomed HillaryCare in 1994 -- as opposed to, say, its huge cost and complexities. But never mind.

Yet if Mrs. Clinton's plan is better because it has a mandate, how does it work in the real world, where some people still won't be able to afford insurance, or would decline to acquire it? At a recent debate, the Illinois Senator drove the point home, asking Mrs. Clinton, "You can mandate it but there will still be people who can't afford it. And if they can't afford it, what are you going to fine them? Are you going to garnish their wages?" And in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, Mrs. Clinton conceded that "we will have an enforcement mechanism" that might include "you know, going after people's wages."
[Hillary Clinton]

Well, well. In other words, HillaryCare II isn't all about "choice," but would require financial penalties for people to pay attention, including garnishing wages. To put it more accurately, the individual mandate is really a government mandate that requires brute force plus huge subsidies to get anywhere near its goal of universal coverage.

Mitt Romney's mandate program in Massachusetts is already expected to reach $1.35 billion in annual costs by 2011, up from $158 million today. And that's with only half of the previously uninsured currently enrolled; no less than 20% didn't qualify for subsidies and were granted exemptions because the costs were too much of a hardship.

Most experts calculate that a national mandate with subsidies like Mrs. Clinton's would enroll about half to two-thirds of the uninsured, less for a voluntary plan and subsidies alone. But such guesswork is pointless without the basic enforcement assumptions, which Mrs. Clinton refuses to provide. She's more interested in wielding what she calls "a core Democratic principle" against Mr. Obama. "My opponent will not commit to universal health care," she said Saturday.

The logic of Mr. Obama's approach is that policy makers should target those who are priced out of coverage. The Census Bureau says 38% of the uninsured earned more than $50,000 in 2006, 19% above $75,000. They aren't a major public policy problem -- except that a big reason they lack coverage is because it is more expensive than it needs to be thanks to government market interference. And 29% earn under $25,000, which means they probably qualify for existing subsidy programs like Medicaid or Schip but haven't enrolled.

The news here is that all of this is being exposed now, and by a fellow Democrat. Many Americans are uncomfortable with the coercion of the mandate -- and not all of them are Republicans. The California health-care overhaul was recently done in by liberals concerned about its consequences for the working poor.

The political lesson that Mrs. Clinton learned in 1994 wasn't about compromise or market forces. It was that a government health-care takeover can only be achieved gradually and by stealth. Her individual mandate is an attempt to force everyone to buy into a highly regulated and price-controlled system where government redistributes income and dictates coverage. We assume the McCain campaign is paying attention.

In what I expect will be a regular topic of discussion on these pages and on many (or most) other non-Democrat web pages, I continue to struggle with the idea of John McCain as the GOP nominee. Along those lines, here is an e-mail exchange I had yesterday with a well-known syndicated columnist:

First, me:

I read your piece on McCain being a fiscal conservative, and at least on the spending side he is clearly that.

But I'm really struggling to forgive him (something I'd never do completely, but might be able to do to the point of not considering him irredeemable) about McCain-Feingold, the most destructive attack on the First Amendment since the Alien and Sedition Acts.

To me, being mad about (or even scared about) Obama or Clinton is like being mad at a (particularly unruly breed of) dog for shitting on the rug or tearing up a chair. They're just being dogs, and you know what dogs are capable of before you get one.

McCain, on the other hand, claims to be a conservative Republican, yet has led the charge on so many unconstitutional and non-conservative policies, that I think he's far closer to evil than the other two. He's not a dumb dog. He's a conservative who intentionally ignores the constitution because it makes him feel better to think he's "getting money out of politics" or "treating immigrants humanely" or "dealing with our global warming crisis".

At this point, I'm 75% to vote Libertarian, 25% to vote for McCain. I'll let him try to convince me, but I'm skeptical that he can.

If he picks Huckabee as running mate, I'll probably vote Democrat for the first time in my life.

Anyway, I think it's highly unlikely that a Republican will be our next president. I don't think McCain can motivate the GOP electorate enough to compensate for the substantial enthusiasm on the socialist side. It's going to be a very bad two years or four years (depending on whether the GOP takes back the Senate in 2010), and it will be particularly bad if one or more Supreme Court justices resign during that time. I would expect two of them will, simply to ensure that a Democrat gets to choose their replacements. That is the only good reason I can think of, other than the war (which is not a small reason), to vote for McCain.

