Fellow Conservatives: Get in the Game on Health Care

"Republicans want you to die quickly." A stunning claim by Congressman Alan Grayson but a theme that is all too familiar: Conservatives hate Americans and don't care if half of America dies to defeat health care reform. They are mean and greedy, more concerned with lining the pockets of big insurance firms. The truth of the matter, for those interested in truth, is that conservatives care about improving access to health care while lowering costs, but oppose any larger role of the federal government in accomplishing this laudable goal. So how did this argument begin and how has it been successful? Conservatives have failed at articulating a cohesive and understandable alternative for reforming health care and thus allowed their opponents to take the offensive in framing the issue. This has the consequence of not only costing conservatives the debate on a crucial issue to all Americans, but leaving voters with a false and damaging impression of what conservative politicians stand for.

Conservatives alternatives for health care reform are numerous and promising. Bobby Jindal wrote an excellent Op-ed for the Wall Street Journal laying out his principles; The Cato Institute has a library of ideas from expanding the role of Health Savings Accounts to leveling the tax deductibility of individual health insurance plans with that of employer based health insurance plans. Many in Congress as well as conservative economists and health care experts such as Congressman Blunt, Paul Ryan from Wisconsin, former Congressman Joe Scarborough, and Larry Kudlow of CNBC have advocated for the elimination of state barriers to allow insurance companies to sell across state lines, opening up markets and increasing the risk pools. Each of these ideas have real promise and strong evidence in support of their probability of success.

Despite this, few Americans are aware of, or understand what conservative alternatives exist and how they can work together. The debate has been framed by Democrats who have told voters that if you are not for their plan, if you are against the public option, you are against health care reform and you don't care about average Americans. The truth is quite different. The choice is really about the role of government. Do you want more or less? Do you want the federal government to take a larger role or would you like to have the free market reform health care?

The term "public option" has given progressives an easily understandable and seemingly simple idea to rally support around. But the polling tells a very different story. Progressives often cite majority support of the public option as a reason why Congress should adopt this policy. True, some polls have reported support as high as 85%. When asked if they know what exactly the public option means however, the findings are startling. In a recent poll, only 37% of respondents could correctly identify a public option as "creating a government funded insurance company that competes with private insurers to offer health insurance at market rates." In a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, 4 out of 5 surveyed think the current reforms being contemplated in Congress would reduce quality of care, increase personal health care costs, and limit choice. Why would Americans be in favor of a system that they believe will leave them worse off? Because they are in favor of reform and this is the only plan that has been articulated to them.

Conservatives are in favor of health care reform. Conservatives care about their fellow Americans. Conservatives want everyone to live a long, free, and fulfilling life. Conservatives are suspicious of an increased role of the federal government. These principles are not diametrically opposed. Conservatives (read Republicans) cannot be seen as the party of "no." They will not success and, whats more, it isn't true. It is our responsibility to see that this doesn't happen and it is time to stop blaming liberals and Democrats, stop whining, and get in the game. It is morally imperative that conservatives do a better job articulating their vision. When properly conveyed, Americans will choose us on the strength of our arguments. Americans will believe.

Texas Governor's Race Has Only One Candidate

As a Texas resident, I was looking forward to a real campaign for the Governor's office with Kay Bailey Hutchinson challenging a two-term incumbent Rick Perry in the Republican Primary. Hutchinson is a widely respected lawmaker, the senior US Senator from Texas, and looked to be a formidable opponent to Governor Perry. I can honestly say that I was undecided when I found out that Hutchinson would mount a challenge. Unfortunately, the negativity and lack of direction of Senator Hutchinson's campaign thus far has proven that she has nothing to offer Texans as our governor.

It seems clear that the Hutchinson campaign is based on one simple fact: the Senator does not like Rick Perry. Not his policies, not his administration; him. Her campaign website is filled with pettiness and petulance toward the Governor, unproductively snarking at any public statement or position in which they can paint him poorly. Where are the new ideas? Where are the policy initiatives? Where are the plans? In short, there are none. Just example after example of gossip and idle nonsense that bears very little on governance and is not helpful, constructive, or worthy of such a historic campaign.

