The election as a referendum on Obamacare

My latest piece from the Washington Times:

Nov. 2 is the nation's referendum on Obamacare. No other issue has so polarized the public and shed light on the policy failings of the left. The midterm elections represent the last, best hope for millions of Americans who don't want to see the health care law's most onerous provisions ever take effect.

While the president's veto power increases the difficulty of a complete repeal, Republican control of the House - and perhaps the Senate - certainly would deflate Mr. Obama's Democratic dreams. The Internal Revenue Service, for example, needs an estimated $10 billion to raise a well-equipped army of agents 16,500 strong to implement the individual health care mandate penalties. The congressional power of the purse is sufficient to send that agency into retreat.

"Fall back" has been the most-heard cry on the campaign trail this season. Erstwhile Obamacare devotees have traded their hope-and-change banners for the white flag, ducking the issue and refusing to list votes in favor of Obamacare among their accomplishments. . . .

Washington Times Editorials on the Stimulus

My latest pieces from the Washington Times.

The special-interest president: Obama introduces new giveaways for Wall Street and Big Labor

Killing jobs with stimulus spending: Europe teaches America a lesson about fiscal restraint

Washington Times Editorial: Cooking the books on job claims

Cooking the books on job claims

Administration officials passed around the champagne Tuesday as the Congressional Budget Office reported that the $814 billion spent on the first stimulus bill created between 1.4 million and 3.3 million new jobs. President Obama's policies "put the country on a path to recovery by getting Americans back to work quickly," Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. crowed. "We've created 3 million jobs, and we're adding jobs every month."

As is obvious to anyone living outside the Beltway, there's not much cause for celebration in this economy. While America's output is on the rise, the rate of growth is weak, and many economists expect that the second-quarter GDP growth figure will be revised down to just 1 percent on an annual basis.

The job outlook is equally bleak. Each week, a half-million people sign up for unemployment. For some, it is the first time ever setting foot in a line to ask for benefits. For 1.7 million others, the wait has been so hopeless that they've simply given up looking for work. The Bureau of Labor Statistics household survey finds that since April, the total number of people employed has dropped by 495,000.

If that's the case, how did CBO arrive at 3 million jobs created? . . .

Democrats abandoning claims that Obamacare will reduce costs and deficit

Amazing claims:

"It is critical to reassure seniors that Medicare will not be cut."

"Let them know they can keep the coverage they have now."

Finally, this concession:

"Strategic Recommendations: The 'Do Nots' . . .

Don't say the law will reduce costs and deficit."

From the Politico:

Key White House allies are dramatically shifting their attempts to defend health care legislation, abandoning claims that it will reduce costs and deficit, and instead stressing a promise to "improve it."

The messaging shift was circulated this afternoon on a conference call and PowerPoint presentation organized by FamiliesUSA — one of the central groups in the push for the initial legislation. The call was led by a staffer for the Herndon Alliance, which includes leading labor groups and other health care allies. It was based on polling from three top Democratic pollsters, John Anzalone, Celinda Lake, and Stan Greenberg. . . .

From the Washington Times: "Obamacare's message of change: Health care law's deficit-fighting powers prove imaginary"

The Washington Times on the UN's push towards gun control

My latest piece from the Washington Times.

U.N. threatens Second and First Amendments

Washington Times Editorial: Gun Control Groups distort numbers

Gun grabbers treat criminals as victims: Groups appalled at use of concealed firearms in self-defense

The Obama administration keeps blaming others for the high unemployment rate

From CBS News:

Vice President Joe Biden gave a stark assessment of the economy today, telling an audience of supporters, "there's no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession."

Appearing at a fundraiser with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) in Milwaukee, the vice president remarked that by the time he and President Obama took office in 2008, the gross domestic product had shrunk and hundreds of thousands of jobs had been lost.

"We inherited a godawful mess," he said, adding there was "no way to regenerate $3 trillion that was lost. Not misplaced, lost." . . .

Here is a piece from the Washington Times on the revisionist history of the Obama administration.

There's simply no legitimacy to Obama administration claims of being caught unawares of the seriousness of the economic downturn. The president routinely exaggerated how bad things were to push his massive spending programs. The 8.1 estimate was made 11 days after the $787 billion stimulus bill was signed into law, which occurred after the fourth quarter 2008 gross domestic product numbers were released. At that point, it was obvious the economy was headed down fast. . . . .

New Washington Times Editorials

My latest pieces from the Washington Times.

FTC floats Drudge tax: Journalism can reinvent itself without government 'help'

Obama cuts crime: Credit to the administration for a drop in the murder rate

New Washington Times pieces

My latest pieces from the Washington Times.