Still, if the election were today, I would not vote for him.

I'm interested in your reaction to my thoughts.

Best,
Ross

And now, him:

it will be particularly bad if one or more Supreme Court justices resign during that time.

Remember: All the justices could stay there, because they feel hale and hearty, or al-Qaeda could blow up the Supreme Court Building, in which case all nine of them will be replaced b the next Prez.

I just love when pundits say, "The next prez will name three people to the Court." How do they know?

You raise fine objections to Mac. All I can say is that either dog will shit ALL OVER the place. One because he doesn't know better and at least is honest about it. The other because she is vicious, malicious, and has criminal intent.

I simply would advise you to keep your mind open, listen to the arguments, and weight the choices and trade-offs. That's not brilliant insight, but pretty practical, under the circumstances.

Best wishes,

********

Here's my letter to the Washington Times explaining why I don't contribute to the NRCC:

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080209/EDITORIAL/471863217&template=nextpage

Here's a great article from the February 5th edition of the Wall Street Journal, describing (as I already said in these pages) how the "stimulus plan"'s major effect will be to increase our deficit, and how that increase gives a powerful political weapon to the Democrats.

The 'Stimulus' Deficit
Wall Street Journal editorial, 2/5/08
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120217127801742577.html

Here's the text, in case you can't access the link above:

If you want to know the real cost of Washington's economic stimulus, look no further than yesterday's Fiscal 2009 White House budget. The federal deficit is taking a giant leap backward, thanks in substantial part to the $150 billion in "temporary" tax cuts.

That much was clear from yesterday's great deficit wail, a cry so loud the rest of President Bush's proposed $3.1 trillion budget was reduced to a footnote. The White House now expects the deficit to reach $410 billion in fiscal 2008 (which began on October 1), up from $163 billion last year, and Democrats made sure the "near-record" figure was their major talking point.
[The 'Stimulus' Deficit]

This is the latest in the Administration's history of turning "record surpluses into record deficits," declared Majority Leader Harry Reid, while Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad warned about "more deficit-financed tax cuts tilted to benefit the wealthiest."

Lost amid the faux political outrage is the direct role that these worthies are playing in creating this larger deficit, thanks to the bipartisan $150 billion "stimulus." This non-stimulating stimulus will largely take the form of tax rebates and credits that will do little to change economic incentives. Thus they will result in a nearly dollar-for-dollar revenue loss to the Treasury, expanding a deficit that was already going to climb to $219 billion thanks to slower economic growth and faster spending.

Let's hope Republicans appreciate the irony, because no doubt Democrats do. By signing on to a bigger deficit for the sake of election-year stimulus, Mr. Bush is making it easier for Democrats to wave the red ink as an excuse to justify repealing his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts next year.

Yet Mr. Bush's 2003 reductions on capital gains, dividend and marginal income-tax rates are precisely the kind of tax cuts that lift incentives to work and invest and thus recoup at least some of the revenue lost due to lower rates. Revenues climbed by some $785 billion over four years in the wake of those tax cuts. A 2006 study by the Bush Treasury also analyzed the revenue impact of different tax cuts, and found precisely this difference between marginal and non-marginal tax cuts. But apparently the Bush White House forgot.

The unsung budget story is that overall revenue growth remains relatively healthy. The White House budget office says fiscal 2007 revenue rose by 6%, and the main reason they're estimated to fall modestly this year is the "stimulus" tax rebates. Taxes as a percentage of GDP are now 18.5%, slightly higher than the 40-year modern historical average.

The other false target of Democratic outrage is defense spending, which Mr. Bush proposes to lift in fiscal 2009 to $585 billion. The left is decrying this as the most defense spending, in inflation-adjusted terms, since World War II. But using the more appropriate comparison of spending as a share of the economy, Mr. Bush's request would bring defense outlays to 4.5% of GDP next year, up from 4.2% this year.

