Amendment in health care plan mandates taxpayer funding for abortion

This should be a much bigger story. Yesterday Rep. Lois Capps proposed an amendment the the House health care bill that will “allow federal funding of elective abortion for those enrolled in the ‘public option’, mandate that every regional Health Exchange offer at least one private insurance plan that provides abortion coverage, and permits taxpayer subsidies of private insurance plans that cover abortion.” (From Red State) Republicans tried to offer an amendment striking the provisions, but Chairman Henry Waxman saw to it that they stood.

This goes beyond the libertarian arguments of “It’s my body, so live and let live.” This effectively forces half the country to subsidize a practice that is antithetical to their moral and religious beliefs. It’s one thing to believe that women should have the right to an abortion; it is quite another to make others pay for it.

If the Capps amendment stands, it ought to be one of the points highlighted over the August recess that make the health care bill untenable. Regardless of your stance on abortion, providing government funds in the public plan and reimbursing private insurers for them is simply unacceptable. This isn’t centrist governance by any means, and it’s ironic considering President Obama on his recent visit with Pope Benedict XVI told the pontiff he wanted to reduce the number of abortions.

Paying for them with taxpayer money sure seems like a funny way of doing that. This is just one more reason why the current health care plan is a disaster that this nation will not be able to stomach.

Cash for Clunkers, out of money already, gets $2 billion more

The government rebate program for trading in older cars for newer ones with better fuel economy, known colloquially as Cash for Clunkers, has already burned through the first $1 billion allocated to it in just the first week of the program. This has prompted the House to hurriedly approve another $2 billion for the program, passing 316-109, with 14 Democrats and 95 Republicans voting against, and 77 Republicans voting with the majority of Democrats to pass the program, which will be taken up in the Senate next week.

Senator Carl Levin (D) of Michigan sounded like a used car dealer himself, saying “people should go to their car dealers now if they want to take advantage of the program.” The only thing missing is Sunday, Sunday, Sunday! The draining of funds might make some see the program as a success, but right now car dealers are frustrated and confused with how to deal with their customers, who aren’t sure how much longer will be able to operate. One feature of the program is that it requires the turned-in cars to be destroyed or else the dealers forfeit their $3,500 rebate. This leaves the car dealers with much less merchandise to possibly turn around and sell at lower prices.

It doesn’t make sense to destroy the old cars’ engines, as the influx of cheaper old cars might help overall car sales, but the government push is to buy new only. And it might be lauded as a momentary jolt to the auto industry, but let’s keep one thing in perspective here – the new cars are being pushed with taxpayer money, money that you and I are on the hook for. It amounts to another bailout of the auto industry, which apparently can’t get enough of government assistance.

Beer summit short on substance and impact

The highly anticipated “beer summit” took place this evening with President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden sitting down for a beer with Sgt. James Crowley and Harvard Prof. Henry Louis Gates Jr. The meeting comes a week after a press conference in which the President said Crowley and other officers “acted stupidly” in arresting Gates, right after admitting he knew nothing about the case. He looked foolish after more details emerged that portrayed Gates as the one to invoke race as he went off the deep end on officers just doing their job.

President Obama tried to portray the beer moment as a great step forward in race relations:

I have always believed that what brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart. I am confident that has happened here tonight, and I am hopeful that all of us are able to draw this positive lesson from this episode.

Whatever happy spin he tries to put on it, the President is trying to put this behind him as a lot of Americans reacted negatively to his reflexive attack on the police without knowing the facts. Among other things, it diminishes his political capital at a time when he needs it the most to sell his health care plan.

As for the beer session itself, what did it really accomplish? I’ll agree with Obama in noting that it’s nice to see that Crowley and Gates have already talked about the subject and plan to talk again. Officer Crowley called the meeting productive and said all parties are looking forward (a relief to the President, I’m sure), but according to him he and Gates “agree to disagree” about the confrontation. Doesn’t that leave us back at square one? I’m all for people of all colors sitting down together, particularly for a nice cold one, and I’m all in favor of a frank, candid, and civil discussion on race.

But let’s be honest – this moment wasn’t about that. When you have news agencies breathlessly reporting each man’s beer of choice, you know it’s less about substance and more about style. This “beer summit” was only about a photo op and providing damage control for the President. The honest discussion on race will have to wait for another day.

Obama admin denies loan for Ohio uranium plant

A Japanese uranium enrichment plant similar to the one proposed in Ohio.

