South Dakota Politics

South Dakota Democrats Make History

Like Pat Powers at SDWC, I have not yet looked at the historical records. I do seem to have the impression that no U.S. Senate election in the state has ever gone uncontested. Until now. Our state Democrats have failed to field a candidate against John Thune.

This is appalling. To be sure, Thune is probably unbeatable. In an ordinary year, or even a bad one for Republicans, he would probably be safe for reelection. This looks to be no ordinary year.

Consider the Real Clear Politics summary. In the last Gallup Poll, President Obama's job approval rating finally flipped to negative, with 50% disapproving to 47% approving. That will be a drag on Democrats across the country. Worse still, Gallup has the Republicans up on the generic question: "are you going to vote Democrat or Republican?" Republicans are ahead by three points. In the past, Democrats always enjoyed a larger lead on this question than they actually got in the general election. A CNN poll gives the Republicans four points. Rasmussen gives them seven.

If these numbers hold up, the Republicans will gut the Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. It is not out of the question that they will take control of one or both houses.

Any Democrat running against John Thune would probably face insurmountable odds. From the start, she or he would be called a sacrificial lamb or something like that. But the people of South Dakota deserve a choice. Whatever you think of Senator Thune, and I admire him, he needs to face an opposing candidate. Senator Thune needs to be challenged to answer hostile questions. It looks like that won't happen.

The most basic task of the two parties is to present voters with a choice and create the setting for debate. This year it looks like the SD Democratic Party couldn't manage that.

Weiland Withdraws. Span Hits Mother in Chest with Foul Ball

The Gods are sending us messages, by way of the Argus Leader no less!

Minnesota Twins leadoff man Denard Span hit a hard foul ball that struck his mom in the chest during today's game. She was treated by paramedics and back in the stands minutes later.

God bless Ms. Span, and I hope she is indeed alright. God bless Denard. He is going to be hearing about this for the rest of his Mother's life.

I fancy that this story is connected with Kevin Weiland's withdrawal from the SD House race. See South Dakota War College. Kevin Weiland's brief campaign for the Democratic nomination might have triggered a civil war within that Party, but that's only because the guns are already cocked. My friend and esteemed Keloland colleague Todd Epp says this is his second worst day as a Democrat. He represents the faction of the Party (a majority faction, perhaps) that is very angry with our good Congresswoman. Likewise esteemed colleague Cory Heidelberger is another. These folks feel like they have been hit in the chest with a foul ball. 

I have argued that it would be silly for SD Democrats to try to deny HS the nomination. No one is likely to have a better chance of holding that seat for the Democrats. HS may dismay the Epps and Heidelbergers, but the national party needs her votes on other issues. The election of the House Speaker comes to mind.

But that argument is predicated on the assumption that HS can win reelection. What if she can't win, or is very unlikely to win? It is possible to interpret the recent poll numbers that way. If Weiland had gotten on the primary ballot, and then HS lost, he and his supporters would have been blamed. That would be a high stakes game.

On the one hand, it might leave lasting scars on the SD Democratic Party, and might have discredited the more liberal core. On the other hand, it would demonstrate the power of that core and give it a claim on the next nomination. Perhaps SD Dems would be better off losing than winning with a DINO. I think that's a recipe for chronic disaster, but then I am not the one to say. 

Apparently, Blake Curd and Kristi Noem are demanding to know about a backroom deal. Frankly, I think a backroom deal would make Representative Herseth-Sandlin look better. It would show that she is at least interested in winning reelection, a matter about which some doubt exists. Contrary to what Todd says about Tom Daschle, I think our former Senator was all out of steam in his last run for office.

Demonizing the Opposition

Eugene Robinson has a piece on "The Right Wing Hate Element" with which I am largely in agreement.

The arrests of members of a Michigan-based "Christian" militia group should convince doubters that there is good reason to worry about right-wing, anti-government extremism -- and potential violence -- in the Age of Obama.

It is disingenuous for mainstream purveyors of incendiary far-right rhetoric to dismiss groups such as the Hutaree by saying that there are "crazies on both sides." This simply is not true.

There was a time when the far left was a spawning ground for political violence…But for the most part, far-left violence in this country has gone the way of the leisure suit and the AMC Gremlin… By contrast, there has been explosive growth among far-right, militia-type groups that identify themselves as white supremacists, "constitutionalists," tax protesters and religious soldiers determined to kill people to uphold "Christian" values.

I am not sure about the "explosive growth" bit at the end. I know of no evidence that such groups are growing in numbers. But Robinson is surely right that, in contrast to earlier decades, domestic political terrorism is more likely to originate on the right than on the left. Timothy McVeigh was no leftist. Of course, you have to include Islamic militants on "the right," which makes the right look rather multicultural.

Unfortunately for his honesty, Robinson uses this fact to launch an ad hominem against pretty much everyone who objects to Obama Administration policy.

The vitriolic, anti-government hate speech that is spewed on talk radio every day -- and, quite regularly, at tea party rallies -- is calibrated not to inform but to incite. Demagogues scream at people that their government is illegitimate, that their country has been "taken away," that their elected officials are "traitors" and that their freedom is at risk.

It would have been very unfair in the 1970's to blame the Left in general or the Democrats in particular for the crimes of the Symbionese Liberation Army. Likewise there is no reason to blame the Tea Party movement, or Republicans in general, for the malevolent Hutaree goofballs.

Tea Partiers are a rowdy bunch, and they aren't the least bit shy about criticizing their own government. The Left considers that a virtue when the President is a Republican. Now that we have the most Leftist President yet, dissident speech suddenly becomes hate speech.

The Tea Party movement is in fact the active front of majority opinion in these United States. According to a USAToday/Gallup poll, a landslide majority (64-65%) of Americans believe that the recently passed health care bill will expand the role of government too much, and cost too much. Fifty-eight percent believe (quite rightly IMHO) that the bill does not control costs. Does every American who stands up in public to say so, or attends a rally with like-minded people, have to take responsibility for the Hutarees or Timothy McVeigh?

To say so is to demonize the opposition. Liberals complained vociferously about that when they thought George W. was doing it. Now they are doing it, systematically.

ps. Contrary to what Robinson says, it is not "simply untrue" that there are crazies on both sides. It is exactly true.   The WaPo reports that Norman Leboon has been arrested for threatening Republican Eric Cantor.  As the WaPo notes, this is "the first such arrest since an outbreak of harassment and vandalism began against members of Congress more than a week ago."  

Herseth-Sandlin v. Nelson Virtual Tie

A new Rasmussen poll on South Dakota is out.  Here are the most important results:

Herseth-Sandlin 46%/Chris Nelson 44%

A month ago Rasmussen had this:

Herseth-Sandlin 45%/Chris Nelson 38%

These numbers indicate real trouble for the Congresswoman. In the first place, she is stuck about 45%. As I wrote recently, well-known incumbents have a hard time improving on their initial poll numbers because they are, well, well-known. Voters have a pretty clear early idea whether they want her back or not. Anything below 50% spells real trouble.

By contrast, challengers usually have nowhere to go but up, at least at first. Secretary of State Chris Nelson's half dozen points in one month is a real gain. It is probably due to no more than growing name recognition. However, since the race is still well below the radar screen for most voters, that is impressive.

There is a popular saying among political junkies that all politics is local. Like a lot of popular sayings, it's wrong. One thing that is surely depressing Representative HS's poll numbers is dismay among Democrats regarding her vote on national health care legislation. My Keloland colleague, Cory Heidelberger is pushing primary challenger Dr. Kevin Weiland. Cory notes with some satisfaction that Weiland is picking up fans really rapidly on Facebook.

Far be it for me to ignore the testimony of the cybermasses. I am guessing, however, that Weiland will not deny HS the democratic nomination. Weiland's candidacy does mean something in either case. Every Democrat investing time and money in his campaign represents resources that the sitting Representative cannot count on right now. That puts her behind. Of course some of those resources will come back after the primary. But HS needs all of it. If the Democratic vote is even slightly depressed in November, the Congresswoman may well be depressed after the election.

Representative Herseth-Sandlin may have had genuine disagreements with the House health care bills, but she probably did not neglect to weigh the political consequences. She may have thought that a vote for a 940 billion more than a trillion dollar expansion of the welfare state would hurt her with Republicans and independents who voted for her in the past. If so, she was probably right. That doesn't mean that her vote will protect her against the larger political forces moving the nation right now. This looks to be a very strong year for Republicans. HS standing at 45% is one piece of evidence for that.

If someone gave me a wad of greenbacks to place, I would place some of it on Nelson to win the primary, and most of it on Nelson to win the general election. I'd get better odds on the second bet, but not a lot better.

