Politics, Government & Public Policy: May 2010 Archives

The White House has released a memo attempting to explain away the job the administration offered Joe Sestak on the condition of him dropping his primary challenge to turn-coat Arlen Specter.

Michelle Malkin explains how the various parties coordinated their story.

Kurt Bardella, Spokesperson, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, responds: “If the White House is coordinating it’s response with the Sestak campaign, as Congressman Sestak has reported, it certainly explains why the President, when given the opportunity at a nationally broadcasted press conference, abdicated the opportunity to address the issue candidly and definitively. Instead, it appears as if the White House is taking time to circle the wagons and coordinating their message. This revelation that the White House initiated a dialogue with Sestak at the same time they are preparing their public response certainly leaves the impression that there is a coordinated effort going on. Of course, if everyone just did the right thing and told the truth, the need to speculate about motive and impartiality wouldn’t be necessary.”

Republican Congressman Darrell Issa says that the White House's lawyerly explanation is an admission of guilt:

“I’m very concerned that in the rush to put together this report, the White House has done everything but explain its own actions and has instead worked to craft a story behind closed doors and coordinate with those involved. The White House has admitted today to coordinating an arrangement that would represent an illegal quid-pro-quo as federal law prohibits directly or indirectly offering any position or appointment, paid or unpaid, in exchange for favors connected with an election.

“President Clinton and Congressman Sestak now need to answer questions about what the White House has released today – that at the behest of the White House Chief of staff, they dispatched a former President to get Joe Sestak out of the Pennsylvania Senate Primary. Regardless of what President Clinton or Congressman Sestak now say, it is abundantly clear that this kind of conduct is contrary to President Obama’s pledge to change ‘business as usual’ and that his Administration has engaged in the kind of political shenanigans he once campaigned to end.”

Future of Capitalism points out the interesting features of the Future of Capitalismmemo release mechanism.

The White House chooses the Friday afternoon before Memorial Day weekend to unload the news -- in the form of a memo from the White House counsel, so that anyone he talked to about it is covered by both lawyer-client privilege and executive privilege -- that "The White House Chief of Staff enlisted the support of former President Clinton who agreed to raise with Congressman Sestak options of service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board." There's no explanation of why Mr. Clinton was enlisted for this task. If it would have been legal or appropriate for a White House official to do it directly, why bother getting Mr. Clinton involved? And if it would have been illegal or inappropriate for a White House official to do it directly, does the use of a cut-out, even if it comports with the letter of the law, match the spirit of the law or the administration's stated intention to set a high ethical bar?

If Chris Christie is successful in New Jersey maybe he can relocate to California and help out the Golden State, which faces most of the same problems.

He then opened the floor to questions. A few were softballs, including the declaration by Clara Nebot of Bergenfield that Christie is "a god" to her relatives in Florida.

But borough teacher Rita Wilson, a Kearny resident, argued that if she were paid $3 an hour for the 30 children in her class, she’d be earning $83,000, and she makes nothing near that.

"You’re getting more than that if you include the cost of your benefits," Christie interrupted.

When Wilson, who has a master’s degree, said she was not being compensated for her education and experience, Christie said:

"Well, you know then that you don’t have to do it." Some in the audience applauded.

Christie said he would not have had to impose cuts to education if the teachers union had agreed to his call for a one-year salary freeze and a 1.5 percent increase in employee benefit contributions.

"Your union said that is the greatest assault on public education in the history of the state," Christie said. "That’s why the union has no credibility, stupid statements like that."

In California the same could go for prison guards, police, and firefighter unions. These public sector unions bear a large share of the responsibility for many states' economic woes, and it's refreshing to hear these them called out publicly for raping state treasuries.

(HT: Hot Air.)

Yesterday I had the opportunity, along with a few other local bloggers, to meet with Bill Corrigan, a Republican candidate for St. Louis County Executive. Even though I live in St. Charles County, St. Louis is the heart of the local metro area and so I was quite interested to hear about Mr. Corrigan's campaign plans.