Fudging Obamacare costs: Bureaucrats come clean when it's too late to matter

In bed with Fannie and Freddie; Why 'financial reform' doesn't touch the troubled lenders

Robbing Peter to pay Paul's health care: Obamacare takes billions out of working-class pockets

Obama's mounting hypocrisy: The only thing that has changed in Washington is the price tag

New Book Review in the Washington Times by Roger Lott: Miron's "LIBERTARIANISM FROM A TO Z"

Roger's review can be found here.

In "Libertarianism From A to Z," Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron wastes no time. In roughly 200 short pages, he explains and advocates libertarian points of view on more than 100 issues, from agricultural subsidies to organ sales and government funding of zoos. The encyclopedic organization combined with Mr. Miron's concise and straightforward writing style make for a condensed yet highly accessible read.

Mr. Miron calls himself a "consequentialist libertarian," distinguishing himself from "philosophical libertarians." He considers the costs and benefits of individual government policies rather than simply making broad arguments against them on the basis of natural rights. However, the inclusion of some statistics would help give precision to his assertions.

Each topic is begun with a layout of the major arguments for government involvement, which are, for the most part, not watered down. Mr. Miron's fair presentation of reasons for opposing viewpoints ultimately makes his case for libertarianism more convincing.

According to Mr. Miron, many of these arguments are based on the belief that government should subsidize activities that generate positive externalities (indirect benefits) for society, such as education, and tax those that create negative ones, such as pollution. Government subsidizes recycling, for instance, on the basis that it decreases water contamination, reduces pollution, prevents exhaustion of natural resources and preserves space for landfills. . . .

New Washington Times piece

My latest piece from the Washington Times.

Guns needed to stop Chicago murders: Homicide soars in nation's new gun-control capital

New Washington Times piece

My latest piece from the Washington Times.

Pro-immigration violence escalates: Tea Party pacifism contrasts favorably to liberal arrests

On Obama distorting Arizona's Immigration Bill

Obama's race-baiting: Democrats use fear-mongering to radicalize the Hispanic vote

This hasn't stopped the administration from continuing to distort the law. From This Week:

TAPPER: And prospective Supreme Court nominee. You certainly have an opinion about whether or not this law is constitutional.

NAPOLITANO: Well, I will say they've already amended the law over the course of the week, and so even the Arizona legislature is starting to recognize there are problems with the law. Unfortunately, I think it does and can invite racial profiling. I think it's bad for law enforcement. I think it illustrates the need, as the president has said, for a bipartisan approach to comprehensive immigration reform, in this town. It's really a cry of frustration from Arizona.

I will say that more assets have been put into Arizona in the last 15 months than ever in history, and actually, the numbers, if you step back and look at it, the numbers actually are down in terms of apprehensions, which indicates fewer illegal crossings, but also up in terms of actual enforcement actions.

So the numbers actually are countered to what the action of the legislature is. But you know what? There's still a frustration out there. It's a frustration, ultimately, that will only be solved with comprehensive immigration reform.

From Meet the Press:

MR. GREGORY: Another area that has become a domestic political debate over immigration has also taken on some international ramifications. Mexico, because of the law, the stringent law against--anti-immigration law passed in Arizona has issued a pretty unusual alert...

SEC'Y CLINTON: Mm-hmm.

MR. GREGORY: ...to its own citizens traveling to Arizona. I'll put it up on the screen. This is the alert, a travel alert over Arizona immigration law. This is how the USA Today reported it on Wednesday. "The country warned that the state's adoption of a strict immigration enforcement law has created `a negative political environment for migrant communities and for all Mexican visitors.'

"`It must be assumed that every Mexican citizen may be harassed and questioned without further cause at any time,' according to the foreign ministry." The president, President Calderon, with whom you'll meet soon has talked about criminalizing--"this law criminalizes a largely social and economic phenomenon of migration." This is a pretty big shot across the bow to America here.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, it is, and, and I think if you look at it, again, you have a lot of unanswered questions. This law, which is clearly a result of the frustration that people in Arizona and their elected officials feel about the difficulty of enforcing the law along our border and preventing the continued immigration, people who are not documented. But on the other hand, it is written so broadly that if you were visiting in Arizona and you had an accent and you were a citizen from, you know, my state, of New York, you could be subjected to the kind of inquiry that is call--that this law permits.

MR. GREGORY: You think it invites profiling, racial profiling?

SEC'Y CLINTON: I don't think there's any doubt about that because, clearly, as I understand the way the law is being explained, if you're a legal resident, you still have to carry papers. Well, how are--how is a law enforcement official supposed to know? So, again, we have to try to balance the very legitimate concerns that Americans--not just people in Arizona, but across the country--have about safe and secure borders, about trying to have comprehensive immigration reform, with a law that I think does what a state doesn't have the authority to do, try to impose their own immigration law that is really the province of the federal government.

Here is a copy of the original bill. Here is a link to the clarifications in the Arizona law mentioned above:

SB 1070: NOW: safe neighborhoods; immigration; law enforcement
· Changes “lawful contact” to “lawful stop, detention or arrest.”

