In July of last year, the American people were mostly undecided about Obamacare: equal numbers opposed and supported the health care bills that the White House was shepherding through Congress. But then August happened and informed Americans turned out at townhalls across the country to express their strong disapproval of Obamacare. The larger American public noticed and pluralities of the American people began to oppose Obamacare. The White House concluded they had a “communications problem” so they scheduled a prime time speech in front of a rare Joint Session of Congress. But the President’s speech arrogantly dismissed the concerns of the American people and after a brief uptick in support (from the low 40s to the mid 40s), opposition to the President’s plan grew.
Then in November, liberals lost governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia as opposition to President Obama’s signature policy priority inched towards 50%. Again the White House concluded that nothing was wrong with their policy agenda and they dismissed their setbacks in two states that had voted for President Barack Obama as local elections with weak candidates. Instead of rethinking their policies and procedures the White House doubled down and pushed for a speedy passage of Obamacare with as little debate as possible. Over the next two months the White House bought support for their health care plan with the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, and big labor tax breaks. And their behind-closed-doors, backroom-deal tactics almost worked … until Massachusetts happened.
Just like in August and November, Sen. Scott Brown’s (R) upset win over Attorney General Martha Coakley (D) took the Obama administration completely by surprise. Again, the White House concluded they had a “communications problem” so this time they scheduled a six-hour health care summit that is supposed to take place at The Blair House, across the street from the White House, this Thursday. But like everything else that has come out of the Obama administration during this health care debate, the President’s effort to “seek common ground” at the summit is completely disingenuous. The New York Times reported this past Friday that the White House is drafting, and will release this morning, a final health care bill they expect Congress to pass quickly. And this bill is specifically designed to pass without any conservative support:
Democratic officials said the president’s proposal was being written so that it could be attached to a budget bill as a way of averting a Republican filibuster in the Senate. The procedure, known as budget reconciliation, would let Democrats advance the bill with a simple majority rather than a 60-vote supermajority.
And a “simple majority” does not mean they need 51 Senators. The nuclear option the White House is now pushing, reconciliation, only requires the Obama administration to muster 50 votes before Vice President Joe Biden can cast a tie breaking vote in favor of a government takeover of health care.
And make no mistake, a government takeover of health care is exactly what Obamacare is. Just last night the White House revealed that one new feature of their legislation will be to give the federal government sweeping new authority to set prices for health insurance. This is on top of the sweeping new authority that Obamacare already grants the federal governemnt to micromanage the coverage details of every single health insurance policy in the country. And since the nuclear option only requires 50 Democratic Senators for passage, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has signaled that an outright government run health insurance company, the public option, will also be included in the final bill.
There is a reason that the longer this health care debate has dragged on, more and more Americans have become solidly against Obamacare: the plan has been exposed as a welfare state takeover of our health care sector that can only be passed by the most partisan and venal tactics. If the President was capable of listening to the American people, and learning from August, November, and Massachusetts, then he would abandon the legislative disasters still pending in the House and Senate and start over. That is what the American people want.
Quick Hits:
- At the same time the White House is trying to add 15 million people to the Medicaid rolls, virtually every state is making or considering substantial cuts in Medicaid.
- The California Senate passed the “Amazon tax” last week, a bill requiring Amazon.com and other online retailers to charge sales taxes on purchases in California.
- Internal documents show Toyota views the Democratic Congress as “activist” and “not industry friendly,” and anticipates a “more challenging regulatory” environment under the Obama administration.
- Climate scientists were forced to withdraw a 2009 study that claimed sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century.
- Career lawyers at the Department of Justice concluded Friday that Bush administration attorneys Jay Bybee, John Yoo and Steven Bradbury did not violate rules of professional conduct for their work on detainee treatment legal memos.
In a recent poll by the Wall Street Journal and NBC news, a majority of Americans expressed their frustration with the approach our government has taken in response to the financial crisis and economic slowdown. Just 43 percent of the respondents expressed satisfaction with how President Obama has handled the economy, a decline of 13 percentage points from a year ago. The disapproval vividly reflects disappointment toward economic policy decisions and management over the past year.
As the downward-trending poll numbers suggest, a majority of our fellow citizens are not comfortable with the “dramatic change” we have witnessed. The quest to enlarge and mobilize government in the name of rescuing and rebuilding our economy has created both economic uncertainty and a considerable degree of anxiety about our economic future.
There has always been tension between the state and the free market. The genius of the American economy has been its ability to balance the two, with policies that preserve stability while promoting innovation. However, as shown in the 2010 Index of Economic Freedom that was released last week, the battle has tilted decidedly toward big government. The magnitude of the recent loss of economic freedom has been alarmingly high, with considerable negative implications for our economic future. While many countries around the world continue on the path of economic liberalization, the United States is, in many respects, moving in the opposite direction, simultaneously burdening its economy with increasing government spending, uncompetitive tax rates, and barriers to trade and investment that stifle entrepreneurship and dynamic growth.
By burdening our economy with even bigger government and stifling it with less economic freedom, we are creating a dangerous economic environment where opportunities are missed, and lingering uncertainty undermines our economic potential.
In one of his many inspiring speeches, President Obama in fact talked about the importance of innovation:
“[There is] an important role that we can play, laying the ground rules to spur innovation. That’s the role of government — to provide investment that spurs innovation and also to set up common-sense ground rules to ensure that there’s a level playing field for all comers who seek to contribute their innovations.”
As a matter of fact, the proven path to stimulating economic growth is to advance economic freedom by promoting policies that generate a virtuous cycle of innovation, vibrant economic expansion, and more opportunities for people. Economic freedom is strongly linked to innovation and business initiatives that cumulatively lead to greater economic vitality for all.
As the findings of the 2010 Index demonstrate empirically, today’s successful economies are not necessarily geographically large or richly blessed with natural resources. Many economies have managed to expand opportunities for their citizens by enhancing their innovation capacities that are among the chief engines of economic prosperity.
Unfortunately, our economy’s dynamic innovative pulse is slowing in the presence of ever more bloated government.
No doubt that the vigor of our ongoing recovery depends on private businesses that will flourish with greater economic freedom. However, many small and large firms are currently postponing spending decisions and projects until they see more clearly government’s latest intentions. Others are put off by anti-business rhetoric that demonizes those whose profit-seeking is the very foundation of investment and job creation.
It is time to put back our country onto the right course. In preparing for his second State of the Union address this Wednesday, President Obama should be reminded of how to best spur innovation, not throttle it. The tool of choice—economic freedom—requires only an understanding that the people, expressing their wishes freely in the market-places of America, know better than any central planner or government bureaucrat what they need to get moving again.