Some commentary on the Vinson decision

I don't have anything at the moment, but here are three good commentaries on the decision by Judge Vinson yesterday, striking down Obamacare in totality.

Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post:

Liberal pundits who have consulted liberal law professors about liberals' great achievement -- ObamaCare -- are pronouncing the ruling by Judge Roger Vinson to be much to do about nothing....It is, we are told, "curious," "odd," or "unconventional."

These are complaints, not legal arguments. And they suggest that the left was totally unprepared for the constitutional attack on their beloved handiwork.

Aaron Worthing at Patterico.com:

I will say that compared to the pervious Virginia case striking down Obamacare, this decision exhibits far better writing. Judge Hudson in Virginia seemed to constantly say, “well, the plaintiffs say this and the defendants reply with that” and never made it clear what, if any, of their reasoning he agreed with. By comparison Judge Vinson has written an opinion that sets out exactly what he thinks of the law and does so with some eloquence. While I do not appreciate what appears to have been pot-shots at Justice Kagan and President Obama, I think overall this is a far more sound and persuasive opinion.

Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy:

As I have often noted in the past, this decision is just another step in an ongoing legal battle. Ultimately, the issue of the individual mandate will be resolved by the courts of appeals and probably by the Supreme Court. Still, Judge Vinson’s ruling is a victory for opponents of the mandate. It’s also extremely well-written, and thereby provides a potential road map for appellate judges who might be inclined to rule the same way.

If you're interested at all, click on the links...

Socialist or not a socialist?

Thomas Frank in the Wall Street Journal today demonstrates, again, his fundamental disconnectedness from reality.

There was lots of bad news for Democrats in a poll released last week by Democracy Corps, the well-known liberal consultancy, but the factoid that captured my attention was an item buried deep in the report. After recording likely voters' views on whether President Barack Obama could be described as "too liberal" or "a big spender," the pollsters found that fully 55% of them believed the term "socialist" fit the president well.

An immediate objection: No, it doesn't.

An immediate counter-assertion: Yes, it does.

But don't take my word for it. Instead of arguing by assertion here, let's go to the dictionary and find a definition. Here's the OED:

A theory or system of social organization based on state or collective ownership and regulation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange for the common benefit of all members of society; advocacy or practice of such a system, esp. as a political movement. Now also: any of various systems of liberal social democracy which retain a commitment to social justice and social reform, or feature some degree of state intervention in the running of the economy.

Yeah, works for me. Does any of that fit President Obama well? Decide for yourself, but don't assert that "it doesn't" and expect me to just acquiesce. I think it fits him just fine.

If the president were actually a socialist in the Western European sense,

Well hold on right there, Mr. Frank. You're changing the terms of the discussion. Did the poll ask if the term "socialist in the Western European sense" fit the president well? No it did not. So you're engaged in changing the terms of the discussion in order to argue that the people calling the president a socialist are, what? Uneducated? Ill-bred? Stupid? Certainly, starting this way reeks of attempted marginalization. Based on my prior understanding of your work, Mr. Frank, this surprises me not even a little bit.

he would certainly have pushed for single-payer health care,

Well, he would have if he were a socialist and an idiot. There was no way that the US Congress was going to pass a single-payer plan last year, so he did the much smarter thing, and passed a plan that puts the US on a road in which a single-payer plan is inevitable, because the insurance companies are going to be essentially regulated out of existence. The fact is, he's in favor of single-payer, he's said so many times over the years, and the public option that he did push for is a trojan horse designed to lead to it. A smart and patient socialist is still a socialist.

he would surely have gotten tough with the banks during the financial crisis,

Instead of doing...what, exactly? Co-opting them, increasing regulation of them, publically threatening them? He's not a dictator, Mr. Frank. In order to "get tough with the banks" he needs to have laws and regulations to work with. They're going to vote, and apparently pass, just such laws this week, and write scores of thousands of pages of new regulations.

and he would undoubtedly have launched a massive program of public works instead of last year's halfhearted stimulus package.

Again, there's an enormous difference between "socialist" and "all-powerful socialist dictator." The idea that the President, if he were inclined, could just will into existence a "massive program of public works" without laws being passed, and funds being allocated, by the Congress is the kind of notion that arouses Tom Friedman, but it isn't reality. (And I'll just ignore, for now, the description of the "stimulus" bill as "halfhearted." "Ill-advised," "poorly-conceived," "pork-laden," yes. "Halfhearted?" What, do you think we'd be in better shape now if the government had spent more money that we don't have?)