The Department of Energy on Tuesday rejected the loan request of Maryland-based USEC for the construction of a uranium-enrichment plant in Ohio. USEC CEO John K. Welch said the President reneged on a campaign promise he had made while stumping in Ohio, and Obama actually stated his support on two separate occasions:

While campaigning in southern Ohio last August, Obama praised the USEC project. “Under my administration, energy programs that promote safe and environmentally sound technologies and are domestically produced, such as the enrichment facility in Ohio, will have my full support,” he said later in a letter to Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland (D). “I will work with the Department of Energy to help make loan guarantees available for this and other advanced energy programs that reduce carbon emissions.”

Rep. Jean Schimdt (R) of Piketon, OH and Rep. Zack Space (D) of Dover, OH raised bipartisan complaints about the DOE’s failure to approve the loan. The DOE’s decision is even more curious when you consider the following:

Two other enrichment plants are planned, one in New Mexico and one in Idaho, but the one in New Mexico would be built by a European consortium and the one in Idaho by Areva, a French company.

I don’t know if those companies somehow got DOE loans, but I would hope not.

Ohio needed this uranium enrichment plant, which would have been situated in Piketon and was termed the American Centrifuge Plant. Jobs in general would be fantastic for the state, especially the tech jobs that this plant would have provided. Instead, the DOE pooh-poohs an American company while two other foreign-owned projects go forward, all while undercutting the President’s supposed interest in “green technology.” A smart energy policy would include nuclear energy and its attendant support industries, but environmentalists and not energy folks are setting the direction on energy policy. It’s another missed opportunity, and both Ohio and the nation will be worse off for it.

Health care reform’s misconceptions and why it’s now delayed

There are reports that a deal has been struck to move the health care bill out of committee in the House very soon, but even President Barack Obama is becoming resigned to the idea that he won’t have a bill on his desk until fall at the earliest. I’m with Ed Morrissey when he says that getting the bill out of committee and then waiting for weeks is a dangerous tactic that gives the illusion of momentary victory but in the long run hurts the bill’s chances with increased exposure.

Regardless of the timetable, this bill is a disaster that will do nothing to solve our problems with health care. I’ve read a few liberal blogs urgently insisting that the opposition get out of the way so we can solve the imminent health crisis. They’re coming from a few shaky assumptions. The 47 million uninsured Americans is a number that is being bandied about with near religious authority. The number comes from the Current Population Survey from the Census Bureau, and Keith Hennessey has an excellent breakdown of the actual data. Of the 47 million, 9.3 million are non-citizens, 5 million are childless young folks, 4.3 million are Medicaid or SCHIP eligible, 10 million are at 300% of the poverty level, and 6.4 million are people who, based on an HHS analysis, mistakenly don’t list their Medicaid benefits as health insurance.

So that leaves us with 10.6 million uninsured who don’t fall into the above categories. And by the way, 253.4 million of us do have health care. Thinking about those numbers should shift the priorities around a bit. Do we need to wipe out our current health care system for a number that’s smaller than advertised? I’ll leave that to you.

Another justification, made even by the President himself, is that public option health care is going to reduce costs and cut deficits. Step beyond the initial absurdity of the logic that increasing spending will cut costs. The fundamental truth is that the current health care proposal does little to bring down the fundamental costs of health care. What is being proposed is a shuffling of the costs from private insurers to the government. That isn’t going to result in cost savings, it’s going to result in fewer private insurers and more administration costs by federal bureaucracy.

And the size of the problem is likely understated. Medicare, when enacted in 1965, was projected to have hospital costs of only $9 billion in 1990. The actual number that year was $66 billion, and in the 19 intervening years the disparity between projection and reality has only gotten worse. If the CBO estimates $240 billion will be added to the deficit over the next ten years, you can bet that the actual amount will be higher.

It’s no surprise that a Wall Street Journal poll shows 42% of Americans think the plan is a bad idea compared to 36% that like it, and 47% of those with insurance disapprove. In addition, only 20% thought that their own care would improve under the current proposal. That’s why the current delay is more of a setback for public option health care supporters – the more time the voters have to stew, the less likely they’ll be to stomach this boondoggle.

The question then becomes will legislators listen to their constituents or be strong-armed into toeing an imaginary party line so a few can put feathers in their cap? If the latter comes to pass, the country will be ill-served indeed. Do we need to reform health care? Yes. But providing an all-inclusive government plan isn’t reform, it’s unsustainable cost-shuffling that will hurt us financially as a nation and won’t end up helping  us one bit.