Krugman is an Idiot 2

I demonstrated that former Enron Adviser Paul Krugman was an idiot for putting this in his recent column:

What has been really striking has been the eliminationist rhetoric of the G.O.P., coming not from some radical fringe but from the party's leaders. John Boehner, the House minority leader, declared that the passage of health reform was "Armageddon." The Republican National Committee put out a fund-raising appeal that included a picture of Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, surrounded by flames, while the committee's chairman declared that it was time to put Ms. Pelosi on "the firing line." And Sarah Palin put out a map literally putting Democratic lawmakers in the cross hairs of a rifle sight.

All of this goes far beyond politics as usual. Democrats had a lot of harsh things to say about former President George W. Bush — but you'll search in vain for anything comparably menacing, anything that even hinted at an appeal to violence, from members of Congress, let alone senior party officials.

I demonstrated it by pointing out, as others have, that Krugman himself encouraged political speech that was at least as guilty of "hinting at an appeal to violence" as anything that Republicans had to offer. I thought that the evidence Krugman produced above is so weak as to be self-refuting.

But it also occurred to me, thought I didn't say it because I didn't have an example at hand, that the second paragraph was stupid because examples to the contrary were bound to surface. Military and pugilistic metaphors are so common in politics, it is very unlikely that Democrats would be innocent of them.

Well, they weren't. Here is one "senior party official," Barack Obama, President, from the Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire:

Mobster wisdom tells us never to bring a knife to a gun fight. But what does political wisdom say about bringing a gun to a knife fight?

That's exactly what Barack Obama said he would do to counter Republican attacks "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. "Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I've seen Eagles fans."

Wow. Bring a gun if they bring a knife. Mr. Krugman: isn't that at least as "menacing" as talking about firing Nancy Pelosi? Doesn't it at least "hint at an appeal to violence"?

Well, no, it isn't and it doesn't. The President's remarks were metaphorical, and only a fool would think that he was even hinting at real violence. The same is true of the comments by Republicans that Krugman alludes to.

Krugman is an idiot. Case closed. The same is true of similar ad hominem attacks on the Tea Party Movement and the Republican Party.

Medical Marijuana & the Enemies of Democracy

Shortly after I arrived in South Dakota, the people of this state voted for a lottery. Or at least, that is what they thought they were voting for. Lots of states have scratch card lotteries. It's a pretty harmless way to raise revenue. What we in fact legalized was "video lottery", gaming machines and casinos in every town bit enough to have a watering hole. Video lottery is evil. It is addictive, and fills the pockets of the gaming industry and the state government by emptying the pockets of those who can least afford it. Once instituted, it is all but impossible to get rid of because so many people have a vested interest in keeping it going.

That is a perversion of democracy. It is another terrible effect of the initiative process. People can easily be deceived about what they are voting for.

The same thing is happening with Medical Marijuana. I am in favor of legalizing marijuana as a treatment to alleviate the effects of chemotherapy and perhaps for other medical conditions. My father suffered from prostate cancer, and I think that marijuana might have helped him bear the effects of his treatment.

I am not in favor of general legalization. Here, by way of confession, I admit that I have some experience with this controlled substance. I was young once and not so good as I should have been.

So I know what I am talking about when I say that marijuana is a very dangerous drug. Used frequently, it alters the user's mood and perceptions pretty much all the time. It doesn't, however, alter his or her ability to function for most practical purposes. That is why it is so pernicious. To put it mildly, frequent marijuana use does not make a person more productive. Worse still, it insulates the user from awareness of the real world around him, while disguising precisely that effect.

Marijuana use is common enough. But it is nowhere near as common as legal drugs such as alcohol. True legalization would lead to a great increase in marijuana use, especially among the poor and disadvantaged. That would be a social catastrophe.

And that is what is happening in states that have legalized medical marijuana use by initiative. In Colorado and California, medical marijuana laws have amounted to de facto legalization. It quickly became easy for anyone, regardless of medical need, to get a "prescription" to buy the drug. Networks of growers and clinics sprung up to supply the demand.

This is not what the voters in those states thought they were voting for. But of course, once you get the ball rolling, huge vested interests arise to keep it rolling. California is now considering open legalization as a source of revenue. It would be that! It would not, I think, contribute to the economic recovery of that economically and politically retarded state. Millions more stoned citizens might not contribute their fair share to any possible recovery.

Medical marijuana laws passed by initiative have been perversions of democracy. People thought they were voting for a medical treatment. They were in fact voting for legalized recreational pharmacy. Anyone who cares about the republican form of government should be appalled.

I would note also that legislators who are hostile to marijuana have played their part by refusing to pass sensible laws by which the distribution of marijuana to patients who really need it could be monitored and controlled as are other dangerous drugs. By refusing to do so, their worst fears are being realized.

Comments Not Working. Update!

I am working on getting this fixed.  Sorry.

Update.  Apparently I am not the only one who is having this problem, and TypePad seems to be aware of it.  Hopefully, it will be fixed soon.  Meanwhile, readers who want to post comments have two options. 

One is to send me an email at [email protected].  All names and addresses will be kept confidential unless I am otherwise instructed by the sender.  I will try to respond as best I can, and get your comments on the blog.

The other option is to go to the Keloland site: http://blog.keloland.com/issues/.  Almost all the content at this blog is posted there. 

Hateful Images from the Left

The calumny against the Tea Party movement, that it is racist and advocates violence, rests largely on a few images of political props. I find it remarkable how few images are out there, to judge from several Google image searches. But they are certainly there, as my esteemed Keloland Colleague, David Newquist demonstrates. Here is his offering:

Okay. But let's review some similar images from anti-war rallies during the Bush administration. Here are some of my favorites.  Hat tip to Instapundit and Bin's Corner:

 

 

I suppose that illustrates the sentiments well enough. But nothing says "I hate you" like a hanging in effigy. So here are some examples:

 

To be sure, the Tea Party rallies have their wing nuts and embarrassing photos. But the Tea Party people have a long way to go if they want to match the anti-Bush Left. If my friends on the Left in the local blogosphere were offended by this, I missed it. One thing is certain, the MSM didn't get interested in hints of violence in political speech until the rise of a protest movement on the right.

Threats, Violence, & Paul Krugman’s Idiocy

In my last column, long time friend and occasional interlocutor A.I. draws our attention to Paul Krugman's recent New York Times column, in which Krugman accuses Republicans of "eliminationist rhetoric." Here is a juicy bit:

What has been really striking has been the eliminationist rhetoric of the G.O.P., coming not from some radical fringe but from the party's leaders. John Boehner, the House minority leader, declared that the passage of health reform was "Armageddon." The Republican National Committee put out a fund-raising appeal that included a picture of Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, surrounded by flames, while the committee's chairman declared that it was time to put Ms. Pelosi on "the firing line." And Sarah Palin put out a map literally putting Democratic lawmakers in the cross hairs of a rifle sight.

All of this goes far beyond politics as usual. Democrats had a lot of harsh things to say about former President George W. Bush — but you'll search in vain for anything comparably menacing, anything that even hinted at an appeal to violence, from members of Congress, let alone senior party officials.

One thing we now know about Krugman: he has a remarkable ability to make a fool of himself. A few weeks ago he accused Republicans of living in "a different universe" because they believe that unemployment benefits can retard economic recovery. But Krugman himself had said the same thing in an economics text book that he wrote!

Above Krugman denies that Democrats ever say anything that even hints at an appeal to violence. But Krugman himself said this in an earlier column:

A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy… But meanwhile, pass the health care bill.

Of course, it would be stupid to think that Krugman was even hinting at violence in that quote. Hanging someone in effigy may be an ugly bit of political theater, but it is an old American tradition in politics and in sports. Rarely if ever does it hint at real violence.

For the same reason the first quote was thoroughly stupid. When someone says it is or isn't "the end of the world," Mr. Krugman, they usually don't really mean the end of the world. Neither did John Boehner mean that the Anti-Christ was pushing the health care bill.

The Pelosi ad urged its audience to fire Speaker Pelosi. In this context, Mr. Krugman, "fire," means remove them from a position.

Sarah Palin's map, to which Krugman refers, is reproduced at Powerline. It does indeed use crosshairs to indicate 20 House districts. These are House Democrats, according to the ad, from districts that "we carried in 2008" and who voted for the health care reform. The obvious meaning is that these districts are vulnerable in the upcoming election.

It is very common to speak of "targeting" members of the opposite party. Indeed, military metaphors are ubiquitous in politics. We talk about picking off Democrats or Republicans, of battle ground states. Even the word campaign originally referred to a military action.

