But the “triggers” that are intended to create incentives for all parties to achieve a solution by Thanksgiving create a no-win scenario for Republicans in November. To wit:

• The Medicare cuts that would go into effect if the Joint Committee’s (“JC”) recommended cuts are not enacted are supposed to scare Democrats into accept the JC’s proposal.  Not so.  The cuts to Medicare don’t reduce benefits — they reduce reimbursements to doctors and hospitals.  So rather than require seniors to pay something for their health care and thereby make better decisions, the Medicare cuts would drive more health care providers away from serving Medicare patients, making health care less available for seniors.  No cost-reductions there – seniors will still get care, but they’ll have to drive farther and wait longer to get it.  That’s rationing by a thousand cuts.  So if Republicans fail to accept the JC proposal, they will give Democrats another talking point in their Mediscare campaign (Tea Party radicals, not Obamacare = health care rationing for seniors) without saving a dime in actual health care costs.
• Despite representing around 20% of the federal budget, defense will comprise 50 cents of every dollar in the “trigger” cuts that occur if the JC’s recommendations are not passed by Congress.   If ever there was a sign that the Democratic Party has abandoned national security as a political issue, this is it.  Prominent figures across the center-right, from Allen West to John Bolton to Joe Lieberman, have sounded the alarm against these cuts, which would not come with any fundamental restructuring of our vision of defense policy.  We’d still be in Iraq (and losing ground).  We’d still be in Afghanistan (but leaving too soon).  We’d still be in Libya (for some unknown reason).  And we’d still be defending Europe from a superpower that we helped vanquish two decades ago.  But we’d be doing all of these tasks, which no other military in the world could handle simultaneously, with less armor, less ammunition, fewer soldiers, and less high-tech weaponry.  Think we’ve got a peace dividend to cash?  Consider the following graph.

h/t Heritage Foundation

And then consider that Democrats have a once-in-a-decade opportunity to strike a $750 billion hole in defense and blame it on the Tea Party, merely by refusing to make further cuts in spending.  Is there anything easier for a Democrat than refusing to cut the national budget?

Why in the world, then, would Democrats ever be serious in trying to achieve a consensus for spending cuts in November?  The alternative to military and Medicare cuts are domestic programs, precisely the things they refused to cut all summer in the face of debt default.  The automatic cuts are great for them politically, and the Medicare cuts can be undone once Democrats regain control over the budgetary process (to cheers from the Left and seniors, who will come back “home” to the Democrats).  The defense cuts, however, will be permanent — they will enrage the Right, starve our military of resources, and all but demand a pullback from “overseas contingency operations” that Obama can now say he is forced to end due to budgetary concerns.

This deal is a blueprint for Democratic political revival over the next 15 months.  Do not throw the Democrats into that briar patch, Republicans.  Admiral Ackbar knows best.

You knew it was coming.

For as long as I can keep it up, I’m going to try to make at least one post a day that includes Five things: a Photo of mine, a Memory, a Shared idea from something I read or heard, a Thanks/appreciation, and something fresh and New.  These won’t necessarily be political things – in fact, most probably won’t be.  If you’re just here for the politics, then you may just want to hope that I come around quickly and start unleashing my inner conservative warrior with relish again soon.  Otherwise, enjoy my attempt at structured writing to kick me out of my doldrums.  Don’t be surprised if this is more intermittent than I am hoping, but I’ll do my best.  And now, the Five.

A Photo

Waterfalls are probably my favorite natural feature. This is the top of one of the finest waterfall canyons I've ever walked: Johnston Canyon, in Banff, Alberta.

A Memory

This picture was taken only two days after I was involved in a serious car accident while on vacation in the Canadian Rockies.  It resulted in the death of the two motorcyclists who hit our car but thankfully no serious injuries to my family.  It was shockingly sudden, both how the event destroyed our family holiday, and how we were back on vacation within 24 hours, with a new car, a revised itinerary, and a renewed (if distracted) focus on some of the most beautiful scenery I’ve witnessed.  While the accident affected all of us (my stepdad just signed the settlement with the insurance company this month, 2 years later), I’m pleased that we were strong enough to marshal on and enjoy the remainder of the vacation.  It’s a reminder that tragedy can strike at any time, and that the world in its wonder continues, with or without us.  It’s up to us to choose to rejoin it.