The Birther controversy is an unnecessary distraction

The controversy over President Obama’s birth status, quietly simmering since last fall, has over the last few weeks hit a kind of boiling point with CNN anchors, US Senators, and the White House Press Secretary all weighing in on the subject. Numerous lawsuits have been filed, and a soldier on his way to Afghanistan recently protested his deployment on the grounds that the President hasn’t proven himself to be a citizen.

It’s a theory that requires a conspiracy of large proportions – the Obama campaign, the McCain campaign (whose lawyers apparently investigated the issue and found nothing), the state government of Hawaii, the DNC, the FEC, and the Supreme Court. This is the sticking point for many conspiracy theories – how do you keep all those people from squealing what would be the biggest story of the century?

The so-called “Birther” movement is attracting so much fire from multiple sides of the ideological spectrum that one wonders if it isn’t being brought to the forefront to deflect from the President’s sagging poll numbers and the public’s increasing distaste for an unsustainable public health plan. The left seems to never miss an opportunity to paint conservatives with the same broad brush (see the Pittsburgh shooting and the Holocaust Museum killer for examples).

Here’s what I believe – until proven to me otherwise by strong affirmative evidence, Barack Obama is a citizen of the United States and the legitimate President of America. Those who question his birth status will quite frankly have to do a lot better to convince me that there’s more to see, but in all the debate over long-form birth certificates versus certificates of live birth, one thing must be remembered – absence of evidence doesn’t mean evidence of absence. If Obama’s student transcripts were to somehow show he applied as a foreign student, then that affirmative evidence might raise more legitimate concerns, but until then, the birth certificate issue is a non-productive waste of time and effort that should be spent battling universal health care and cap-and-trade.

Likewise, the left should not be so keen to try to smear all conservatives, Republicans, and Tea Party activists with the Birther label. No Republican in elected office or in the chain of party leadership has signed on to or endorsed the idea, and despite claims to the contrary, the Tea Parties are a response to out-of-control government spending, not Obama’s birthplace. Even more tenuous is the idea that the Birther movement is more evidence of the latent racism of conservatives – after all, why else would they be questioning the citizenship of the first black President, right?

To some on the right, the birth certificate issue might seem an alluring option for defeating the President’s agenda – if he’s shown to be illegitimate, then all his ideas and legislation would be null and void anyway. But here’s the point – that’s not necessary. The President’s ideas are becoming more unpopular by the day as the stimulus is shown to be the failure that it was destined to be. The illegitimacy issue was raised before by the hardcore anti-Bush crowd when he was “selected not elected” back in 2000. The venom and acrimony didn’t help them in 2004, and it won’t help our side in 2010.

This whole debate should have remained on the back-burner where it belonged. For whatever reason it’s been brought to the fore, and it only serves as a distraction to the more pressing issues of the day. Bringing it up is like playing with matches in a grain silo – it may end up burning everyone. I say put the lighter away and oppose Obama on his greatest weakness – the futility of his own agenda.

Sweden’s shift right is a warning for US

Sweden has been long considered a model for progressive ideas and policies for the last few decades, and its welfare state has been looked to as a sort of ideal for liberal-leaning thinkers. Here’s the catch: the Swedes themselves are getting tired of it.

Forbes has an eye-opening articlewith the finance minister of Sweden, Anders Borg (Heads-up from Skanderbeg at Red State). The son of Social Democrat parents, Borg drifted away from the welfare state when he realized it was creating a “boring, stagnant society.” He sees the 70’s and 80’s as Swedish lost decades which saw increased government spending coupled with a decline in real growth. Now, he and his boss, Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt are talking tax cuts, privatizing numerous industries, and letting a free market rule as more and more Swedes recognize the dangerous futility of an all-out socialist society.

What’s happening in Sweden is further proof that Europe is beginning a shift to the right, and shows that the EU parliamentary elections were more than a blip on the radar screen. Furthermore, Sweden should serve as a model not of a socialist utopia, but of the failures of bloated government. Consider this quote:

Next year Sweden’s government is projected to be on the hook for gross financial liabilities equal to 57% of GDP, which is up from 48% two years ago. The debt of U.S. government entities, by contrast, is expected to nearly equal GDP by next year, versus 63% in 2007, says the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development.

So we might be there already if you take government debt as a percentage of a nation’s economic output, in which we already surpass Sweden. Sweden’s economic reawakening should serve as a model for what American government should be doing – cutting taxes, reducing governmental influence and shrinking government. Sadly, with bailouts, stimulus packages, and government takeover of industry, we’re doing precisely the opposite.