Krugman, of course, is waging a campaign of calumny against the Republicans. He wants to convince his readers that we ought to reject their policies because they are bad people. See ad hominem. Unfortunately for him and his cause, he is dreadfully incompetent at it.

Political Violence on the Left & Right

The Washington Post's online header sounded grim.

Foes of health-care overhaul use violence

So far, thankful, the "use" of violence has been limited to a brick thrown through U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords' (D-AZ) glass office door. The WaPo also reports that ten House Democrats have received threats, though Majority Leader Steny Hoyer seems to be the only source for the number and he acknowledges that the number isn't exact. I bet that means it isn't higher. But any such threats or acts are too many.

Political violence or even the threat of such violence is inexcusable in the United States. This is a constitutional republic. The Democrats won on healthcare because they received enough votes in the last election to allow them to do that. Fair is fair. Perhaps the next election will be less kind to them.

The WaPo certainly takes all this seriously.

In Washington on Wednesday, the attacks were roundly condemned, with some congressional leaders wondering whether the long fight over health care had unleashed an ugly dimension to the modern political discourse.

Okay, but let's acknowledge that this ugly dimension isn't new and it isn't limited to the right. When Karl Rove spoke at my alma mater, the Claremont Colleges, a bomb threat was phoned in. Just yesterday a scheduled speech by conservative provocateur Ann Coulter at the University of Ottawa was cancelled when someone triggered a fire alarm. Security officials were concerned about the possibility of violence. ROTC centers on at least seven college campuses in several states have been vandalized in recent years.  Death threats against President Obama have certainly made, but death threats against President Bush were frequent enough during his time in office. 

My point is not that the Left is worse that the Right in this regard. That is a matter for another post. It is that both sides have their less-civilized wing-nuts. In American politics, casting yourself as the victim is like getting one of those powerful cards in Dungeons and Dragons. It is very tempting to argue that the other side must be wrong because they are doing these bad things. It is a temptation that ought to be resisted.

The American Left has always imagined itself to be the true voice of the people. Of course, when it thinks of "the people", it generally imagines the people of Berkley. The rise of the Tea Party movement is thus existentially unnerving to the Left, so it responds as people tend to do when confronted with unpleasant realities. It tries to convince everyone that the Tea Party people aren't real. They are created by Fox News. They are racists and violent! In fact, a few crazies on the right do not discredit the Tea Party people, let alone the Republican Party or conservatives in general, any more than Earth First eco-terrorism discredits the environmental movement.

House Minority Leader Boehner has denounced the threats and vandalism. That was the responsible thing to do. It was also the politically responsible thing to do. Such acts can only hurt his cause. It is in the interest of both sides to denounce politically inspired misbehavior whenever or for whatever it is committed.

Preachers who are not Believers

Daniel Dennett is an academic philosopher whose works on Darwinism and philosophy of mind I greatly admire and largely agree with. He is also a flamboyant atheist and clearly thinks that religious belief is something modern human beings ought to discard. I have sympathy for neither of those positions.

Dennett has coauthored a report available at the Washington Post: Preacher's Who Are Not Believers". I find it very strange that Dennett describes this document as a "study." It looks to me like nothing of the kind. A study, surely, gathers evidence and draws conclusions from or at least usefully summarizes the evidence. Dennett explains in a companion piece in the WaPo that he wanted to know the answer to a question:

How many preachers actually believe what they say from the pulpit? We know that every year some clergy abandon their calling, no longer able to execute their duties with conviction... Are they the tip of an iceberg?

A large survey might answer that question, and maybe that is what will come after this "pilot study". Nothing so helpful is in this report. Instead it presents five cases of Protestant pastors who continue to serve but no longer believe in God in any traditional sense. It is very interesting reading for someone who is curious, as I am, about what such a situation might be like.

It is clear that Dennett regards these pastors as brave, or even heroic. After all, they agree with him. But it raises the obvious question: shouldn't they resign their posts? If they do not, aren't they guilty of some measure of fraud? Apparently, a lot of commenters on the report thought that honesty at least was mandatory, and many thought that the pastors should simply resign. Dennett replies:

I get the impression that most if not all of the early commentators haven't read our report. They are unanimous in favor of honesty (and apple pie), and are happy to condemn hypocrisy in the pulpit, but few of them show any sign of appreciating what terrible predicaments our good pastors are in. Resign, leave the church, find a congregation more in harmony with your creed, they urge--but apparently without having read the profiles of those they are advising.

This strikes me as a matter on which one can form an opinion without knowing the personal story of five particular pastors. Christianity is rooted in a specific belief about a specific belief. Christians hold that a man named Jesus was born in the reign of Caesar Augustus and that that man was in an altogether unique sense the incarnation of the Biblical Creator. He was crucified, dead, and buried. He in fact rose from the dead. Whosoever believes in Him will not perish but will gain eternal life. The word "belief" means, I think, not so much an opinion as an existential commitment.

There are no doubt those who think that one can reject such a commitment and still be a Christian. But I am guessing that the vast majority of practicing and believing Christians, now and for the last two thousand years, do not think so. Most congregations in almost all Churches have a reasonable expectation that, in accepting his post, a Pastor believes in the traditional sense. To continue to occupy that office without at least being honest about this matter looks like an act of fraud. Fraud is not excused by the fact that these good pastors face "terrible predicaments."

Dennett commits two sins here. One is against liberalism. He is sympathetic and compassionate, but only towards people who hold the right views. The other is against his higher calling. A philosopher may well come to think that all religious doctrine is entirely human in origin. But he has to admit that philosophy cannot answer the most essential question: why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there a world with people in it? Biblical faith does a great service to philosophy by constantly reminding those who love the latter of that first question. Respect for Biblical faith is part and parcel of genuine philosophical questioning.

A Buddhist can reject almost all of the traditional beliefs about the historical Buddha, along with reincarnation, etc., and still be a genuine practicing Buddhist. See Stephen Bachelor's Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist. A Christian church without the belief in Christ's resurrection quickly empties out to become a museum. That is a loss not just to Christians but to philosophy, which all too easily collapses into just another secular doctrine.

The Grim Landscape

The Democrats are celebrating the passage of healthcare as an historic achievement. They are right to do so. This was a tremendous victory for their party, in several senses, and the first piece of evidence that Barack Obama might be fit for the Presidency. Obama wavered, but rallied his troops and led them to victory. Nancy Pelosi may not be, as ABC News said in its video canonization, the most powerful woman in history, but she surely ranks as one of the most effective House Speakers. The Democrats have achieved an ambition they held so long that they long ago stopped thinking about it. They did so against tremendous pressures, including unanimous opposition from the Republican Party and the disapproval of a clear majority of the American people. Putting on my political scientist hat, I am in awe.

There is a chance, and Republicans would be foolish to ignore it, that this may be the beginning of a revival for the Democrats. Nothing succeeds like success. But it seems more likely that the Democrats' passage of a partisan, unpopular bill will cement the polarization of the electorate and the states for that matter. Already several states are planning court challenges and talking of "nullification."

No one knows how this healthcare bill will work. Indeed, no one knows what is in it yet. As Speaker Pelosi herself said, only now that it seems certain to pass will we find out. Much of the design of the bill, and certainly almost all of the schedule on which its various provision will come into effect, was aimed simply at making the bill look less expensive than it really is. It is very expensive. Pretty soon now, the real price tag and all the various deals made to pass it will be generally known.

The United States, like the welfare states of Europe, is about coming face to face with some very unpleasant economic realities. For decades it has been clear that our major social programs, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, were on a path to insolvency. For as long as the money coming into those programs was more than the money going out, Congress was content to spend the surplus. Now the surplus is gone. The liabilities are projected to grow while the revenue base will fall further and further behind.

The politics of the healthcare reform push focused all of our attention on whether the reform would increase the deficits or not. The answer is that it will increase them. But that focus had the effect of concealing a more important truth. Even if the reform pays for itself, that is still a trillion dollars, more or less, that can't be available to restore the existing programs to solvency.

The solvency crisis is not only a federal problem. California is in serious danger of defaulting on its financial obligations. The Governor of Rhode Island has been on TV complaining of the cost that the reform bill will impose on the states. Rhode Island for Heaven's sake! A lot of states are in nearly as bad a condition as California. These states are crying for federal help when Washington is putting new burdens on them.

At just this point, when existing welfare institutions are going critical and the economy is very vulnerable, all Congress and the White House have been thinking about is how to get a new, massively expensive program passed. When we need some sense of common national purpose to solve the problems we face, the Democrats have passed legislation virtually guaranteed to sharpen national divisions.