A Share

Michael Barone’s article on the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) guidance on campus justice reminds us how far from “liberal” thought our liberal overlords have taken us.  Having myself participated in the campus justice system of my alma mater, I can speak to the desire of student justices and representatives to treat their fellow students fairly.  What often gets lost, however, is how administrators can’t help but use the system for their own agendas.  Campuses all across the country have used seemingly-innocuous conduct rules to attack the Greek system, excoriate Christian groups, and chill free speech by conservative students.  The OCR letter is aimed at making it easier to do just that, and it shows us that liberals’ work will never be done until they brainwash reform collegiate communities into perfect shadowboxes of their ideology.  Voltaire would not be pleased.

A Thanks

A belated thanks to USAA, Hertz, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for making the awful hours after the accident described above easier than I ever could have imagined.  Each of them went out of their way to help us move quickly beyond the tragedy.

Something New

Are we over-automating in some areas of our life?  I’m no Luddite, and I love my iPad and XM Radio as much as the next guy.  But sometimes I think of my electric toothbrush sometimes and wonder, really?  I brushed my teeth just fine for the first 30 years of my life – no cavities even!  Is this something I need to plug into the grid for?  Same with my grocery list app on my iPad.  I found myself using a LOT more time the other day trying to get exactly what I needed typed into my tablet, when less than half the effort would have created a perfectly-acceptable, pencil-scribbled list to take to the supermarket.

We’re always in the midst of questioning whether some of the time/space/material saving devices of our recent past are really better for us – think reusable grocery bags.  And regardless of whether you think global warming is upon us or a ginned-up conspiracy to take away your luxury shower head, energy costs money and resources.  So maybe before you choose to add that next app to our smartphone because you can, consider whether it’s a smart or dumb way to perform that task.  It may save you time and money in the end.

On to the Supreme Court.  Or just repeal the darn thing and get it over with.

P.S. – for all my lawyer-geek readers, here’s the full opinion.  (h/t National Review).

Of course, with evil forces such as these on the march,what right-thinking liberals shouldn’t use any means necessary to defeat them?  Today’s sampling of such means includes:

• Free food at “voter turnout events” next to polling places, and gift cards from unions for voting for Democrats
• Voting machines maintained by SEIU workers have Harry Reid’s name already checked (how helpful!)
• Voting machines in North Carolina vote straight ticket Democrat 4 out of 5 times…when straight ticket Republican is chosen

Of course, such efforts don’t always turn out as intended.  A group called the Illinois Democratic Coordinated Campaign sought to solicit hundreds of thousands of Democrats to use Chicago’s new “vote by mail” system, but glitches with the paperwork appear to have thrown a hitch into the scheme.  Unless voting officials can sort it all out in a week, the affected voters could either lose their opportunity vote or at least be so confused by it all that they don’t bother.  Call it a little karma coming back around Alexi Giannoulias’ way — his bank failed its customers, and now his turnout machine is failing him.

Now every election year, there are new reports of voter fraud and manipulation that crop up in the hothouse atmosphere that is a political campaign.  Most turn out to be false, or at least unproven.  Others turn out to be very true, but go unpunished.  And still others are told as wistful memories by union officials:

So don’t believe everything you hear.  But don’t tell me it doesn’t happen.  I’ve watched union thugs take down signs five times in two hours on a road outside a precinct.  I’ve responded to a complaint by a voter who said she could only be given Democrat ballots in her union hall precinct (and this was the 2004 general election), only to be told with a smirk that the voter (a 48-year old doctor) must have misunderstood.  Be vigilant out there, folks.  We’re too close to allow shenanigans to get in the way.