As the challenger, it is her responsibility to show me why I should make a change; to present me with a plausible alternative. She has to make a pretty convincing case too, because it is hard to deny that the state of Texas has experienced relative prosperity during this economic recession, creating more jobs in 2008 than the other 49 states combined. Our unemployment rate is over 2 points lower than the national average. What exactly would Ms. Hutchinson change?

Does Texas have its problems? Of course it does. We have an education system that ranks in the bottom half nationally. We have too many uninsured adults as well as a heart-aching number of uninsured children; much more than the national average. This is deplorable and we must do more. Despite this however, Senator Hutchinson has presented no workable ideas, nothing to show which direction she would take us. Without this, I can see no compelling reason to change the leadership of the state of Texas at a time when so many things are going right.

As such, I will be supporting Governor Perry in this election. And I encourage all of my friends and family to as well. I will always support the candidate that offers the best alternative for the future of the state. Right now, I see only one.

Cash for Clunkers: A Failure of Big Government

As we are now hearing, the much anticipated "Cash for Clunkers" program is running out of money faster than ever expected. Many are touting this as evidence of the program's incredible success. The truth of the matter is, however, that this program will become an abject failure as it will fail to meet the goals of economic stimulation and demand creation.

To begin with, though President Obama has done his level best to desensitize us to large amounts of government spending, $1 billion is a substantial sum of tax dollars. However, in auto industry terms, it is merely a drop in the bucket and was never enough to stimulate the sector. This is not evidence that it was underfunded, this is evidence that it should never have been undertaken in the first place. The program included enough funding for approximately 250,000 transactions nationwide. Compared to June 2009 auto sales, which were historically low, this program would have increased sales less than 3%. For a billion dollars, that is an unacceptable return on investment.

Here's what the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says about Cash for Clunkers:

"Manufacturers' and dealers' employment levels are unlikely to be impacted by the Act. The impact of the Act will most likely not be large enough to increase production by manufacturers, and dealers on average will only be selling an additional 12 vehicles (250,000 estimated number of vehicles sold during the program divided by 19,700 dealers as of early 2009) during the course of the program."

The program was only available to individuals interested in purchasing a new car. The problem with that is most people who drive "clunkers" as their primary vehicle do it out of need. They do it because they cannot afford a new vehicle. These consumers buy used cars. By eliminating used car purchases from the program, Congress eliminated the only chance they had of actually stimulating demand.

The customers that are taking advantage of this program are customers who were planning to trade-in their vehicle anyway as well as customers who do not use the clunker as their primary vehicle. In fact, many customers surveyed have said that they have actually been postponing their purchase to wait for the government money. Many others surveyed have said that they would have traded the vehicle in within the next 1-2 years anyway. This is not a stimulation of the economy. This is transferring demand that already existed; essentially stealing business from future years to inflate, ever so slightly, current business. Taxpayers are subsidizing people who could afford, and were already planning, to purchase a vehicle.

The program puts an undue burden on dealers nationwide. The application process is horrendously complicated and time consuming. It requires dealers to purchase document scanners. It forces them to front large sums of cash to participate as well.

If a customer purchases a car on Monday, that is when the dealership allots the credits (either $3,500 or $4,500) while the dealership gathers the necessary documentation (proof of insurance for the previous 12 months, proof of registration for the same period, a free and clear title, fuel economy comparison, certification of driveability, as well as others.) Once these documents are collected and the transaction is approved by the lender, the dealer must disable the trade-in before applying for the credits from the government. Once the documents have been scanned and submitted, and the online forms filled out (a process that can take over an hour assuming the site doesn't crash which it has every single day since the program began) the submission goes to a status of "under review." This process can take up to 4 days before you receive an answer.