So the fact that the things that the president has done are less extreme measures than might qualify as "true" or "full" "socialism" in your mind, Mr. Frank, says nothing whatsoever about his attitudes or opinions, and are worthless as arguments against the charge of "socialism." Politics is the art of the possible. If you want to claim that "socialist" doesn't fit the president well, it isn't enough to say, "he did x and y would be more socialist." You've got to be able to say that "he did x and y, which was also possible would be more socialist." You've done nothing of the kind here. Your defense is akin to saying that a man who broke a bank window at night, smashed a couple of cash registers, took the money from the cash drawers, and ran away, isn't a fit for the term "bank-robber" because he didn't bring dynamite to blow open the safe.

Instead he consistently chooses solutions that a more innocent age called "market-oriented," always while seeking to placate this industry or that.

Wait a minute - you mean a politician played politics?

Hmm... No, that doesn't seem to make your argument any more compelling.

Yesterday he even appointed a former hedge fund manager to run his Office of Management and Budget.

And that proves that he's not a socialist because...um...how, exactly? And if we're going to play the "he appointed" game, how about Van Jones? And what does the recess appointment of Donald Berwick say? Socialist or not a socialist?

Another thing to consider: The pollsters didn't define the word "socialist." Many Americans, in my experience, think it means someone who supports basic welfare-state provisions like unemployment insurance, Medicare and Social Security -- a standard by which socialism is immensely popular and most politicians fit the description.

In my experience, there are two kinds of Americans.

1. Those who don't think of unemployment insurance, Medicare and Social Security as "socialism."
2. Those who do think of unemployment insurance, Medicare and Social Security as "socialism," and strongly disapprove.

I suspect that the number in either group who would profess to be "socialists" or look favorably on "socialism" is, if not vanishingly small, then at least much smaller than you think it is.

Even so, the news must please the right. For almost two years now, their favorite entertainers and wise men have been trying to make "socialism" the political curse-word of the day, the mark of the ideological alien, and now here comes confirmation that their improbable crusade has partially succeeded.

Did you ever notice that, when you buy a new car, you start seeing a lot of them on the highway? Your perception of that car changes, and you become aware of it, and you notice it every time you see one, whereas before, it was just another car. I think, Mr. Frank, that your perception of the "socialist" accusation is heightened, because you are afraid that he really is one, and you know that you really are one, and you know that the American people don't approve, so you shun the label. I haven't seen any evidence of a "crusade" to label Obama a socialist.

The John Birch Society could never persuade the public that President Eisenhower was really a communist agent, but this time the trick has worked -- and even without the Soviets around to give the thing a modicum of plausibility.

If it's that implausible, then this should be a very easy question for you, but let me just ask this: in what ways has Barack Obama demonstrated that he is less of a "socialist" than the Senator from Vermont, avowed "socialist" Bernie Sanders?

Waiting...waiting...

Yes, you're right, there are no ways. If Bernie Sanders is a socialist, then so is Barack Obama (and at least half of the current Democratic congressional delegation.)


There's more, but what's the point? He goes on to say the same thing, over and over again, with the same evidence (none) over and over again. It's a waste of time.

But I read it, so you don't have to...

Looking back

While digging around for something else earlier, I ran across
this commentary from 10/16/2008. From my favorite non-widely read pundit...

1. Barack Obama is the next President of the United States*. I am, obviously, not happy about that. I think it has the potential to damage the country significantly, particularly as he will be unchecked by any legitimate opposition at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.


2. The reason that Obama will be the next President is because he gets up on the national stage and speaks and acts as if he's a moderate. This country is about to elect the most liberal administration ever, but it's still a center-right country. Obama's winning by running as a center-right guy.


3. He gets away with it because he is able to sit there, in front of God and the American people, and lie with impunity. He can lie with impunity about McCain's health care proposals, his campaign ads, abortion, taxes, Ayers, ACORN**; he can lie about whatever he wants or needs to, secure in the knowledge that the press won't call him on it, and if McCain does, the press will "tsk, tsk" McCain's "negativity."

Is there a single word there that looks, in retrospect, like it's wrong? I don't think so. I suppose it doesn't really warrant mention, because it was so bleeding blindingly obvious, but a lot of people missed it.

A bit of history on fossil fuel usage

An interesting piece from George Will:

in 1901, a new well named for an East Texas hillock, Spindletop, began gushing more per day than all other U.S. wells combined.

Since then, America has exhausted its hydrocarbon supplies. Repeatedly.

In 1914, the Bureau of Mines said that U.S. oil reserves would be exhausted by 1924. In 1939, the Interior Department said that the world had 13 years' worth of petroleum reserves. Then a global war was fought, and the postwar boom was fueled. In 1951 Interior reported that the world had . . . 13 years of reserves.

...

Today, there is a name for the political doctrine that rejoices in scarcity of everything except government. The name is environmentalism.

Read it all...

"We're Governed by Callous Children"

A very strong piece from Peggy Noonan today.