There is nothing illegal, unconstitutional, or improper about this.  It is, however, anti-democratic, cynical, and entirely preventable.  In response, the 41 Republican members of the U.S. Senate should issue a joint statement, signed by everyone, making it clear that while they will attend and participate in any session of the Senate that is called, they will all vote against cloture on every piece of legislation brought to the floor during a lame-duck session (at least assuming there is no imminent threat to the nation or somesuch thing).

That kind of statement, made now rather than in November, will take the pressure off folks like Scott Brown and Olympia Snowe.  They might be inclined to vote in favor of certain of the Democrats’ measures on a substantive basis, but they have to resent being used to pass legislation that, had it been voted on in October, could have won the Republicans a couple more Senate seats.  By saying now that they’re happy to vote on anything they bring up before November, they give themselves cover in case they are forced to vote on items their constituencies would expect them to support.   Senators can then say, “I would have voted for it if the Democrats had operated with transparency and honor before the election, but I can’t support this manipulative lame-duck agenda, no matter what it is.”

“No one will know until this is actually in place how it works. But we believe we’ve done something that has been needed for a long time. It took a crisis to bring us to the point where we could actually get this job done.”

Am I the only one who is flabbergasted that the Democrats think this is an acceptable line of argument?  Would you ever tell your boss, “You know, I think it’s a great company, but we’re going to have to buy it to find out what’s in it.”  Or “Yeah, I think we did great last quarter, but we’re going to have to file that financial statement to find out what’s in it.”  It’s the political equivalent of buying a car off Craigslist without seeing it first, and justifying it by saying, “It took me losing a lot of money on a few other lemons to reach this historic achievement.”

It would almost be overlooked as a vapid statement by a 70-something Senator who didn’t sleep the night before, but Pelosi’s statement has been mocked so thoroughly — it appears in seemingly every story about the health care bill containing nasty surprises — no politician worth his salt could repeat such words without instantly realizing his error.  Of course, the guy is retiring, after all.

No wonder Democrats are hitting historic lows in the generic ballot.  As Barone says, it’s a lethal mixture of pervasive incompetence and unpopular ideology.

UPDATE: Rob Long pointed out this gem from the same press conference. about the same bill.

“This is about as important as it gets, because it deals with every single aspect of our lives,” said Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), a chief architect of the compromise.

Oh, good.  So we don’t have to worry at all.

• You are a tourist in Costa Rica.  You paid several hundred dollars for a room and bus travel to several exotic locales while in country.  Costa Rica has a lot of illegal immigration from Honduras, due to the high disparity in standards of living, employment, and political freedom between the countries.  Costa Rican police have set up checkpoints all over the countryside, where they inspect the paperwork of those traveling the roads.  When your bus arrives at a checkpoint, you realize you forgot your passport at the hotel.  The policeman, realizing that the resort bus is full of tourist gringos, never gets on board and allows it to pass without checking anyone’s documentation.  Should you, as a fair-minded liberal, be outraged that the driver of the car behind the bus (a Latino woman) was asked for her papers, and you were not arrested for failing to travel with yours?
• Your daughter has been raped.  Based on her statements, a black man with what she believed was an African accent was the perpetrator.  She didn’t see her attacker’s face.  Responding to the APB, a policeman stops a man driving a Toyota with a Kenyan flag bumper sticker because he is driving 10 miles over the speed limit.  During the traffic stop, the policeman realizes the driver has a foreign accent he doesn’t recognize.  He asks for the man’s immigration paperwork, and he cannot produce it, saying he has been in the country for years.  Asked if he is a citizen, the man says no.  Lacking probable cause for a search on the basis of the rape, the policeman arrests the man for failing to carry his green card.  Subsequent investigation of his car and home on the immigration charge lead the police to evidence that prove he committed the rape.  Should you, as a fair-minded liberal, feel uncomfortable that your child’s rapist was detained and investigated on the basis of his immigration status (a question that was only raised because of a sticker on his car and his foreign accent), rather than on any evidence that he raped your daughter?
• There is a bomb in the airport.  Security footage shows that a young woman in a pantsuit placed the bomb behind a trash can.  You have been detained, along with everyone who was on Concourse C at the time the bomb was found.  They are questioning everyone in alphabetical order.  You are an 72-year-old Asian man named Wang with diabetes who needs to check his insulin level.  You are prohibited from accessing your luggage until security has finished questioning everyone.  Your wife, who was walking back from the bathroom on Concourse B at the time of the incident, has been waiting with your test kit outside the interview room for five hours.  You are starting to feel lightheaded.  You’ve asked for medical attention, and they are calling for it now.  But as a fair-minded liberal, are you glad that your government is consistently applying the law by holding you for questioning?
• You just took a new job, and you have been randomly selected for an audit of your I-9 form.  Although you presented a copy of your Social Security Card and birth certificate to your employer during orientation, you are now required to present them — along with five other forms of identification — to a federal agent two weeks after you start your job.  You also have to provide the names of seven references who can vouch for your citizenship.   A week later, you learn that one form of I.D. you presented was found to be inadmissible (the bureaucrat issuing the document spelled your middle name as “Jeffrey,” not “Jeffery,” although you’d never noticed before).  You are expected to present a replacement form of I.D. within 24 hours to the federal agent.  You aren’t sure where you’re going to get that, and it will require you to miss the day of work.  Having been at your job less than 30 days, you don’t have any paid vacation.  Your boss wonders why you’re being investigated by the federal government, but he begrudgingly offers unpaid time off to take care of it.  Two of your friends you used as references call and ask why they were asked if they knew where you had been born (they didn’t know — was that a problem?) by a U.S. Marshal.  You know that your great-grandparents arrived in this country in 1911 on a boat from Finland, and you’ve never left the country but once on a family vacation to Jamaica when you were 12.  You get your backup I.D. to the Federal Building one hour before the office closes, and you return to a pile of extra work from your skeptical boss the next day.  Are you, a fair-minded liberal, edified through this process that the Department of Homeland Security is wisely employing its resources to ensure that illegal immigration in this country is being curbed?