Now and only now does a dealer find out if they will receive money they have already given a customer. If the application is denied, the dealer must figure out why by an electronic code that accompanies the decline message. At this point they may attempt to resubmit and the process begins again. If, however, in this time period, the program has run out of money, the dealer is left holding the bag on the $3,500 or $4,500 given to the customer and is left with a trade-in that has been disabled and cannot be sold. This is bad for small business and displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the burdens of car dealers.

This program has met none of its stated goals and may do more harm to the auto industry than good. It has cost too much money and now may cost more with little to show for it. This, once again, displays all the evidence you need to know that government should stay out of business.

The Washington Post Made the Right Call

There seems to be some discussion, mostly on the part of leftist bloggers, regarding the decision of the Washington Post to publish this Op-ed by soon to be former, but current, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. I'm no Palin apologist, in fact, I think the GOP's electoral prospects are inversely correlated to Sarah Palin's level of publicity, however this seems to be a classic case of "haters" beginning with the conclusion "Palin is wrong" and developing premises to reinforce this conclusion.

The over-analysis of Tommy Christopher, in this piece, is particularly penetrating. Now Tommy is a generally well-balanced blogger and remains a writer that I respect, however, I think in this particular case he sort of wildly misses on his analyis. Tommy makes some good point in this post in other areas, but I am specifically addressing his position on the decision of the Washington Post to publish the op-ed.

The premise of Christopher's piece seems to be that the Washington Post made an error in judgement when it decided to publish Sarah Palin's piece by failing to follow generally accepted rules of journalistic integrity as well as, more narrowly, the Washington Posts's own standards and practices. Christopher cites the Washington Post's guidelines for publishment of Op-eds which, in part, states rather subjectively,

"having an important title doesn’t mean we’ll publish your op-ed. In fact, because we realize that senators, business leaders, heads of state and the like have access to various platforms where they can express their views, we hold them to a particularly high standard when considering whether to publish them in The Post."

Christopher then makes what he seems to believe is a prima facie claim that "it’s tough to argue that Palin’s piece meets this bar." I call it prima facie because he provides no supporting facts or evidence of any kind to back up his rather bizarre position on what is clearly a subjective, not objective, standard. Without such, we are left to wonder why exactly a governor with undisputed credentials in energy policy and former candidate for national office does not meet this "particularly high standard."

Whether you agree with Palin or not, I would love to hear an argument for why she is not an important voice in this policy area. Regardless of what different individuals predict for her future in electoral politics, she is clearly not a current candidate for office, thus, this is not, nor could it be legitimately construed as, a campaign action. Additionally, from a purely business perspective, should the editor of any news or editorial periodical really turn down the opportunity to exclusively showcase the opinion of a well-known, controversial, and quasi-expert public figure? What a terrible business decision that would be. Christopher ponders if Palin's "clickability didn’t play a major part in the Post’s decision to carry it." Of course the "clickability" factor played a role in the decision. Why shouldn't it? That is not mutually exclusive from journalistic credibility. One can be an important, legitimate voice, meeting a "particularly high standard," and have "clickability." Its hard to deny that Sarah Palin showcases this duality of characteristics.

There are certainly plenty of topics to discuss when it comes to Sarah Palin. More importantly, there is an incredibly important debate that should be had regarding this piece of cap and trade legislation. But, to answer this narrow question: was the Washington Post correct in its decision to accept an op-ed from Sarah Palin? Of course they were. To do anything different would have been inexplicable.

The Texas Economic Model

The Texas legislative session just ended (it convenes only once every 2 years) and the lists of accomplishments are being collected and compiled.

In 2008, Texas created more jobs than the other 49 states combined. In fact, over 50% of the jobs created in 2008 were created in the state of Texas. Texas boasts the most business friendly economy in the country, with low tax rates including absolutely no state income tax.

Texas boasts a completely balanced budget. Under the leadership of governor Rick Perry, who has vetoed more spending than any governor in the country, has just balanced yet another budget. Under Senate Bill 1, signed into law last Friday, Texas will spend 1.6 billion less in general revenue than the previous budget. Thats right, a DECREASE in government spending; the first one since World War II. in addition to this, in a recession, the governor, and Republican-controlled legislature, was able to cut taxes for 40,000 Texas businesses.