CBO knocks health care package once again

The Congressional Budget Office on Sunday gave another scathing analysis of the health care bill being considered in Congress, saying that “the probability is high that no savings would be realized by the plan.” Under the CBO’s scoring, the plan would save only a measly $2 billion over 10 years, a minuscule percentage of the $1-2 trillion price tag of the program.

The continued negative analysis has resulted in a kind of war of words between the independent CBO and the White House-controlled Office of Management and Budget, whose director Peter Orszag accused the CBO of a bias toward “exaggerating costs and underestimating savings.” The negative CBO report comes after President Obama invited its director Doug Elmundorf to the White House for a “discussion” after a report that concluded that the health care plan would add billions to the deficit.

Americans of every ideological stripe recognize the need for health care reform. They want the costs of health care lowered, but the bill being worked on by the Democrats does nothing to change the fundamental costs of health care and instead shifts the burden of those costs to the government (i.e. the taxpayers). It’s a losing proposal that merely shuffles money rather than attacking the root causes of health care costs, it’s why the CBO will continue to score the plan poorly, and it’s why the American people are losing faith in the idea of a government-run and taxpayer-funded public option health care plan.

Zelaya’s sizzle is fizzling in Honduras

In an encouraging sign that massive unrest in Honduras may yet be averted, a border protest called for by ousted President Manuel Zelaya has fizzled out, attracting only 100 supporters with many more trickling back to the capital of Tegucigalpa in discouragement. The turnout is a disappointment for the pro-Zelaya movement and a win for the Honduran military, who were able to keep the border clear with relatively little incident.

Ed Morrissey conjectures that Zelaya may have overplayed his hand in exile, with his border-jumping antics and increasing bombastics illustrating to many Hondurans that Chavez’s pal might have had no qualms being reinstated at the head of a Nicaraguan or Venezuelan army. He may have also burned his bridges with the Obama administration, who through State Sec. Clinton called his actions “reckless” and have as yet not taken harsher action against Honduras than slashing aid. They may be backing off their original stance, which is the correct thing to do in my opinion given that Zelaya seemed on the path toward violating the Honduran constitution and setting up a Chavez-style permanent electoral base.

The declining appeal of Zelaya both in Honduras and abroad gives renewed hope to both the interim government under Roberto Micheletti and for the prospects of negotiations under Costa Rican President Oscar Arias. The prospects of Zelaya’s return seem to be ebbing at the moment, which is all the better for the folks in Honduras.

Voinovich on the GOP’s struggle: “It’s the Southerners”

The Columbus Dispatch has an interesting snippet from outgoing Republican Sen. George Voinovich. The main thrust of the article was to highlight Voinovich’s upcoming involvement in opposing gambling, but Weepin’ George also offered up this choice quote on the recent downturn in the GOP’s fortunes (Heads-up from Right Ohio):

We got too many Jim DeMint’s (R-S.C.) and Tom Coburn’s (R-Ok.). It’s the Southerners. They get on TV and go ‘errrr, errrrr.’ People hear them and say, ‘These people, they’re southerners. The party’s being taken over by southerners. What they hell they got to do with Ohio?

Errrr, errrr? Way to completely denigrate an entire section of the country, Senator. It’s apparent that Voinovich has a problem with Sen. Jim DeMint and Sen. Tom Coburn (Is Oklahoma really the South?). That’s amazing, because those two have been the most able communicators on behalf on conservatism and the GOP. I suppose Voinovich is more concerned with looking erudite and learned – never mind that Midwestern values jive a great deal with the conservative values that DeMint and Coburn are trumpeting.

With this kind of backward and self-defeating thinking, Ohio will be better off without Voinovich representing them in the Senate.

Update: The bigger blogs have picked up on this story. Voinovich is going to have some explaining to do.

Yikes: Less than 50% now approve of Obama

A pair of influential pollsters now have support for the President under 50%. Rasmussen has 49% of voters at least somewhat approving of the President, with an Approval Index of -11 (which is really more a measure of passion, as the percentage of those who strongly disapprove from those who strongly approve). Some on the left discount Rasmussen as skewing rightward, but Zogby, seen by some as left-leaning, backs him up with an approval rating of 48%.

The President can’t point the finger at anyone but himself for the steep drop in support. The GOP haven’t really been making too much of a concerted push against him until recently, and he’s had the support of many in the media. The public is deeply uncomfortable with his propensity for spending and big government programs.