In other truthy news:

Vice President Joe Biden pleaded with environmentalists on Tuesday to begin picketing the U.S. EPA for failing to institute a greenhouse gas “cap and trade” regime to combat global warming.  When asked why Biden would wish his own government’s agency be protested, Biden thundered that “climate change is a serious threat to the security of our country, and it’s very bad policy for EPA to postpone implementation of a cap and trade system.”  When reporters pointed out that Congress had not passed legislation authorizing EPA to implement cap and trade, Biden mumbled something about “sticklers for democracy” and left the podium.

At a recent photo op at a Peoria, Ill. bike manufacturer, reporters asked Vice President Biden what other government policies, if any, demand direct action by the public.  Biden replied that “those tax people need to be taught a lesson.  They don’t take enough from the rich!  If you’re middle class in America, just hold onto your tax check until you see all those rich oil executives pay their fair share.  That will get the IRS’s attention.”  It is unclear whether any Americans have taken the Vice President up on his suggestion, or if the IRS is responding to his direction.

This follows on an earlier incident in which Biden, while touring a Pennsylvania coal mine, was shocked to learn that coal was still being burned in power plants across the U.S.  “That’s outrageous!” Biden was heard to say.  “What crazy agency allowed that to happen?  Don’t they know that coal is dirty?  Dirty, dirty, dirty!  This has to stop.”  The mine supervisor who was leading the tour politely informed the Vice President that coal was a valuable natural resource, and that technology and regulation had corrected many of the problems coal-fired power plants had experienced in earlier decades.  Biden was not to be deterred, however, saying that the miners should walk off the job to protest the “very bad policy” that had allowed such dirty energy to be produced.  Bewildered miners took an hourlong break out of respect, but went back to work when the Vice President’s motorcade left the area.

Vice President Biden had earlier called for a general boycott of the Postal Service in November 2009 to protest the U.S. government’s failure to provide universal health care to all Americans.  Biden claimed that it was a “national tragedy” that a country as rich as the United States would fail to provide health care to everyone, and when he noticed that the Postal Service had issued a stamp series called “Miracles of Modern Medicine,” he considered the federal government’s “very bad policy” to be “so hypocritical as to demand immediate, nonviolent action against the government.”  Postal Service revenues plunged during the critical Christmas season, prompting an emergency rate hike.  When Biden learned that his comments had largely been blamed for the increase in postage rates, which made the medical stamps insufficient postage,  he told reporters that he “was proud to have ended that hypocritical stamp mess.  Now we’ve just got to fix the health care thing.”