Policies like this are why 1000 people move to the state of Texas every single day, and states like California are seeing their businesses filling moving trucks bound for the Lone Star State. I hope our federal lawmakers are paying very close attention.

Iran is an American Security Imperative

The news from Tehran over the past week has become increasingly alarming. Journalists expelled; communications cut off; protesters shot seemingly at will. A botched attempt to rig a democratic presidential election has brought a vast amount of popular unrest to a country with a government infamous for popular suppression. Though it maybe be too early and overly optimistic to say, these events seem to be a catalyst for the people of Iran to reject a government that has, for a long time, rejected them. President Obama has been deafeningly silent on these historic events. His few public comments have been in an effort to, essentially, speak without saying anything. I think this is a huge mistake and may be viewed in the future as a giant missed opportunity for the security interests of the United States.

Essentially, two arguments against have been put forth by both the administration and liberal (as well as some conservative) bloggers. First, that the United States should not insert itself into the dialogue in Iran, further inflaming tension and creating more ill will toward the protesters. Second, that the United States should not enter into a conflict that is not in its interests. Effectively, lets not go to war with Iran.

To address the second argument first, I have seen no one advocate, nor do I here, for any sort of armed intervention in their internal struggle. I simply postulate that President Obama use his bully pulpit and his position as the leader of the free world to provide his vocal support. This is a straw man argument that can be easily disregarded, as no one credible is actually advocating military action.

As for the first argument, Obama's non-involvement policy has already received condemnation as "meddling" by the theocracy in Iran. Plus, since when do we let the Iranian government define our foreign policy OR our moral compass? If the United States government is already seen as meddling in the affairs of Iran, in what way would ACTUALLY MEDDLING alter the rhetoric of the Iranian "government." Building credibility with a government that already gives us none is not progress, it is treading water, and it is bad policy. Also, does anyone truly believe that, if the mullahs like us enough, they will suddenly abandon their nuclear program? Ahmadinejad as already said that the nuclear book is "closed."

Lets pause and think about the implications of the overthrow of the Islamic Republic government in Iran. Iranian funding for Hezbollah dries up, potentially putting an end to their reign of terror in Lebanon and the Middle East as well as their support for terror against the United States, Israel, and their collective interests. Is there any way this could be construed as not providing for a more secure United States, at home and abroad? The majority of the Iranian population is young, sympathetic to the west, educated, and not anti-American. Would popular sovereignty of a group thus described not lead to a truly democratically elected government that is not only not anti-American, but may have the potential to become a U.S. ally in the region? Would ratcheting down the anti-Israeli rhetoric somehow not add to the stability of the region, a region that controls the vast majority of the world's oil, an economic as well as a security concern for the people of the United States?

All of these things are incontrovertibly in the security interests of the United States. In fact, there is almost no downside whatsoever. This is an opportunity for the United States to achieve real change in a dangerous, American hating part of the world without firing a shot. It is a security imperative that we provide this protest our full-throated support, in the hopes that we achieve real, tangible security gains for America.

UPDATE: If you haven't already, listen to what Reza Pahlavi said today at the National Press Club. Pahlavi is the son of the Shah of Iran and is begging the international community to stand up for his Iranian brethren. Is there anyone who understands the situation better than he does?

Debunking the Chrysler Dealergate Myth

I have tried to ignore it, but it keeps creeping up all over the internet. I'm not sure where it started exactly but when it makes it to the White House Press Room, it has gone too far. Bloggers across the Internet are promulgating a rather preposterous conspiracy theory that the Obama Administration has not only forced Chrysler to shut down 25% of its dealers nationwide (which is entirely plausible, if not likely) but, further, they have chosen for Chrysler which dealers will be forced out of business based solely on the dealer's party affiliation. In short, Obama is shutting down as many Republican dealers as he can in a covert effort to......well, I'm not really sure. There are so many holes in this theory, it is almost laughable. I don't have the resources or the time that Gateway Pundit or DirectorBlue have, but I will do my best to illustrate how completely ridiculous this proposition is.