That, gentle reader, is where we are now. Maybe the economy will come roaring back, and jobs galore will suddenly pop up everywhere. But given the almost a trillion dollars a year that we are adding to the deficit, every year for as far as the eye can see, it is not clear that any feasible growth rate can put us back into the black. I don't know how we are going to get out of this one. Our national government is not even thinking about that.

Reform and Corruption

I have been reading a bit lately about Latin America's fight for independence. Many of the battles are bloody and disastrous. Although the people of Latin America often fought for great ideals like liberty and equality, they often found that they had overthrown one dictator only to put another in his place. Many of these dictators professed to believe in Democracy, but instead exploited their lands, resources and people.

I am glad that we do not have to engage in violence to obtain reform. I am happy that my children are safe from the horrors of civil war. And I feel very fortunate to be able to vote against congressmen and senators who I believe have exploited the American people by passing the current healthcare legislation. I am proud that many of my fellow Americans are ready to protest this move with their votes.

But just as the people of Latin America found that they were simply exchanging one corrupt leader for another, some of us worry that if we are successful in replacing those who voted for this bill with other leaders that we may find that we have replaced them with others of the same caliber.

Opposition to this legislation is likely to have a negative effect on some Democrats' chances of reelection – but it will do little to reform the Republican Party, which, under the last administration sometimes behaved just irresponsibly as the Democrats.

Republicans, if this debacle earns you votes, I urge you not to take them for granted.

House Passes Fraudulent Health Care Bill 219-212

The Democrats have passed the Senate version of healthcare reform, and now turn to the reconciliation package of fixes. I think this means that reform will be enacted this year, though the road ahead still has some obstacles. But it's time to consider what happens after enactment.

Whatever its merits as a reform of the healthcare system, in financial terms ObamaCare is an act of shameless fraud. The act is said to be $940 bill (meaning over ten years) and to lower deficits by $138 billion. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, lays out the largest and most obvious bits of deceit in those numbers in the New York Times.

First, the act relies on $463 billion in cuts from Medicare. This includes the so-called "Doctor's fix" which is supposed to cut fees to doctors and has been in the law for a long time. But Congress rescinds the cuts every year. Are they suddenly going to stop doing that? And if they do, what will be the effect on Medicare recipients? Perhaps there is really enough waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare system to cover the rest of the cut, but if so, why are we only now acting to fix that? Moreover, Medicare is already insolvent over the near future. This is money that cannot now be used to try to fix the Medicare system. The CBO estimates that this healthcare reform will push Medicare into the red.

Second, the bill counts on $53 billion in higher Social Security taxes, anticipated because some employers will pay higher wages in lieu of healthcare benefits. Assuming that's what employers do, won't that money be needed for future Social Security benefits? In case you hadn't noticed, Social Security just went into the red.

Third, there are a considerable number of costs that aren't counted in the bill at all. $70 billion is raised in premiums in the first ten years, for benefits that would begin later. Another $114 billion in additional spending is required by the bill but not included in the tally. Holtz-Eakin estimates $562 billion added to the deficits over ten years.

None of this is new, of course. Congress has been spending money it didn't have, decades in advance, for most of the last century. But so far, no one paid a lot of attention. How many Americans knew, up until now, about the Doctor's fix?

The problem is, now a lot more Americans do know. A year of debate has brought a lot of these things out into harsh daylight. There is also the bigger monster in the room, about which a lot of Americans are suddenly aware.

As documented in another recent budget office analysis, the federal deficit is already expected to exceed at least $700 billion every year over the next decade, doubling the national debt to more than $20 trillion. By 2020, the federal deficit — the amount the government must borrow to meet its expenses — is projected to be $1.2 trillion, $900 billion of which represents interest on previous debt.

Bear in mind: that is what the Obama Administration is planning on. In ten years time, the interest on the national debt will be almost as large as Democrats say the healthcare bill will cost.

The more immediate problem the Democrats face is this: in the rather near future they will have to begin making Draconian cuts in Medicare (for example) or have the bill exposed for the fraud it is. Dick Morris argues, plausibly, that the Democrats are doomed either way.

Originally, doctor reimbursement rates were scheduled to drop on March 1 of this year, but Congress postponed it until the fall. Now the Democrats in Congress will face not only cuts in doctors' fees but in all forms of Medicare reimbursement -- the so-called "market basket" of cuts programmed into Obamacare…

Either poison -- the cuts or the deficit -- will be enough to eradicate an entire generation of House and Senate Democrats.

I am not sure that this isn't their plan. Pass this one last gargantuan entitlement, and then go safely to sleep in the minority; leave Republicans to forage in the bleak financial landscape.

Update: just in case you wonder whether ObamaCare will remain unpopular over the next year, consider this:

President Obama is set to begin an immediate public relations blitz aimed at turning around Americans' opinion of the health-care bill.

I think that supports my speculation that the Democrats want to lose in November.  Every time the President has given a speech on the subject, he, his party, and his policy, sink in the polls. 

John Eastman, California, & South Dakota

John Eastman is running for Attorney General of the State of California. He is also Assistant Attorney General for South Dakota. Therein is a tale.

But first, in the interests of full disclosure (and to show how cool I am), I note that John is a grad school buddy of mine. I know what he looks like with a beer in his hand. Or what he used to look like. Back then, we both had color in our hair. He is also short. I admire that in a man.

Here's the story, from the LA Times.

Republican attorney general candidate John Eastman has chosen the job description he will show voters on the June ballot: assistant attorney general. What he isn't saying, though, is that he is an assistant attorney general in South Dakota.

Eastman resigned as dean of the Chapman University School of Law in Orange in January. But he opted to use a title given to him for a case he's working on in South Dakota…

Eastman is being paid $20,000 by the South Dakota attorney general to work on one case, according to documents provided by his campaign. Working on the South Dakota case is Eastman's "primary professional occupation," according to documents he filed with the state.

His opponents in the GOP primary contest are crying foul.

His opponents have every right to complain, but I am not sure that it's very wise of them to complain. The rub is that, by listing his current employment as "assistant attorney general", voters will think that he is an assistant to the California Attorney General. Voters may think he is just a step below the office he is seeking, and view that as a significant qualification. Maybe. I think this story will be too well vetted for that, especially if he wins the primary.

It looks to me like John is running a bit of a risk here. Voters may see this as a bit of trickery, and in a relatively low profile race any bit can hurt. But it also means that he is getting a lot of free publicity right now. Name recognition alone might secure a Republican primary win.

As for the South Dakota angle, John is a very fine legal talent for us to secure in Reisch v. Sisney, No. 09-953. He clerked with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas; he has written numerous briefs for court cases and participated in a number of high profile state cases; he is dean of a law school. The case involves a state prison inmate who is challenging the way kosher food is prepared at the prison. Charles E. Sisney brought suit "under the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act for alleged interference with his ability to practice his Jewish faith."

Eastman is listed as attorney for the petitioners (that's basically us, the State of South Dakota). If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case, Eastman will appear to argue it on our behalf.

I have been out of California (praise be to God) for more than twenty years and I do not follow that state's politics closely enough to know what chance John has in this race. I do know that he would make an excellent attorney general. He is extraordinarily well-qualified. Having earned his Ph.D. in government at Claremont Graduate School, he knows how to take the Constitution of the United States seriously. California is such a dysfunctional state that I might not be doing him any favor to wish him good luck. But I do.

ps.  You can visit Eastman's website using this link: http://www.eastmanforag.com/.  If you like what you see, think about sending him a contribution. 

Republican Surge

The more that President Obama speaks on health care, the more that Reid and Pelosi stir their brew, the stronger builds the wind behind the Republican sails. Or at least that is what Scott Rasmussen is reporting.

Republican candidates have now stretched their lead over Democrats to 10 points in the Generic Congressional Ballot, their biggest lead ever in nearly three years of weekly tracking. The GOP has been leading on the ballot for months.

The new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 45% would vote for their district's Republican congressional candidate while 35% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent. Voter support for GOP congressional candidates increased slightly from last week, while support for Democrats fell two points.

The "generic question" asks voters to say which party they will vote for without listing actual candidates. In the past, Democrats always led Republicans on this question. When Democrats were just a little bit ahead, the Republicans would slaughter them in the real election. What that means, I don't know. I do know that a ten point lead for Republicans means that something very unusual is going on.

Plan 9 from Outer Space

What is going on in Congress right now is the greatest show on earth. The prospect of a fundamental piece of social reform passed by Congress in contempt of the manifest opposition of the public, well, one needs jugglers and computer graphics to capture that. Here is a brief sketch of the evolution of the Democratic legislative strategy.