As has previously been reported, when Congress passed health care reform legislation, Biden was recorded as saying “this is a big f–ing deal.” Sources have since learned that Biden made this comment after noting that it was his boycott of the Postal Service that had caused Congress to reform health care.  It is unknown if this result has led the Vice President to demand that Americans protest other federal policies that do not fit his progressive ideology.

The government intends to work with the food industry and health experts to reduce sodium gradually over a period of years to adjust the American palate to a less salty diet, according to FDA sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the initiative had not been formally announced.

Officials have not determined the salt limits. In a complicated undertaking, the FDA would analyze the salt in spaghetti sauces, breads and thousands of other products that make up the $600 billion food and beverage market, sources said. Working with food manufacturers, the government would set limits for salt in these categories, designed to gradually ratchet down sodium consumption. The changes would be calibrated so that consumers barely notice the modification.

There is presently no statute that justifies the regulation of salt content in food.  No rule has ever set a “safe” amount of salt in any given food product.  To date, FDA has only required full sodium disclosure, allowing the consumer to make an informed decision about how she will regulate her salt content.  But we’re living in a world where EPA has decided that an biologically-benign, indeed botanically-necessary, atmospheric gas is a pollutant requiring massive regulation.  It’s not a very far step to prevent Americans from obtaining unlimited amounts of a naturally-occurring mineral that we all need to perform “basic biological functions.”

Although such a justification was not expressly made for this action, the FDA’s agenda here is an early example of how once the government pays for your health care, it makes everything you do the government’s business.  If you read the Washington Post article linked above, you may be saying, “Hey, Obamacare isn’t even mentioned in this article!”  And you would be right.  But the embedded logic of this move by the FDA will be used time and again to authorize the government to make decisions about your diet, your exercise routine, even your sexual habits.  That’s because, once the government is paying, it has virtually unlimited authority to condition its payments in ways that would be unconstitutionally coercive in other contexts.

Longstanding Supreme Court precedents, beginning in the New Deal era, have imposed only the flimsiest of boundaries on coercive requirements predicated on the receipt of federal funds.  A classic example is the Supreme Court’s decision in South Dakota v. Dole, upholding Congress’ refusal to give states federal transportation funds until they raised their drinking age to 21.  Justice Rehnquist, no less, held that the federal government’s interest in “safe interstate travel” was a sufficiently “reasonable relation” between drinking laws and roadbuilding funds to justify such a condition.

If it makes constitutional sense to parcel out road funds to states on the basis of when their legal adults can drink, how easy will it be for the Feds to justify the regulation of your salt content?  With its new mix of subsidies, tax breaks, mandates, and health care “marketplaces,” the federal government now has a monetary interest in how healthy you are.  If you are sick — or even if you’re not as healthy as you could be — that’s a matter of public concern.  We need to reduce the deficit — how better to do that than by reducing your salt content, making it less likely that the Treasury has to finance your heart transplant?  Far more inherently-risky activities — unprotected sex, smoking, drinking, even rock-climbing — could easily be outlawed on the basis of their threat to the government’s balance sheet.

That’s the dirty secret behind government health care — while it’s been sold as a response to the outrage of insurers’ heartless use of America’s preexisting conditions as a basis for higher rates, everyone knows that the only way to reduce health care costs is to change Americans’ behaviors.  Insurers try to do that with a mixture of carrot (rate reductions for gym memberships) and stick (higher premiums for type 2 diabetes patients), but in the end, it’s our choice.  Not so with government, which can perform the same task by using its regulatory power to prevent you from making those unhealthy decisions altogether – or else.

Of course, the government might decide that it’s cheaper to let you eat all the salt you want — and then refuse you that transplant.  Who is cheaper to care for, after all — a healthy person or a dead one?

The Enemy