...our conversation turned to the last great recession, in the late mid- to late 1970s and early '80s. We talked about how, in terms of numbers, that recession was in some ways worse than the one we're experiencing now. Interest rates were over 20%, and inflation and unemployment hit double digits. America was in what might be called a functional depression, yet there was still a prevalent feeling of hope. Here's why. Everyone thought they could figure a way through. We knew we could find a path through the mess. In 1982 there were people saying, "If only we get rid of this guy Reagan, we can make it better!" Others said, "If we follow Reagan, he'll squeeze out inflation and lower taxes and we'll be America again, we'll be acting like Americans again." Everyone had a path through.

Now they don't. The most sophisticated Americans, experienced in how the country works on the ground, can't figure a way out...This is historic. This is something new in modern political history, and I'm not sure we're fully noticing it. Americans are starting to think the problems we are facing cannot be solved.

...

We are governed at all levels by America's luckiest children, sons and daughters of the abundance, and they call themselves optimists but they're not optimists—they're unimaginative. They don't have faith, they've just never been foreclosed on. They are stupid and they are callous, and they don't mind it when people become disheartened. They don't even notice.

Read it all, but don't expect to be cheerful at the end...

More "racist" criticism?

Noted racist Thomas Sowell¹ criticizes the current President of the United States in a sobering piece:

Nothing so epitomizes President Obama's own contempt for American values and traditions like trying to ram two bills through Congress in his first year-- each bill more than a thousand pages long-- too fast for either of them to be read, much less discussed. That he succeeded only the first time says that some people are starting to wake up. Whether enough people will wake up in time to keep America from being dismantled, piece by piece, is another question-- and the biggest question for this generation.

¹ - I've no reason to think that Dr. Sowell is actually a racist.



But the Democrats keep telling me that racism is why people are opposed to President Obama.

I must be confused.

Or, more likely, they are...

What does Obama want Obamacare to look like?

Ezra Klein thinks that the lack of program specificity from the White House is causing problems for Congressional Democrats, as "no one knows quite how to structure their strategy so long as the White House refuses to fully show its cards." Clearly, Peter Suderman has this exactly right:

what Obama really supports is the passage of a bill—any bill, just so long as it can more or less legitimately be called "health-care reform." Now, it's obviously impossible to know for certain what the White House's thinking is. But my guess is that what he supports isn't so much one version of the public plan or another, but instead, whatever flavor of the public plan is most likely to result in successful passage—and thus, political victory.

"Obama, like Reagan..."

Have we got a new meme from the Obama White House message shop?

Paul Begala:

It's awfully early yet, but this president might be shaping up to be a little like Ronald Reagan, where people actually didn't often agree with Ronald Reagan's ideas, but they loved the guy.

Marc Lamont Hill:

As a result, Obama, like Reagan, is becoming a wildly popular president with very unpopular policies.

I'm trying to remember which of Reagan's policies was "very unpopular" - tax cuts that actually stimulate the economy? Restoration of the military? Victory in the Cold War? Reagan was obviously "very unpopular" in the fever swamps of the left, but I don't seem to recall him ever ramming through a program that polled as badly as Obamacare. Or the "stimulus." Or anything as economically ignorant and harmful as "cash for clunkers."

And history would seem to show that this is a bad analogy. For example, Obama's main policy goal right now is obviously health care. According to Gallup, that currently has only 25% support, with more (33%) opposed and even more (39%) waiting to see more details. When Gallup reported that "continue to approve President Reagan's general performance in office considerably more than they do his handling of key...policy issues¹," his job approval was at 68%. But his major policy positions, contrary to the nonsense being peddled by Messrs. Hill and Begala, were mostly (certainly not all, but mostly) popular as well. Gallup went on to say that

...approval of his handling of specific problems ranges from a high of 62 percent, for his efforts to improve our national defense, to a low of 30 percent, for the way he is dealing with the situation in El Salvador. Between these extremes, the president gets favorable rating of 58 percent for handling economic conditions, 56 percent for dealing with inflation and 53 percent for his handling of regulations with the Soviet Union.

What were Reagan's big, important policy positions? Rebuilding the military (62 percent approval), taxes and economic growth (58 percent), stemming inflation (56 percent) and facing down the Soviets in the cold war (53 percent.) In other words, all of Reagan's campaign positions were popular with the American people. Reagan was able to get his policies through a Congress which was made up of a majority of the opposition party. Obama is struggling to get his policies through a Congress which is overwhelmingly controlled by his own party. To suggest that Obama's and Reagan's policies were somehow equally unpopular is to suggest utter nonsense.

Let me put is this way...

Q: How do you pass unpopular policies with an opposition Congress?
A: You don't.

Maybe Hill and Begala came up with this independently. Maybe one stole it from the other. Maybe this was suggested by someone in the White House message factory. But wherever it came from, it's a nonsensical argument, because it isn't actually based on facts.



¹ - The Washington Post (1974-Current file); Jun 4, 1981;
ProQuest Historical Newspapers The Washington Post (1877 - 1993)
pg. A12