Gateway's premise is that Obama, through Chrysler, specifically targeted GOP donors in choosing which dealers to close. As evidence, he presents a list of 40 dealer owners who have received shut down letters and who also donated large sums to Republican candidates and PAC's. The problem is, there were 789 dealerships that were shut down. I don't believe that 40 out of 789 reflects any sort of statistical significance.

In his next post, he presents data reflecting the fact that 76% of Chrysler dealer groups and owners donate to the GOP versus only 26% to Democrats. I'm honestly not certain what the point of this statistic is because it obviously negates the statistical significance of his first post. This would mean that, of the 789 dealers that were closed, approximately 600 were GOP donors. Yet, they find evidence of only 40 that lost their dealerships. If 76% of Chrysler dealers donate to the GOP shouldn't the number shut down be closer to this number instead of the statistically insignificant 5% that he demonstrated in his first post? Immediately, for some mass conspiracy to exist, things aren't quite adding up. And, as an aside, are we really surprised that 76% of business owners in a particular industry donate to the GOP? Isn't that EXACTLY what you would expect. What is gained by shutting down 5% of them? This lacks correlation.

Next, Gateway Pundit presents a map, meticulously constructed, showing the locations of each of the shut down dealers. He posits that the left coast mysteriously managed to survive the cuts; much more so than the rest of the country. Well, statistically this is true. But, based on a visual inspection, the highest concentration of cuts were located in the heavily Democratic northeast. How does he account for this? In short, he doesn't. I don't know why exactly except to say that it doesn't back up the original theory. In fact, it would completely invalidate it.

Here are some facts. For years, Chrysler (and GM) have been attempting to effectively shut down dealers, as this story from Edmunds over a year ago shows. Gateway Pundit cites evidence that Chrysler was against this plan, which may be true of the scope and breadth of what Obama's poorly constructed automotive task force was demanding, but to say that they are against the idea of closing dealerships is inaccurate and reflects a lack of knowledge of the auto industry. Chrysler and GM for years have been lobbying dealers to consolidate their operations into what used to be called "Alpha Points" but are now called "Genesis Stores." Chrysler does not want stand alone stores anymore, opting instead for the brands Chrysler, Jeep, and Dodge to be under the same roof. Making this process difficult are state franchise laws which prohibit Chrysler from shutting down dealers outside of bankruptcy protection. State franchise laws more accurately tie Chrysler's hands from doing anything outside of encouraging dealers to consolidate. This becomes very difficult when single point stores are under the ownership of different individuals or when single point stores are located in rural areas, preventing consolidation. Bankruptcy protection has given Chrysler the opportunity to do what they have wanted to do for the better part of this decade: shut down single point stores and combine them to form Genesis Stores. If you check out Director Blue's list of shut down dealers, you will find that the vast majority of them are: single point stores.

Both Gateway Pundit and Director Blue cite Chrysler's given criteria for shutting down dealers: "sales volume, customer service scores, local market share and average household income in the immediate area." But for some reason they decide not to explore it. They provide exactly NO data or statistics analyzing these categories in respect to dealers that were closed. They seem to present, if I have read all that has been posted, only anecdotal evidence of dealer owners claiming they "can't comprehend how" their dealership was shut down. If we are going to completely negate Chrysler's given reason and propose a completely different, offensive reason, shouldn't we begin by debunking the original reason before we do anything else? The truth of the matter is many of these dealers WERE lagging in terms of sales volume, customer service, and/or local market share. Until this is invalidated, why even entertain any other theory? And that is all this is, a poorly developed, flacidly defended, theory.