PLAN A. Both the House and the Senate have passed healthcare reform bills. Standard procedure would be to refer both bills to a conference committee, consisting of members of both Houses and both parties. A single bill would emerge from conference and would have to be voted on again by both Houses. However, the Senate bill was passed when the Democrats still had a filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate. Republican Scott Brown replaced Ted Kennedy in the Senate (largely by running in vehement opposition to the reform bills, in one of the most Democratic states in the U.S.). Senate Republicans can now block a conference bill. In saner times, that would have been the end of it. But the Democrats are determined to pass reform, public opinion and fall elections be damned. So:

PLAN B. The Democrats could enact reform simply by passing the existing Senate bill in the House and then presenting it to the President for his signature. But the Senate bill was never intended to be the final version of the bill. Worse, portions of it are repugnant to way too many House Democrats. So that doesn't work. The problem here is not Republican opposition, but divisions within the House Democratic Caucus. At this point, in any rational universe, the project would have been abandoned.

PLAN C. Pelosi, Reid, and company decided to try to pass a bill by means of the reconciliation procedure. The House would pass the Senate bill, as written; but it would immediately pass a second bill proscribing changes in the first one. That second bill would be the real piece of legislation. The reconciliation bill would then be sent to the Senate, which could pass it by a simple majority. The Republicans could not filibuster.

Reconciliation has been used by both parties to get around the filibuster, but as former Hillary Clinton advisor Mark Penn points out, it was only used when relatively small special interest groups were blocking legislation favored by clear majorities in both houses and backed by public opinion. Using reconciliation in this case would be unprecedented. That doesn't mean it's unethical, let alone illegal or unconstitutional.

The question is whether Speaker Pelosi has the votes. A lot of House Democrats are facing very tough elections this fall. A vote for this bill in a procedure that looks bizarre might be the nail in their electoral coffins. They also have to go out on a limb. What happens if the Senate fails or even refuses to pass the reconciliation bill? Then the Senate bill will be enacted. That Pelosi doesn't have the votes is indicated by the consideration of a fourth option.

PLAN D. Pass the reconciliation bill without passing the Senate bill, and then "deem" the Senate bill to have passed the House without any Democrat in the House actually having to vote on it. This procedure has been used before by both parties. But again, never in the case of such a major piece of legislation, or to escape the duty of actually voting for a bill.

That Pelosi and House Majority Leader Hoyer are even discussing Plan D means that they don't have the votes for the reconciliation option. They may suppose that they can win a few more votes for a "reconciled" bill from those House members who don't have to vote for the Senate version first. But I don't see how that is so. House members will be judged by their constituents according to how they voted when it counted.

Plan D is just a way to keep the process going in the hope that, somehow, they will get the votes they need. Maybe Pelosi will pull this off, and the Democrats will create one more entitlement that we can't get rid of and can't afford. But this is a God awful mess.

Nobel-Prize-Winner-on-Credit fails to make Payment

I had thought that the Nobel Prize awarded to President Obama would hurt the new Chief Diplomat more than a little. I thought that the foreign policy problems facing him would make a mockery of the promise on which the award was based, which they have; but I also thought that nearly every article about his foreign policy failures would begin by reminding us of the prize.

Instead, the world seems largely to have forgotten his prize as if it were one of those little nylon ribbons that American school children get for most advanced in self-esteem. I continue to be amused by the fact of the prize, especially when I read this article from Der Spiegel.

US President Barack Obama glided off the stage to thunderous applause. He had just given a speech that commentators around the world, particularly those in the Muslim world, would characterize within minutes as "historic."…

Eight months later, the president was forced to admit that he had not even come close to reaching the goal he had set for himself. "We overestimated our ability to persuade [both sides] to [negotiate]," he told Time reporter Joe Klein in the White House Oval Office in January. "If we had anticipated some of these political problems on both sides earlier, we might not have raised expectations as high." It was an astonishing admission.

Never before had a US president enjoyed such trust in the Middle East -- and gambled it away in such a short time. Obama has vacillated to an extent that has confused friend and foe alike, even baffling veteran observers of the region.

That's pretty devastating. This is even worse:

Obama's failure in the Middle East is but one example of his weakness, though a particularly drastic and vivid one. The president, widely celebrated when he took office, cannot claim to have achieved sweeping successes in any area. When he began his term more than a year ago, he came across as an ambitious developer who had every intention of completing multiple projects at once. But after a year, none of those projects has even progressed beyond the early construction phase. And in some cases, the sites are nothing but deep excavations.

Barack Obama took office promising to reverse the damage that the Bush Administration did to America's standing in the world. That was an unwise promise for two reasons. One, the view of Bush Administration foreign policy was based on campaign talking points rather than any realistic appraisal of Bush's record. The relations between the United States and Europe were indeed strained by the Iraq War, but over all Bush maintained solid relations with the English, French, and Germans, to name three important old world powers. Relations with all three have soured under President Obama.

Likewise, it was puerile to assume that the problems in American foreign policy in Europe, the Middle East, or elsewhere could be solved by a mere change in attitude. The ambitions of the Iranians to acquire nuclear weapons, the resistance of Russia and China to any effective actions against Iran, the stubbornness of Israelis and Palestinians, these things have deeper roots than any supposed arrogance of the previous administration.

Obama is scarcely to blame for the difficult challenges that awaited him when he first stepped into the Oval Office. He does have to take some responsibility for the ridiculous expectations that he walked in with. He is solely responsible for the policy vacillation that has cost him so dearly among world powers great and small. It is possible that he will firm up. I wish we could count on that.

Fact v. Theory in Modern Biology

An interesting discussion occurred in the comments to my recent post on home schooling textbooks. As this question frequently occurs in discussions of evolution, I think it worthy of its own post. Besides, I love this sort of thing.

Commenter Human Ape said this:

Evolution is a basic scientific fact.

That led to the larger discussion of evolutionary theory and its status in science

Stan Gibilisco wrote this:

I accept that according to the evidence, the scientific method leads us to conclude that evolution is by far the most reasonable theory concerning life on this planet, and it explains better than any other theory how we humans got here.

I argue that such terms as truth and fact are appropriate to the courtroom but not the laboratory. In the former venue, I want to know if a witness is telling the truth and if the defendant in fact committed the crime. Science, by contrast, is concerned with data, hypothesis, experiment, and theory, all of which are in principle subject to revision. It's not that scientists are uninterested in the truth; it's that a good theory, based on data, confirmed by experiment and research, and generating further research programs, is as close to the truth as any science can get.

I also supported Stan in his statement about evolution, and in particular about speciation (the idea that new species emerge out of older ones in the history of living organisms).

My SDP colleague, Miranda, wrote this reply to me in the most recent comment:

You suggest that there is as much proof for speciation as anything in biology. I disagree. Some biological theories are easy to prove or disprove. We can, for instance, theorize that children tend to grow taller than their parents. Then we can measure parents and children over the course of time to arrive at a solid answer. Theories that can be tested with measurements and direct observation are, I think, easier to prove than theories about man's relation to slime molds.

I return here to the distinction between the common sense etiology (explanation by causation) appropriate to the courtroom and scientific etiology. In the context of the former, Miranda is surely right. It's relatively easy to determine whether children do or do not tend to grow taller than their parents.

But gathering such information would be only the first step in science. The scientist wants to develop hypotheses concerning the laws or causes that operate in this case, test the hypotheses, and integrate them into general theory.

From the viewpoint of science, I would argue that it is precisely the opposite of what Miranda says. The theory of evolution by common descent, including the concept of speciation, is much better established than any science concerning the heritability of stature.

It is generally assumed that the height of individuals is influenced both by heritable factors like genes and by environmental factors like nutrition. It's notoriously difficult to tease these influences apart. Suppose someone advanced this thesis: the influence of biologically inherited factors on height is negligible; rather, height is, say, 98% a function of environmental factors. Such a thesis would look very unlikely, but it is not out of the realm of possibility. If confirmed, it would please sociologists but it would require no great revision in genetics or other fields of biology, nor would it require any scientifically unusual assumptions.

Now suppose someone advances this thesis: speciation never happens. This would require a rejection or at least a traumatic reinterpretation of the basic history and classification of the species in modern biology. Worse still, one would have to assume either that every existing species has been present since the beginning of life on earth or that new species spontaneously come into being out of nothing. In either case, morphological similarities would have to be interpreted as very odd coincidences or perhaps a lazy imagination on the part of the Creator. In the former case, since many species are highly dependent on specialized ecological niches, one would have to revise the entire science of geology as well.

I reassert my statement that speciation in particular (and evolution from a common ancestor in general) is about as well established as anything in modern biology. However, in so asserting it, I note that Miranda and Stan and I are in agreement regarding the political question. Darwinian evolution ought to be part of the curriculum of a public high school. Home schoolers have to meet certain standards, and perhaps those standards should include an understanding of what evolutionary theory says. But parents should never be required to tell their children that evolution is true.