For a historical perspective, I took a quick glance at the Gallup approval ratings for the last several Presidents. Only Bill Clinton had a lower rating at such an early point in his Presidency. Granted, the polling firms are different, and Gallup still has the President at 56%, but during the last several elections Zogby and Rasmussen have seemed to be more on the money, including 2008 where both pollsters were closer to the actual result than Gallup.

The Gates controversy didn’t help, but it’s the declining economic performance coupled with intensified defense of the stimulus boondoggle and iced with a massive and murky health care reform bill that have caused Obama’s popularity to plummet. Will it force him to tack to the center? We’ll see, but Obama doesn’t seem to be the political pragmatist that Bill Clinton was.

Sen. Sherrod Brown tied to ACORN in Congressional report

 

Sherrod Brown, Senator from Ohio, has been named along with former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich in a report on ACORN issued by Republicans on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (heads-up from Right Ohio). The report alleges that ACORN, a recipient of taxpayer money, donated money and personnel to promote a partisan political agenda in violation of many tax and election laws. An ACORN spokeswoman dismissed the report as a partisan screed, but Rep. Darrell Issa, the ranking GOP member on the House committee, said the following:

“We stand by the findings of the report … There are a lot of legitimate questions raised about the political activities and organizational structure of ACORN. We’d certainly like to have a venue and platform for ACORN to respond to our report. … It is outrageous that ACORN will be rewarded for its criminal acts by taxpayer money in the stimulus and is being asked to help with the U.S. census. This report shines a light on clear criminal conduct and it is abundantly clear that they cannot and should not be trusted with taxpayer dollars.”

We all know the story on ACORN – at the very least, the labyrinthine network of shell companies and groups seems a little suspicious. And there’s no doubt that ACORN is a partisan outfit, which is one of the reasons it’s troubling they’re going to “help out” with the 2010 Census. Indeed, just two months ago charges were filed against the Nevada branch of ACORN, and it’s my belief that there’s a lot more to this organization than meets the eye.

I’m a little shocked but not completely surprised by the linkage of Sen. Sherrod Brown to ACORN. Described glowingly in liberal circles as an “unabashed progressive” concerned with “social justice,” Brown’s views undoubtedly jive quite nicely with those of ACORN. I don’t know if Brown or his staff are guilty of any wrongdoing, and at this point it would be premature to speculate. I don’t believe they are, but any hint of a connection with such a shady organization casts a pall over any who are tied to it.

Zelaya tiptoes back and forth Honduras border

Ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya “re-entered” Honduras on Fridayin another bizarre show of political theater by the Central American leader. Zelaya, coming from Nicaragua, approached the Honduran border at a remote mountain pass and took a few steps across into the country he once led. He spoke by cell phone to nearby military officials before returning to Nicaragua, saying he did not want to risk bloodshed and was ready to return to the negotiating table. Honduran soldiers had formed a human chain near the border crossing but did not move to arrest Zelaya.

For her part, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Zelaya’s border shenanigans “reckless” and said they’d do nothing to restore constitutional order in Honduras. For all its pointless showmanship, perhaps Zelaya’s step into Honduras will dial down the tension ever so slightly, as now Zelaya doesn’t have to push for a more dramatic return. I’m hoping negotiations will win out, and both sides seem committed to that path, but I wonder if any solution that sees Zelaya returned to power will be to the benefit of the people of Honduras.

Obama maligns doctors, police in anemic health care presser

In a prime-time press conference yesterday that President Obama hoped would bolster support for his plans for health care reform, the President gave a weak performance that was short on details and gave little in the way of new information. The press conference was the lowest-rated thus far for Obama, and he used his time to go after a few groups of people.

In a bizarre section of his remarks, Obama went after doctors, using the example of tonsillectomies to supposedly illustrate that it’s doctors and their unnecessary tests that are driving up the cost of health care:

Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that’s out there. … The doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, ‘You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid’s tonsils out. Now, that may be the right thing to do, but I’d rather have that doctor making those decisions just based on whether you really need your kid’s tonsils out or whether it might make more sense just to change; maybe they have allergies. Maybe they have something else that would make a difference.

So according to the analysis of the President (who, according to his diagnosis, must have medical training), it’s not malpractice lawsuits, health insurance premiums, or the intrinsic cost of medical tests that are responsible for the high cost of health care – it’s those greedy doctors who just want to order the most expensive test possible! Those greedy doctors! Obama will make ‘em pay!