During our discussion, one of the main points I made was that our region should really try to take advantage of the current recession by maximizing in-migration from the coasts. The recession has hit America's coastal cities harder than it has hit us here in the Midwest -- especially as reflected by the housing market -- and I think there's a huge opportunity to attract people to the St. Louis metro region. This story about migration from California to Missouri is from 2005:

Today, the most popular destinations for people moving from Los Angeles and San Francisco are less expensive parts of California, like Riverside and Sacramento. Las Vegas and Phoenix also remain near the top of the list, but Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Nashville, Virginia Beach and Oklahoma City are becoming popular, according to Economy.com.

In the Kansas City area, which straddles Missouri and Kansas, a small band of Californians are discovering the plentiful supply of spacious homes for prices that would not buy a shack back where they came from.

"They just walk in and go 'Wow, we can have space,' " said Sandy Tasker, a real estate agent with Coldwell Banker in Overland Park, Kan.

According to I.R.S. data, the net population transfer to Missouri from California more than tripled, to about 2,200, from 2001 to 2004.

Nothing prevents St. Louis from joining that list, if we have the wisdom and political will to make a few changes. This migration report doesn't have more recent data, but it does give a more detailed breakdown that includes the St. Louis area as the nation's 12th highest in-migration metro area.

I look forward to seeing Mr. Corrigan's economic development plan, and I hope it includes a vision for drawing in hard-working, talented people from around the country that have perhaps become disillusioned with their prospects on the coasts. At an explicit extreme, I could even envision an ad campaign targeted at the coastal cities with a theme like: "Are you tired of high taxes, red-tape, and a government run by clueless socialists? Come check out St. Louis! We've got beautiful, affordable real estate, world-class universities, and high tech jobs without all the government tentacles you that make your life miserable!"

Although last night was a good night for Republicans and a bad night for incumbents, I must admit that I'm disappointed that Democrats held John Murtha's seat -- for now.

In the western Pennsylvania special House election to replace the late Rep. John Murtha, Republican Tim Burns called and conceded the race to Democrat and former Murtha aide Mark Critz.

The race was painted by Republicans as a referendum on the "Obama-Pelosi agenda" and Republicans are now likely to face questions about whether or not, even in this environment, just criticizing the "Obama-Pelosi" agenda as Burns had done through this entire campaign is sufficient. This district was precisely the kind of district that Republicans needed to win in order to become the majority party this fall.

Republicans will argue that the turnout advantages for Democrats in a special election on primary day with a competitive Democratic primary at the top of the ticket were too great to overcome, but that they will win this seat in November.

Excuses are nice, but not as nice as winning. The results weren't even very close.

In the end, Republican Tim Burns didn't come that close to winning the race in Pennsylvania's 12th District. Democrat Mark Critz took the seat with 53.4 percent of the vote to 44.3 percent for Burns, a margin of 12,208 votes, with the remainder of the vote going to a Libertarian Party candidate.

Coming after polls showed Burns running as high as 49 percent -- in the one district that voted for Kerry in 2004 and McCain in 2008 -- it was a shock and a disappointment to tea party activists. Robert Stacy McCain, a freelancer who made four trips into the district to shadow Burns, reported that Burns allies like Diana Irey, who ran against the late John Murtha in 2006, were even interpreting early results that showed Critz narrowly winning some Democratic precincts as proof that Burns would win.

Despite other losses yesterday, Democrats should draw great solace from Critz's victory. I think this special election was the main event yesterday, and it doesn't point to a Republican takeover of the House in November.

Back to the first article, let me point out some bad word selection in this paragraph about Blanch Lincoln's failure to win the nomination for her own seat:

In Arkansas, incumbent Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Arkansas, facing the toughest political battle of her career, failed to win the majority of votes in the Democratic primary. She will now face a runoff election with Lt. Gov. Bill Halter on June 8.

Lincoln was the target of much of the same anti-incumbent sentiment as Specter. But unlike the Pennsylvania senator, she did garner a majority of the votes, but not the 50 percent needed to avoid a runoff.

I think the word they were looking for is "plurality".

Paul Hsieh apty describes how ObamaCare will destroy health care:

ObamaCare thus places a noose around private insurers' necks. Insurance companies will be required to offer numerous benefits determined by politicians and lobbyists. But they will be allowed to charge only what government bureaucrats permit. No business can survive long if it must offer $2,000 worth of services to customers but can charge only $1,000.