The distinction between theory and fact has nothing to do with greater certainty on the one side than the other. It is all about different approaches to the matter at hand in different contexts.

A Big Surprise?

President Bush said a number of embarrassing things when he was president. I got a kick out of most of them – especially the line about working hard to "put food on your family." So I was as delighted as any Democrat when the first Bushism books came out. Those days are gone, but I think we may have the pleasure of reading a book of Pelosisms soon. I say this because, on the 9^th, Pelosi made the following statement at the National Association of Counties Conference:

We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

When I first saw the video clips and blog posts showcasing her comments, I assumed that those who published them had taken them out of context and that she did not really mean what she seemed to say. But now that I have looked at the full transcript of her speech, I am astounded. She seems to have genuinely meant what she said. Here is the transcript, from Pelosi's own web site:

http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1576

There are two troubling things about her statement.

First, it is wrong. The controversy will not die upon the bill's passing. Controversies surrounding civil rights, abortion and taxation have gone on long after bills meant to address the issues have been passed. I can see no indication that the controversy surrounding this issue would be any different.

Second, Pelosi seems to indicate that debate over issues is an inconvenience that she should not have to put up with. The people should not consider the merit of a bill or voice any concerns about it. Instead, we should let the bill's authors decide what is best, let them pass the bills they like, and only then, when objecting will be of no use, should we be allowed to see what's inside. This is offensively condescending and it is also a dangerous precedent to set.

It reminds me of a game kids used to play (at least when I was younger) that involved saying to someone:

"Open your mouth and close your eyes and I'll give you a big surprise."

Nice kids would give you something like a candy heart or a gumdrop. Mean kids would substitute less pleasant things like vinegar, worms or dirt. Smart kids wouldn't close their eyes.

We have a good inkling of what's in the healthcare bill, Speaker Pelosi. It's something a lot less tasty than candy hearts and the smart kids have their eyes open.

Radical Reform: Conservative Style

When the Democrats ran on a platform of "change," it was not very surprising. Many consider themselves "progressive" and change seems to be in their nature. It is a little more unusual to see conservatives campaign for radical change, as such a thing tends to be against our nature. Yet conservatives in both the United States and Britain are doing just that.

In the UK, conservative opposition leader David Cameron is promising "radical reform", saying that he will, if elected cut both Britain's budget deficit and its "democratic deficit". To do this, he says he will give local governments new powers and let neighborhoods begin to make decisions about local parks and public places. He also says that he will give people the right to fire MPs.

What Cameron is promising is the sort of thing America's tea partiers would like to hear. Many are fed up with too much federal government and would like power returned to local authorities. This has been a conservative line for many years – but if those espousing the view mean what they say, it is interesting for the following reasons:

First, the UK's general election is set to take place in less than four months. David Cameron has, until recently, dominated the polls. He is still in the lead and may very well be the next British Prime Minister. Second, the UK has not given local governments much power at all in the recent past. Indeed, it has moved in quite the opposite direction, nationalizing, for instance, its healthcare system and many of its major banks. If Cameron wins, means what he says and does what he promises, this will be quite a turnaround for the UK.

Third, while conservatives often grumble about wanting smaller government and rail against the failure of the Republican Party to oppose government expansion, it has been some time since they have actually tried to do much about it. We vote against what we can, but until recently, Republicans have been able to count on conservative votes, simply because conservatives have opposed the policies of the Democrats more than they have disliked weak Republicans. That changed in the last election and since that time, the Tea Party movement has grown into a force to be reckoned with. The face of politics is changing and, strangely enough, this time it is because of conservatives.

Two Obstacles to ObamaCare

I don't doubt the sincerity of Bart Stupak or the rest of the Stupak Democrats in voting nay on healthcare reform because of opposition to public funding for abortion. But it might also be that they want to show that they stood up to the President and House Democrats on this bill, even when they voted yea.

If Nancy Pelosi can bring off a win under the circumstances described in my last post, then she will go down as one of the most effective speakers in the history of the House. If she doesn't, it is largely because she is swimming against two powerful tidal forces.

One tide is public opinion. Republicans may be foolish to rely on that as it is, after all, tidal. Nonetheless, the fact that public opinion has been steadily against the Democrats is one of two main reasons that this reform has proved to be so difficult. It's not just the polls that show steady opposition to the reform. Pro-reform pundits like to point out that individual items in the ObamaCare bills are popular. Yes, but those items aren't available for purchase separately. I'm in favor of cases of expensive wine. I just don't want to pay for them.

What can't be wished away is the fact that, as President Obama has given speech after speech and has invested more and more of his time and political capital on this issue, he has become steadily less popular. In most polls his approval rating is under 50%. Likewise, the Democrats as a whole have suffered. Republicans lead Democrats on the generic question (which party are you voting for, without candidates mentioned). Historically, Democrats always lead in this type of poll; and when they lead only by a little, they get shellacked.

The other tide is the red tide: rising federal debt. It is that, more than anything else, that is exerting a downward gravitational force on the Democrats. Most folks just can't see the wisdom in a big, new entitlement when all the existing ones are going belly up.

Such pressures are not borne by mere mortals without mental distortion as a result. Consider this story, from the Washington Post:

Democratic leaders said Thursday that they were increasingly inclined to release a final health-care bill that could accomplish two of President Obama's top domestic priorities: guaranteeing coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans and vastly expanding federal aid for college students.

Note that "vastly expanding" language. Maybe this is the way to rally wavering Democrats to the flag, but surely it's nuts anyway. What do student loans have to do with health care? Doesn't this look like another big giveaway to buy votes?

It looks a lot worse than that. This also from the WaPo:

The projected cost of President Obama's plan to overhaul the federal student loan program has exploded over the past year, making it almost impossible to include the popular measure in the same deficit-reduction package that would be the vehicle for the final pieces of Obama's health care initiative, Democratic sources said on Wednesday…

[R]ather than saving $50 billion over the next decade, Obama's student loan initiative is now projected to increase deficits by about $5 billion over that period, Democratic sources said, adding that including it in the same package with fixes to the health care bill would wreck efforts to meet the deficit-reduction goals that are required under reconciliation rules.

Apparently the Democrats worry that we aren't going broke fast enough. If people are worried that healthcare reform will break the bank, add another piece of legislation that costs more than we can pay for it. This is ObamaCare Derangement Syndrome. I think we can now call it ODS.

Michael Barone has argued that there is no way out for the Democrats. They are damned if they pass ObamaCare, and damned if they don't. Maybe so. But those whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad.

Update: The Virginia General Assembly has voted 80-17 to block ObamaCare.  The measure has already passed the Senate, and the Governor promises to sign it.  Of course, none of this matters.  Nullification doesn't work.  But it is some indication of the state of things that 21 of 39 Democrats voted in favor of it. 

Did Health Care Reform Just Collapse?

Apparently so, if the AP report by Erica Werner is accurate. From TPM:

House leaders have concluded they cannot change a divisive abortion provision in President Barack Obama's health care bill and will try to pass the sweeping legislation without the support of ardent anti-abortion Democrats.

I haven't been trying to keep track of the votes in the House, but here is a quick summary. The Hill reports that Speaker Pelosi can afford to lose 37 Democrats, but not one more, to pass the Senate Bill out of the House. I am reminded of the engineer in Titanic saying: we can stay afloat with three chambers flooded, but not five. Not five! The Hill counted 25 Democrats as definite naysayers, and 12 "Stupak" Democrats as nay without a change in abortion language. That's 37. If these numbers are right and so is Werner, Pelosi has just enough.

Jay Cost on the RealClearPolitics Horserace Blog has been trying to keep count. He also counts 25 naysayers (those who voted no once before), and 19 possible nays. Cost is reporting that several Democrats today signaled that they were switching from yea to nay, including Henry Cuellar of Texas and Marion Berry of Arkansas.

I haven't seen the AP report confirmed anywhere else, so groans and hoorays are not yet in order. But as Cost puts it, it has been a very rough day for ObamaCare.

Of course, passing the bill out of the House doesn't mean that a bill will be passed into law. Keith Hennessey explains the intricacies and obstacles facing final passage through reconciliation. It looks like one of those innumerable tunnels that Indiana Jones has to shoot through. Unfortunately for reform advocates, this isn't a movie.

Democrats continue to talk and act as if they are sailing toward passage. Maybe the Speaker has a reservoir of votes that will switch in time. Otherwise, this looks like a slow motion train wreck.

Anti-Darwinian Textbooks & Liberal Democracy

My friend and Keloland colleague Cory Heidelberger confesses that he intends to home school his daughter. He also raises the alarm about a couple of home school textbooks reviewed by the Associated Press. I commend him for both things, for slightly different reasons.