· Stipulates that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.

· Stipulates that a reasonable attempt must be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of a person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation when reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the U.S.

· Removes “solely” from the provision relating the prohibition on discriminatory enforcement.

· Stipulates that for the Enforcement of Immigration Law, Unlawfully Picking up Passengers for Work and Unlawfully Transporting or Harboring Unlawful Aliens the immigration status may be determined by:
Ø A law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal government to verify or ascertain an alien’s immigration status.
Ø ICE or CBP pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1373(c).

· Specifies that 8 U.S.C § 1373 and 8 U.S.C § 1644 are included in the federal immigration laws relating to challenges regarding policies adopted or implemented by an entity.

· Stipulates that for the enforcement of Willful Failure to Complete or Carry an Alien Registration Document, Unlawfully Picking up Passengers for Work and Unlawfully Transporting or Harboring Unlawful Aliens a law enforcement official or agency cannot consider race, color or national origin when implementing these provisions, except as permitted by the U.S. or Arizona Constitution.

The Washington Times defends corporate theft

I approvingly link to a lot of Washington Times pieces, but this one defends Gizmodo for paying $5,000 for the next version of the iPhone.

1) The police are trying to figure out whether Gizmodo purchased a product that they knew was not owned by the person who sold it. If the police can show this, a crime was committed. At this point, Apple can't control or stop the police investigation, just as a woman beaten by her husband can't stop that criminal investigation. We will have to see whether a law was violated, but we won't know without an investigation and If I had to bet, the odds seem very high that the law was violated.
2) This editorial implies that getting a leak about some government activity is the same as getting a leak about some corporate secret for a product that it is making. Do we really want to create a situation where people steal company secrets because they think that the media will pay them for those secrets? If someone broke into a company vault and took the iPhone, would that be acceptable? Even if it is true that "His intention was not industrial espionage," that is the impact that it has on Apple.
3) Apple may think that the review was good publicity, but the question is also when that publicity occurs. The company doesn't want others to know in advance what they are making. This is a highly competitive market and others have been copying Apple's efforts. Two months advance notice simply means that others can get their products out two month faster with those features.

From the NY Times:

Perhaps Gizmodo was involved in the felony theft of property when it paid $5,000 and published photos and videos of the device.

Why did Gizmodo think that the phone was worth $5,000? I assume that they would have been willing to pay even more for it.

Perhaps Jason Chen, the Gizmodo blogger who lost four computers and two servers to the police last week, is not protected by the California shield law intended to prevent the authorities from seizing journalists’ reporting materials without a subpoena (that matter is currently under consideration so the police and county attorneys have held off combing through the computers).

Should journalists be protected from committing crimes? If a reporter broke into an office and stole corporate secrets, would that be protected?

But those are a lot of assumptions, and regardless of how the law shakes out, the optics are horrible for Apple. Anybody with a kilobyte of common sense could have told Steve Jobs that the five minutes of pleasure that came from making a criminal complaint against journalists would be followed by much misery. . . .

Why is this so horrible? Apple and its shareholders have undoubtedly lost a lot of money. Apple's returns to developing new cutting edge products has been diminished. Is that good for consumers? Other companies will be able to start copying Apple's products earlier than they otherwise could have.

Washington Times: Obama's payoff to Brazilian cotton growers

My latest piece from the Washington Times.

Obama's payoff to Brazilian cotton growers: Washington will subsidize foreign competition to U.S. products

Washington Times: Obama's regulatory disaster

My latest pieces from the Washington Times.

Obama's regulatory disaster: Putting the smackdown on banks will further harm the economy

Obama's payoff to Brazilian cotton growers: Washington will subsidize foreign competition to U.S. products

A not very stimulating stimulus: Economists tell Obama his economic policies are all wrong

Editorials in the Washington Times

My latest pieces from the Washington Times.

Crashing the Tea Party: Democratic activists use dirty tricks to demonize opposition

A deficit avalanche: Obama's fiscal commission is based on budget gimmicks

Democrats are hiding deficits: Speaker Pelosi tries to keep bad news secret until after the election

More Washington Times Editorials

My latest pieces from the Washington Times.

Congress responsible for financial collapse: Greenspan points a finger at irresponsible lawmakers

Robbing Peter to pay Paul's health care: Obamacare takes billions out of working-class pockets

Goodbye to another unprincipled Democrat: Stupak got tied up supporting government-funded abortion

New Washington Times piece

My latest pieces from the Washington Times.

Close enough for government work: The EPA and Energy Department are caught fudging efficiency

Obama eyes interns: Democrats move to deny useful job training to young workers

The Washington Times on the Newest DC Gun Case

My latest pieces from the Washington Times.

Federal judge goes after gun owners: District court upholds D.C. firearm restrictions