And finally, in all of this, where is the motive? Out of the tens and hundreds of millions of dollars donated to political groups and candidates last election, an election that Obama won in a virtual landslide, he has chosen to target the donors of $450,000? What possible reason would he or his administration have to do this? What is there for him to gain? The Fraud Triangle theory states that three things must occur for fraud to take place: Rationalization, Opportunity, and Incentive. Where is the incentive?

Gateway Pundit and Director Blue bury readers in statistics. They have worked hard and researched their case well. But they have forgotten the first rule of statistics: correlation does not equal causation. Logic, and a little better understanding of the industry, present a very different explanation.

No Place Left to Hide: Obama’s Unsustainable Promise

We have begun to see the effects of the spending boondoggle that this Administration is creating. Bloomberg reports today that the dollar has fallen to a 4 month low against the euro and shows no signs of a rebound. The weakening dollar is indicative of the falling confidence investors have in the U.S. economy due to the massive amounts of U.S. government debt being issued to finance a liberal agenda and a Federal Reserve that is printing money like its going out of style. The effects of these policies could be disastrous.

More evidence of the problems with the massive amount of debt President Obama is burdening us with: The Financial Times reported recently that investor demand for Treasuries has reached such a low at the latest Treasury auction that the yield differential between mortgage-backed and U.S. Treasury debt fell to its lowest level since 1992, spurred by the sharp rise in U.S. Treasury yields (yield moves in the opposite direction of demand.) As this, the so-called “riskless” rate rises, companies will be forced to offer even larger yields on their corporate debt. As the financing for projects becomes more expensive, companies by and large will postpone or abandon their investments. The sheer volume of Treasury debt will lead to a “crowding out” effect, taking away investors who would normally invest in private enterprise, the effect of which will make access to capital markets more and more difficult for busineses that rely on this capital to continue their operations. With demand for U.S. debt already falling to historically low levels what will we do when demand for our debt continues to drop even more? The government has not even begun to spend most of the stimulus money yet. How long will investors and foreign governments continue to finance our bad decisions?

When that well runs dry, there is only one place left to get the money to finance President Obama’s mistakes: your pocket and mine.

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes….you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." This is a statement from candidate Obama on September 12, 2008.

This promise will prove, and it some cases has already proven, unsustainable. California has all but given us a window into the future this week, as Carol Platt Liebau discusses. Public policy and special interests have spent California into a wall. They now face one of the direst economic and fiscal disasters in history. Ms. Liebau is prophetic: our federal government is heading down the same set of tracks unless we derail this runaway spending train.

The President’s excuses are wearing thin. Laden with a massive deficit from the previous administration, he continues to blame his predecessor. I will be the first to criticize President Bush’s fiscal irresponsibility as well. Make no mistake though: the time for talking about the past and campaigning against Bush is over. It is time to take ownership. The budget deficit for FY 2009 will be larger than the entire budget for FY 2001. That is undeniably the work of Mr. Obama and his liberal Congress. Think about that for a second – the amount that we are spending exceeds the amount we are taking in by the size of the entire federal budget only eight years ago. The enormity of President Obama’s irresponsibility is dumbfounding. The fiscal deficit he was left with may mean that he must make tough choices – it means we cannot buy everything we want. The debt that he inherited demands a heightened sense of fiscal responsibility; one that he has been demonstrably unwilling to provide. This must be stopped before it gets any worse. My fear, however, is that it is already too late.

Opportunism At Its Finest: Democrats on Torture

The debate over torture, or the use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs) has reached almost comedic proportions. For months that have stretched into years, Democrats and the American Left has absolutely vilified the Bush administration and its hardworking intelligence officials for participation in such acts. Only now is the truth beginning to come out. Not only did Democrats know about these EITs, they implicitly approved of its use. Now they are calling it illegal forms of torture and threatening investigations, and worse, prosecutions. The outrage is beginning to sound an awful lot like hypocrisy.