That is on par with the 4.4% of GDP in President Clinton's first year in office, and remains well below the 6.2% of GDP in 1986 at the peak of the Reagan defense buildup. (See the nearby chart.) With a hot war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the terrorist threat hardly ebbing, the U.S. should be spending even more on defense. Democrats need to explain why they want record subsidies for gentleman farmers to take priority over national security.

As for spending, Mr. Bush makes at least one more belated stab at reining it in. His proposed budget would cut or pare 151 ineffective programs, with a total savings of $18 billion. It holds nondefense discretionary spending in fiscal 2009 to less than 1% growth. Mr. Bush proved last year that a President willing to use his veto pen can slow the growths of spending, but don't expect Congress to kill even a single onAe of those 151 programs.

The real nondefense spending driver continues to be entitlements, and Mr. Bush takes a Sisyphean swing at Medicare reforms that would reducing spending by $178 billion over five years. He'd also save $17.7 billion in Medicaid. Expect Democrats to charge that Mr. Bush is funding his war at the expense of health care for the elderly and poor, but the reality is that even with these reforms Medicare would continue to grow by 5% a year.

In recent years, Mr. Bush has taken important steps to recover from the spending profligacy of his first term. Even the Democratic Presidential candidates had dropped the deficit as a campaign theme. Now, however, they're back to deploring the deficit even as they're all applauding the stimulus that won't do much for the economy but is driving the higher deficit. The price of Mr. Bush's final budget may well be paid in far higher taxes next year.

In Colorado’s 5th Congressional District, we’re going to see a near-repeat of the interesting (and disappointing) Republican primary of two years ago when Doug Lamborn won the race by lying and cheating, and with the endorsement of one of my favorite groups, the Club for Growth, whom I have excoriated repeatedly for making the worst decision in their existence.

Anyone who had worked with Lamborn knew that he was conservative, but that was the only good thing they (assuming they were conservatives) could say about him. Beyond that, he was known as one of the least hard-working members of the state legislature and as a petulant social conservative crusader who would oppose bills he should have supported if the sponsor had not gone along with him on some anti-abortion measure, for example. He is unfit to be a congressman and has proven since then that he is an embarrassment to the district, such as by leaving threatening voice mails for constituents who had written an unfavorable letter to the editor about him.

The best candidate for the job, the candidate who lost to Lamborn by fewer than 900 votes out of nearly 55,000 votes cast, is Jeff Crank, who is challenging Lamborn again in 2008. The other challenger in the race is Air Force Major General Bentley Rayburn who came in a fairly distant third in 2006. There were three other challengers in 2006 and it is safe to conclude that if any of them had not been in the race (including Rayburn), Jeff Crank would currently be the congressman for Colorado’s 5th Congressional District. Indeed, even after Lamborn’s time in office so far, Crank has more experience dealing with Congress, it’s committees, and the legislative process than Lamborn has.

I have met General Rayburn and have communicated with him by email more than once. As a son of two military parents, I have great respect for his accomplishments in his military career. But his actions in this campaign are a tremendous disappointment. His recent letter posted on his web page (note: the prior link is for an archived web page since I presume the page will change) shows all that is wrong with Rayburn’s campaign, and why voters in the 5th should leave him out of their calculations.

In his letter, General Rayburn says:
• he will petition on to the ballot instead of going through the assembly process
• “two of the (other) campaigns” have used negative tactics
• his effort is “about building our country, our state, and our party.”

Each of these represents Rayburn either lying or demonstrating that he doesn’t understand politics well enough to be a credible candidate.

Rayburn is not petitioning on because, as he claims, he wants to “run a different campaign.” No, it is because he knows that if he went through the assembly he stands a real chance of not getting enough delegates to be put on the ballot. On one hand, he could attempt to argue that as a political outsider, an assembly is somehow biased against him. On the other hand, it’s not clear that someone who is such an outsider (including not owning a home in the district) that he couldn’t get on the ballot through the assembly should even be running.

Rayburn’s claim that both of his competitors have used negative tactics is simply a lie. In reality, all of the negative tactics have come from Doug Lamborn and his henchmen, the Hotaling brothers who I believe violated campaign finance la