I admire any parent who wishes to take over for the state in this matter of education. It is a profoundly undemocratic act, for which reason I think it deserves special honor. Democracy may be the best form of government (at least considering all the others), but it is best when it recognizes the authority of individuals over their own persons and families.

That is precisely the issue concerning the textbooks at question.

Christian-based materials dominate a growing home-school education market that encompasses more than 1.5 million students in the U.S. And for most home-school parents, a Bible-based version of the Earth's creation is exactly what they want. Federal statistics from 2007 show 83 percent of home-schooling parents want to give their children "religious or moral instruction."

"The majority of home-schoolers self-identify as evangelical Christians," said Ian Slatter, a spokesman for the Home School Legal Defense Association. "Most home-schoolers will definitely have a sort of creationist component to their home-school program."

Those who don't, however, often feel isolated and frustrated from trying to find a textbook that fits their beliefs.

That last line is utterly stupid. Parents like the Heidelbergers who want to home school their children, as Cory puts it, "to believe in both a universe governed by scientific laws and a God who created that universe," can find plenty of textbooks presenting standard accounts of biology and physics.

By contrast, parents who want a textbook that presents a more Biblical view of creation have only a couple of choices, apparently. Why are these two textbooks so offensive?

[Professor of Evolution and Ecology Jerry] Coyne and Virginia Tech biology professor Duncan Porter reviewed excerpts from the Apologia and Bob Jones biology textbooks, which are equivalent to ninth- and 10th-grade biology lessons. Porter said he would give the books an F.

"If this is the way kids are home-schooled then they're being shortchanged, both rationally and in terms of biology," Coyne said. He argued that the books may steer students away from careers in biology or the study of the history of the earth.

Well, yes. If we (meaning we Americans) allow parents to raise their children as they see fit, that means that they may raise them in ways that Cory, or Professor Coyne, or I would not. That's what the word "liberal" means in the term liberal democracy.

I believe in Darwin's theory. I have edited a book entitled Darwinian Conservatism. I have published a paper recently in which I argued that Darwin's theory supports Abraham Lincoln's political principles. But I also know that intelligent people disagree with Darwinism. Michael Ruse, in the Chronicles of Higher Education, considers the views of three prominent academic philosophers who take a dissenting view.

We ought not to be so quick to use terms like "anti-science crap" to describe people who disagree with us, especially when we may be guilty of the same sins. Cory, for example, is a big supporter of wind power and other alternative energies. But the evidence is overwhelming that large scale wind power is bad. It is ruinously expensive, and thus bad for the economy. It results in increased greenhouse emissions and kills birds and bats. It increases rather than decreases our dependence on oil. So why does Cory support it? Because he is a believer.

I think that Cory has every right to profess his faith in wind power. I am sure he can find textbooks to support his view. I am content to let people who dissent from Darwinism do the same when they decide to home school their children. My experience as a professor has been that home schooled children blow their publically schooled counterparts clean out of the water when they get to college.

Democracy in Iraq

"Democracy," Winston Churchill pointed out, "is the worst form of government, except for all the others." There is a lot of wisdom in that. Americans, spoiled rotten by the success of our own institutions, take democracy entirely for granted. We whine incessantly that "government is broken" because it doesn't give us everything we want, right now, for free. We have no clue what life is like when government is really broken. See Haiti.

Today millions of Iraqis went to vote. Americans sometimes stay home on Election Day because it's raining or snowing. Iraqis are voting even though it's raining mortar shells and rockets. From the New York Times:

"Iraqis are not afraid of bombs anymore," said Maliq Bedawi, 45, defiantly waving his finger, stained with purple ink, to indicate he had voted, as he stood near the rubble of an apartment building in Baghdad hit by a huge rocket in the deadliest attack of the day.

Insurgents here vowed to disrupt the election, and the concerted wave of attacks — as many as 100 thunderous blasts in the capital alone starting just before the polls opened — did frighten voters away, but only initially.

The shrugging response of voters could signal a fundamental weakening of the insurgency's potency. At least 38 people were killed in Baghdad. But by day's end, turnout was higher than expected, and certainly higher than in the last parliamentary election in 2005, marred by a similar level of violence.

The establishment of democracy in Iraq will remain an uncertain proposition for some time to come. The most difficult matter is the reconciliation of two of Iraq's most important ethnic groups: Shiite and Sunni Muslims. But here there is also hope.

Sunnis who largely boycotted previous elections voted in force, and an intense competition for Shiite votes drove up participation in Baghdad and the south, election observers said.

After seven years of a war whose rationale is deeply disputed in the United States, the Obama administration viewed the vote as a test of Iraq's stability, a last milestone before the final withdrawal of American troops.

The short and fierce political campaign could end up either solidifying Iraq's nascent democracy or leaving the country fractured along ethnic and sectarian lines. But it was arguably the most open, most competitive election in the nation's long history of colonial rule, dictatorship and war.

Yes, the rationale for the invasion of Iraq is indeed deeply disputed in the U.S. But Vice President Biden has recently claimed Iraq as a success of the Obama Administration. Never mind that Obama opposed the thing from the gitgo, and flamboyantly bragged about it. If he wants to take credit for Democracy in Iraq, let him. Political points here at home are much less important than political realities in the Fertile Crescent.

George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq may have been a very bad one. It certainly cost his party dearly. But that doesn't mean that it will turn out badly in the long run. Millions of men and women lining up to vote in defiance of murderous thugs is something beautiful. The establishment of a successful democracy in Arabia would be a profound achievement, whoever takes the credit.

But just right now let us honor the Iraqi voters. They are doing more than most living Americans have ever had to do for the cause of human freedom.

How the Public Option works in Britain

This, from the London Times:

DAMNING reports on the state of the National Health Service, suppressed by the government, reveal how patients' needs have been neglected.

They diagnose a blind pursuit of political and managerial targets as the root cause of a string of hospital scandals that have cost thousands of lives.

The harsh verdict on the state of the NHS, after a spending splurge under Labour between 2000 and 2008, raises worrying questions about the future quality of the health service as budgets are squeezed.

One report, based on the advice of almost 200 top managers and doctors, says hospitals ignored basic hygiene to cram in patients to meet waiting-time targets.

Notice that bit about a "spending splurge." The Labor Government increased spending on the NHS, and at that very time, the NHS was ignoring "basic hygiene." This, apparently, costs thousands of lives.

Just something to think about, as the Obama Administration and the leadership of Congress prepare to turn the entire American health care system over to the Department of Health and Human Services.

Incoherence on the Left

Unemployment benefits look like a pretty good idea if you have lost or fear losing your job. They are what we call a cushion, which means something soft to fall on. It looks to me like unemployment insurance is a good idea, but it costs something. You have to put aside wealth that might be used for something else, like investment. There is also the problem that by making unemployment less uncomfortable, it reduces the incentives to find more work. That keeps productive workers out of the workplace. For these reasons, unemployment insurance doesn't promote economic growth.

Patron Saint of left wing economists, Paul Krugman, has another view, and he doesn't. Krugman comments on Senator Jim Bunning (R-Kentucky), who blocked a one month extension of unemployment benefits to people whose time had run out. Bunning insisted that Congress actually find a way to pay for the extension of benefits. Krugman thinks this is bad economics:

Today, Democrats and Republicans live in different universes, both intellectually and morally.

Take the question of helping the unemployed in the middle of a deep slump. What Democrats believe is what textbook economics says: that when the economy is deeply depressed, extending unemployment benefits not only helps those in need, it also reduces unemployment. That's because the economy's problem right now is lack of sufficient demand, and cash-strapped unemployed workers are likely to spend their benefits. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office says that aid to the unemployed is one of the most effective forms of economic stimulus, as measured by jobs created per dollar of outlay.

But that's not how Republicans see it. Here's what Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, had to say when defending Mr. Bunning's position (although not joining his blockade): unemployment relief "doesn't create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work."

Okay, so Republicans are ignoring "textbook economics." But what do the textbooks actually say about this?

James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal Online finds this passage in a standard text entitled Macroeconomics:

Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. . . . In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker's incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of "Eurosclerosis," the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries.

Well, maybe Krugman didn't read Macroeconomics. But in fact, he wrote it (with his wife).

Krugman blasts Senator Kyl for saying what he himself said in his own textbook. Did he forget what he wrote? Krugman vehemently disagrees with Republicans, who vehemently agree with Krugman's textbook. That is incoherence.