This is certainly not a comfortable topic to discuss. No one likes torture. But then, no one is advocating a position of pro-torture. The argument has never been that torture is good and should be used more frequently. The argument is that EITs are sometimes required, dirty as they may be, in times of dire circumstances. It is unbelievably naive to think that we may never be required to do that which is unpalatable. In life, sometimes we are required to do things that we would rather not have to do, but in order to ensure our survival and our livelihood, we must be willing to do what is necessary against an evil segment of a peaceful religion the likes of which we have never seen. This is not to say that we do anything that is necessary. We weigh the benefits against the costs; the gain against the loss; the fairness; the justness.

This should be done in an open and fair discussion so that a position can be developed and this is exactly what the Bush administration had tried to engage in by developing cohesive legal opinions on the these policies and briefing Congressional leaders on them as far back as 2002. When one raises a position and is unchallenged by their opponents, the only conclusion that one can come to is that they agree. This is what Congressional Democrats left the administration with in these early days of a post-9/11 world, until they decided to pull the rug out from under the administration.

Now for the hypocrisy. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has recently railed against the Bush administration for their participation and legal justification for these EIT policies, even going so far as threatening to investigate and, if she deems appropriate, prosecute egregious offenses. This is all quite ironic considering the fact that she has been aware of and, by her silence, complicit in such methods since 2002.

Speaker Pelosi was told at the 2002 briefing about the use of the EITs and "on a bipartisan basis, asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission" according to former Rep Porter Goss who was also a part of the briefing. This account is supported by CIA sources who say Speaker Pelosi "questioned whether we were doing enough" to extract information.

There's more. Not only was she informed about the administrations position on EITs, she was also, according to Obama administration officials, informed of its specific application to a named detainee. On May 5, CIA Director Panetta, in a report to Congress, testified regarding the CIA's meeting with Speaker Pelosi calling it a "Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on [legal] authorities, and a description of the particular EITs that had been employed." This is the exact thing that she had denied knowledge of. How convenient. I'm glad the CIA writes things down at least.

Her defense has taken a variety of turns, beginning with the assertion that she did not recollect that meeting at all. Once that was debunked, she stated that, "I can say flat-out, they never told us that these enhanced interrogations were being used." After more sources came forward, including aides from the Speaker's own office and the Panetta report referenced above, her story changed again, morphing into a claim that she was powerless to act.

Powerless? The most powerful person in the House of Representatives is claiming that the Speaker of the House is powerless? Now THAT is a revelation. Granted, she was not the Speaker in 2002, but she was still the most powerful individual in Congress for the Democratic Party. Now I think if I were one of her constituents, I would ask for my money back. How can someone that is elected to such a high office claim that she was powerless to even present a contrarian viewpoint? No one is asking her to physically go out to secret CIA prisons and confront agents face to face and go Jack Bauer on them. She was simply to state her opinion. If she is too scared or weak to do that, as a citizen, I would remove her from office. How can someone like this be trusted with the responsibility of advocating for me if she cannot effectively advocate for herself?

As recently as today, she has changed her story once again, saying that the CIA was dishonest and withheld information from her in their briefings. Even this argument however does not exonerate her from her responsibility as an elected government official to speak for what she believes in.

Do I believe any of Speaker Pelosi's explanation for her actions? I do not. It barely passes the laugh test. She wasn't afraid or powerless; she has been proven to have attended the meetings and even if the CIA withheld information, she had enough to understand the proposals and object if she saw fit. The problem is that she agreed with the President that he should do what was necessary. Ironically, in 2002 she actually asked the CIA if there was more that they could do. She advocated for more enhanced interrogation techniques. Does that sound like the request of someone who fundamentally believes that we were engaging in torture? The heinous part is that, in a quite stunning display of opportunism, she only changed her position when it became politically expedient to do so; when she saw a wave of public opinion that she could capitalize on to hurt the Republicans. How dishonorable.

This week more has come out. Senator Schumer is quoted as saying:

"We ought to be reasonable about this. I think there are probably very few people in this room or in America who would say that torture should never, ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives are at stake.....If we knew that there was a nuclear bomb hidden in an American city and we believed that some kind of torture, fairly severe maybe, would give us a chance of finding that bomb before it went off, my guess is most Americans and most senators, maybe all, would say, Do what you have to do."