The assertion is an absurd one. Doctors and nurses don’t make medical decisions based on fee structure, they make them on behalf of the patient. Health insurance providers might make decisions on how to reimburse based on fee structures, but to malign caregivers as predatory vultures out to make a buck is a shameful manipulation of the public and a false characterization of the hard work of so many in the health care field.

The President didn’t stop there. One of the hard-hitting journalists in the White House Press Corps, rather than pressing the President about dismal CBO scoring of the health care plan, the crisis in Honduras, nuclear weapons in Iran, or a whole host of other more relevant issues, served Obama a softball about the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. The quick version is that police, acting on a phone call from a neighbor who saw two men trying to break into Gates’ home, arrived and confronted Gates, eventually placing him under arrest. The President, after saying he didn’t know the facts in the case, promptly said the Cambridge police “acted stupidly.”

Mr. President, if you don’t know all the facts, perhaps you should preclude on passing judgment. Delving into the story deeper, the police version says that Gates was immediately belligerent when the police showed up, shouting that they were questioning him simply because he was “a black man in America.” Gates continued to shout at the officer who would eventually arrest him, Sgt. James Crowley, saying “You don’t know who you’re messing with,” asking several times for the officer’s badge number and shouting over the officer’s responses. When Crowley asked Gates to come outside, Gates replied, “Ya, I’ll speak to your mama outside” and proceeded to continue shouting at the officer as he followed him outside. Now in public, Crowley warned Gates a few times before handcuffing him for disorderly conduct.

Does race play a factor in interactions between police and blacks? In some cases, yes, but from what I’ve seen, this wasn’t one of those cases. Indeed, if the police report is accurate, it would seem that Gates was the one who acted in a racially motivated manner. But rather than speak with prudent caution about a case he admittedly knew little about, Obama had a knee-jerk reaction to side against the police. I’m not saying it’s the greatest controversy ever, but Obama should have kept his mouth shut. It’s no surprise that the Fraternal Order of Police condemned Obama’s comment, along with comedian Bill Cosby.

The long and the short of it all is that Obama failed to make a compelling case for government-run health care. Indeed, he really didn’t answer much of the criticism at all, and pooh-poohed charges that he was jamming legislation through with little consideration, giving the cheesy justification,”I’m in a rush because I’m getting clobbered by letters of people concerned about their health care.”

His effort also did little to sway those in Congress as Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today indicated they would hold off further debate until the fall. Reid even gave the suprising reasoning of ”It’s better to have a product based on quality and thoughtfulness rather than try to jam something through.” (Heads up from MM) Sheesh, better late than never, I guess, but that kind of thinking would have been helpful when the stimulus and cap-and-trade were jammed through.

Is the health care debate Obama’s Waterloo, as Sen. Jim DeMint suggested? If so, he’s failing badly as more Americans become deeply skeptical of his plan, not due to any Republican media campaign, but due to the murky nature of the plan itself and the expensive nature of the government-run public option that Obama has stated he wants to implement. His anemic performance should finally put to rest any claims of Obama as the greatest orator in American history. Is he great giving campaign-style speeches with soaring rhetoric? Sure, but so would Denzel Washington or Johnny Depp. That makes them good communicators, but not gifted politicians or skilled leaders.

(Image credit: AP via CBS News)

Obama “not familiar” with portions of health care bill

In a conference call with liberal bloggers, President Obama fielded a question regarding Section 102 of the health care reform bill, a section that deals with outlawing private insurance. The liberal blogger was looking for ammunition to use against critics, but what was the President’s answer?

You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.

So President Obama is planning on pushing a plan through Congress with truncated time for debate and deliberation while ignorant of significant portions of the bill. How in the world can the public believe anything this man promises regarding health care reform when comments like this make it seem like he’s pulling facts and statements out of thin air?

The wheels seem to be coming off the plan as the public becomes more and more wary of the disaster that a government-run and taxpayer-funded health insurance would be. Yet despite all the public outcry and displeasure, as well as all the skittishness among moderate Democrats, there’s a good chance that the bill could still pass with enough arm-twisting. Obama says the bill isn’t about him, yet he seems determined to quickly sign a bill so he can have his shining moment in front of the cameras and claim “We got it done!” Consequences be damned, of course.

The stimulus is already an albatross around the neck of the administration, and I’m beginning to think that Obama has inexorably tied his fortunes to this health care bill. It seems his ego won’t let political pragmatism get in the way of crafting a centrist bill that lowers the real cost of health care instead of shifting the cost to taxpayers. In his eyes, America cannot afford to think about health care reform, we simply must have it now. And make no mistake, we’ll pay the price for such reckless foolhardiness.