ObamaCare Derangement Syndrome

Representative Herseth-Sandlin made it clear that she will vote no on the Senate ObamaCare bill, and opposes passing it by reconciliation. So far I don't think that a single "no" vote in the House has switched, while several "yes" votes are wavering. Subtract the "yes" votes that are no longer in the House, and that means that Pelosi hasn't got a majority to pass the Senate bill out.

The President has pleaded for a bill by the 18^th, but now Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is now talking about sometime after Easter. There are two pieces of bad news for the Democrats in that. One is that is suggests that the Democrats don't know whether they can get this thing out of the House or not. If they can't, it will represent a humiliating defeat for the party, angering anti-ObamaCare voters, and dispiriting the left.

The other bad news is that this thing keeps dragging out. Apart from the damage that the spectacle might be doing, it is sucking up all the oxygen in Congress and the White House. Neither the President nor the leadership in either house has time to do anything else than try to find ways to bribe a few no votes to come over.

This was evident, I think, in Speaker Pelosi's appallingly bad leadership in the Rangel affair. After Rangel was admonished by the House Ethics Committee (something that takes some doing), it was the job of an effective speaker to decide whether she was 1) going to defend him or 2) remove him as chairman of the exalted Ways and Means Committee. She should only have decided on one if it was worth the costs and if she in fact had the power to keep Rangel in his post.

What she did was to defend him, making some very embarrassing comments in the process, only to have to immediately change her mind and see him go. That's disarray. Then she had to decide who to replace Rangel with. She announced on Thursday that Pete Stark would step in as a "temporary" replacement. Her allies defended this choice on grounds of seniority.

But there were obvious problems with Stark. To begin with, he is a loose cannon, with a history of saying offensive things. He has called the Blue Dog Democrats, whom Pelosi is trying to court, "brain dead." Second, Stark is from California, and the committee leadership of Congress, and especially of the committees dealing with health care, is California-heavy already.

Again Speaker Pelosi was forced to reverse herself and push forward Rep. Sandy Levin of Michigan. This is very poor leadership at a time when Pelosi needs all of her clout and power.

The best explanation of Speaker Pelosi's sudden loss of control is simply that all of her brain cells, and those of her party, are completely dedicated to passing a health care bill. The CPU is running full and hot with that one issue.

Trying to pass a fundamental piece of reform legislation in the current circumstances (an economic crisis, pronounced public opposition, a string of election losses) has driven the majority party to distraction. There is a very good reason that Americans have lost confidence in their government. It's gone funny on us.

Herseth-Sandlin in Spotlight

The National Republican Congressional Committee has demanded that Representative Herseth-Sandlin return campaign cash donated by former Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel. The NRCC argues that the money is tainted, now that Rangel has been forced to give up his chairmanship due to a violation of House ethics rules. HS is refusing, of course. Hat Tip to South Dakota War College.

So would I, in her place. That the money came from Rangel doesn't make it tainted. Rangel's ethical lapses were many, but they were all examples of personal mischief. Unless it can be shown that the money was raised by selling kidneys harvested from orphans, or something like that, I don't see the problem.

More interesting is HS's attendance at a meeting with the President. Also from SDWC:

NBC's Chuck Todd is reporting via Twitter that Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin is heading to the White House tonight. The purpose of the meeting? President Obama will seek to win over the Democratic holdouts who opposed ObamaCare 1.0.

Chuck Todd writes, or tweets, that the healthcare "arm-twisting begins at happy hour at the WH where 10 House Dems who voted NO the first time will be attending." In a follow up tweet, Todd says Herseth Sandlin is one of ten invited Democrats.

When Representative Herseth-Sandlin voted no on ObamaCare last time, several of my Keloland colleagues raked her over the coals for it. See the image above right.  I believe Cory Heidelberger suggested that SD Democrats should punish her by withdrawing cash and other kinds of support.

I thought that was silly. When the House prepared to vote on its version of ObamaCare, Speaker Pelosi obviously had the numbers she needed. HS's defection didn't hurt the legislation, and may conceivably have strengthened her reelection campaign.

Now is different. The fact that the President is meeting with 10 former no votes suggests that Pelosi doesn't yet have the votes to pass the Senate bill. I have no way of knowing how close it is. The speaker will either schedule a vote or not, depending on whether she has enough confirmed yeas for passage. If she doesn't, then every Congressional Democrat not willing to declare that he or she would have voted for it can reasonably be held responsible for the defeat of the reform effort. I would say that about anyone who did vote against it last time, regardless of what they say now.

That doesn't mean that it makes sense for local Democrats to abandon Ms. HS. Representative Herseth-Sandlin is vulnerable. She is polling ahead of her possible Republican challengers, but under 50%. The general rule is that a well-known incumbent can't much improve on her/his initial support. Everyone has already made up their mind about the incumbent. For South Dakota Democrats to punish HS for voting no on ObamaCare would be understandable, but all it will do is hand the Republicans another house seat.

Side Arms and the Second Amendment

Today the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in the case McDonald v. Chicago. This is the second in two fundamental cases on 2^nd Amendment rights.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In D.C. v. Heller (2008) the Court found that the 2^nd Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to own and possess firearms, including handguns, and to keep them ready to use for self-defense.

But the District of Columbia is a federal territory. The city government has only such powers as Congress allows it to have. So the decision only explicitly protected this right against the Federal Government.

That raises the issue of incorporation. The Court has long held that the due process clause of the 14^th Amendment incorporates most of the Bill of Rights and applies them to the state governments. Consider the 1^st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The text says "Congress," not "Congress and the States". But the 14^th Amendment says this:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The incorporation doctrine, a Court-generated rule, holds that the latter text in effect means that the State Governments are bound by the 1^st Amendment and other parts of the Bill of Rights, including for example 4^th Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. That's why South Dakota can't establish a church and why South Dakota police cannot ignore the Miranda Rule.

But the Court has never said that the entire Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) applies to the states. In today's case, a handgun ban in the city of Chicago is under review. Chicago derives its legislative authority from the state of Illinois, just as D.C. does from the Federal Government. So the question in McDonald is whether the rule announced in Heller applies to the states. If it does, then there is a general constitutional right to own and possess working handguns.

Almost everyone thinks that the Court will find that the 2^nd Amendment does apply to the states. The phrase "right of the people" in the Constitution always refers to rights possessed by individual citizens. I can see no reason why "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" in the 4^th Amendment should apply to the states, but "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" should not.

I think the Court was right in Heller. The Constitution is, as many liberal jurists have declared, all about human dignity. The Founders clearly thought that the right to keep and bear arms was part of that dignity. If you disagree, fine. Lobby Congress to amend the Constitution. But until the 2^nd Amendment is repealed, this right is part and parcel of the liberties protected under the Constitution. I trust that the Court will recognize this.

Farewell to the Welfare State

It was a great idea. Government would provide for the needs of its citizens, including the least and the lowliest. No one would lack adequate health care, housing, education, or, let us not forget, income. Of course, just getting these things is not enough. Everyone must be relieved of the fear of losing them in the future. So the doctrine of welfare breeds the expansion of entitlements. Government would ensure that everyone, or at least members of the public employees unions, are protected against the harsh realities of economic exchanges.

But health care, housing, education, along with food, beer, DVD players, and cheap automobiles, have to be grown, brewed, or built by someone. The free market grows, brews, and builds by continually re-investing a portion of the profits made into future production.

In theory, the welfare state works by taking some of the good stuff away from the rich and delivering it to the not so rich. In practice, it takes away from the more productive and gives to the less productive. Inevitably, it eats into the capital available for reinvestment in future production. If this goes on long enough, the engines of economic growth begin to sputter and die.

We may be at the tipping point. Greece is going belly up, as its workers riot against sensible reforms, and it is threatening to take Europe's economy down with it. But American investors have been warned that California is a greater threat than Greece. California, more than any other American state, has tried to realize the welfare state in its final form. It succeeded.

Earlier this week, the state's legislature passed bills that will cut the deficit by $2.8bn through budget cuts and other measures. However the former Hollywood film star turned politician is looking for $8.9bn of cuts over the next 16 months, and is also hoping for as much as $7bn of handouts from the federal government.

Now consider that $7,000,000,000 that California wants from the Federal Government. Where is D.C. supposed to get that money from? China? But China is going belly up as fast as Sacramento. Washington will have to get it, if it does, from states that haven't yet invested all their working capital in public employee unions. That will mean less investment capital for future growth in those states. Are we getting the picture?

The welfare state is in crisis because it has brought the economies of the world's most productive nations to the edge of disaster. There might be a way to repair the engine of economic growth while preserving some of the welfare state's humane agenda. But Washington isn't worrying about that. All the attention of Congress and the White House is focused on getting enough votes to secure a new, multi-trillion dollar, health care entitlement.