Although it is tempting to take delight at the insurance industry's self-caused plight, the inevitable collapse of the private insurance market would also leave millions of Americans without coverage. Even though this crisis would be caused by government policies, liberals would gleefully portray it as a "failure of the free market" and demand that the government "rescue" health care. The end result would be a "single payer" socialized medical system like Canada's or Great Britain's, with rationing and long waits for medical care.

Instead of making their Faustian bargain with the government, insurance companies should have advocated for free-market reforms such as allowing customers to purchase policies across state lines, repealing existing mandatory benefits, and allowing patients to use Health Savings Accounts for routine expenses and low-cost "catastrophic-only" insurance to cover rare expensive events. Such free-market reforms could reduce insurance costs up to 50%, while preserving quality of medical care.

He also rightly points out that destroying health care isn't a bug in ObamaCare -- it's the underlying purpose! The point is to destroy the market for health care and force the American people into a completely government-run system. Why? Because it will give the elites more control of our lives and reduce our liberty. They think we're too dumb to be free, so they're trying to help us out.

Marco Rubio is right for confronting the American citizenry about our addition to government.

Republican Senate candidate Marco Rubio told an anti-gay marriage group Saturday the country is relying too much on the government, in part because of a breakdown of family and faith values over the last 50 years.

"You know what the fastest growing religion in America is? Statism. The growing reliance on government," Rubio said. "Every time a problem emerges, increasingly the reaction in American society is 'Well what can government do about it?'"

America became the greatest country because of its strong society where people did not sit back and wait for government to act, he said. "They did it themselves," Rubio said.

Hear hear! When we face a difficult situation our first reaction shouldn't be to run to the government for help. We need to help ourselves and restrict the government to the few domains for which its blunt power is appropriate.

Despite Democrat assurances to the contrary, it's a big deal when one of their most powerful committee chairmen decides not to run for re-election.

Rep. David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat who is one of the most powerful and longest-serving members of Congress, said Wednesday that he wouldn't seek re-election this year, adding a new burden to Democrats in what is shaping up as a difficult election year. ...

Mr. Obey's retirement also means the departure of one of Congress's most high-profile figures. As chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey plays a central role in divvying up hundreds of billions of dollars each year for basic government programs, such as Pentagon weapons procurements and Park Service salaries. First elected in 1969, he is the third-longest-serving member of the House.

"There is a time to stay and a time to go, and this is my time to go," Mr. Obey said. He described himself as "bone-tired."

Even before Mr. Obey's decision, Republicans were eyeing his largely rural, Northern Wisconsin district as a possible opportunity to pick up a seat. Mr. Obey was facing a spirited challenge from Ashland County District Attorney Sean Duffy, a Republican whose resume includes a stint on the cast of MTV's reality show "The Real World."

Internal Democrat polling data must look miserable.

(HT: JW.)

So the National Enquirer is reporting that President Obama is having/had an affair with a staffer... at first blush, I find it credible. When you consider how blind the press was to John Edwards' affair, it's easy to imagine the mainstream media covering up an affair by Obama. We'll have to see all the evidence, but I won't be shocked if it's true.

Some people are eager to dismiss sexual affairs as "private" matters that shouldn't be considered when evaluating politicians. Others (such as myself) believe that marital infidelity reveals a fundamental character flaw, and said flaw will also manifest itself in the political realm in ways that may not be directly visible. I.e., if you cheat on your wife, why should I trust you not to cheat on me as a citizen?

But I think there's an even more important consideration: national security. From this angle, it isn't the affair that's important, it's the fact that the affair is an embarrassing secret. Secrets provide leverage to be used by enemies, and not just personal enemies but national enemies. If an enemy of the United States were to discover that the President is having a secret affair, there's no telling how much damage the enemy could inflict in the form of concessions, espionage, theft, political appointments, vetoes, and so forth.

Note: affairs that aren't secret don't carry this same danger. If an affair is common knowledge then it can't be used as leverage. At that point, it's "merely" an issue of character and trustworthiness.

If President Obama were having a secret affair, I think it would be prudent to impeach him immediately on national security grounds. Breaking trust and having poor moral character are bad, but I see those as issues that can be sorted out by voters via the election process. Endangering national security for personal sexual gratification is a much more serious matter.