Does Speaker Pelosi think Sen. Schumer is unfit for office? Should he be investigated too?

I know that this is a controversial issue and one that should be discussed with the full breadth of openness and reason. What I cannot understand and do not subscribe to is the vitriolic, self-righteous condemnation of Democrats who are as complicit as anyone else in the Bush administration with regard to the policies that were developed and employed in a post-9/11 world. I know there is hatred for President Bush that has permeated not only our government but our society as a whole, some justified, some over the top. But this is not a justifiable reason for the shape that this debate has taken on. I am all for a lively and honest debate of relevant issues, but do not come to me with your fake outrage. Honestly, should we expect anything less from our elected officials on both sides of the aisle?

Where's the Change?

Former Bush administration Press Secretary Scott Mcclellan wrote a book that was deeply lauded in liberal circles for calling out the President on many issues that no one in the tightly controlled Bush "inner circle" had thus far not challenged. In What Happened, Mcclellan claims that, among other things, the Bush administration continued the Clintonista politics of selling the issues rather than governing them. We were told that the President largely ignored facts in favor of persuasion used to convince the public that they should agree with him. The "permanent campaign" is the term that he uses to describe such tactics. Candidate Obama promised us change; President Obama assured us change. I for one, although a committed conservative, was ready for a change.

Here we are, 127 days after President Obama was sworn in and the paint is beginning to dry on this administration. And time after time after time, our inexperienced President provides us with what can only politely be called his version of the truth. In what can only be seen as efforts to perpetuate this notion of a "permanent campaign" we are told only what the President wants us to hear, instead of being given all of the facts. This is not governing.

After multiple attempts to bail out the failed company, Chrysler declared bankruptcy at the beginning of this month. In the President's press conference making the announcement, he vilifies the secured debt holders of a company in shambles:

"Now, while many stakeholders made sacrifices and worked constructively, I have to tell you, some did not. In particular, a group of investment firms and hedge funds decided to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout.
They were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices and they would have to make none. Some demanded twice the return that other lenders were getting.
I don’t stand with them. I stand with Chrysler’s employees and their families and communities. I stand with Chrysler’s management, its dealers, and its suppliers."

What the President fails to mention is that, before his government began giving away free money (now that they are in Bankruptcy, Chrysler will not ever pay back the $7 billion in loans they received) Chrysler sought out financing through the place all companies do: free capital markets. These investors took enormous risk by investing in a company that had been failing for years; the only way they could justify it to their investors and boards of directors was through the security of knowing that, as secured debt holders, they would be among the first to be paid back in a bankruptcy that was looking more and more likely. The President failed to mention that his administration strong-armed the other debt holders, who had received TARP funds, into submission to his administration's demands. Demands that required these investors to take a more severe loss than the one he asked his friends at the United Auto Workers' Union to take. The non-TARP debt holders refused to sell out their own shareholders in this fleecing of the private sector; shareholders for whom the have a legally mandated duty to act in their interest, only to be publicly flogged by the leader of the free world for doing exactly what they are required to do. But Mr. Obama had his scapegoat and he was not going to miss the opportunity to blame someone other than himself and his own failed policies.

Just yesterday, as you can read about on Despina Karra's blog, the President announced trillions of dollars in health care savings for the American people. He failed to mention that this savings had already been figured into his budget; a budget that, with this savings that is hypothetical at best, still pushes us into record deficits that this country has never seen before. But he stands up and announces it to a public that is largely unaware of this fact.

The evidence goes on. Take a look at his Cap and Trade policy as well as his heroic announcement to close the corporate tax loopholes that will put all American multinationals at a competitive disadvantage and cost us jobs. Half truths at best, concealment of the truth at worst. For a President that campaigned almost exclusively as a change; an alternative to the lies of the previous administration, you would think that he would make every effort to avoid even the perception of hiding information from the public. But as the paint dries, its a very different picture that is emerging.