One Word: Failure

The Perspective:

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has given the Obama administration a “B-plus” for its first 100 days and has graded the news media a “strong A;” but both should be flunked for failing to admit that Barack Obama is rationing where he shouldn’t and not rationing where he should.

Obama’s sweeping health care reform proposals are ridden with rationing when you look behind the code language and stealth tactics. Just recently, on “Meet the Press,” Lawrence Summers, Obama’s chief economic adviser, talked about “experts” who, using “the right kind of cost effectiveness…estimate that we could take as much as $700 billion a year out of our health care system” by eliminating unnecessary procedures.

Under Obamacare, those “experts” will be government bureaucrats — not doctors. Obama’s stimulus package dedicates $1.1 billion to medical “comparative effectiveness research.” This is Obama-speak for bureaucrats determining if your doctor is using what the government deems are the right procedures at appropriate costs. Other than Gibbs and the see-hear-and-speak-no-rationing mainstream media reporters, who doesn’t acknowledge that health care rationing is baked into Obama’s health care plans?

Rationing is also an important part of other of Obama’s priorities. Although President Obama pays lip service to educational reform, including the expansion of charter schools, Obama opted for rationing when his Education Department ended the Opportunity Scholarship Program that had provided 1,714 mostly black and Hispanic children in the District of Columbia with $7,500 per child in vouchers to move them from failing D.C. schools into private or parochial schools (where their reading scores beat their public school counterparts). Don’t count on Gibbs and Obama’s journalistic cheerleaders to tell you that Obama will cave and allow similar forms of rationing to please the teachers’ unions and that 38 percent of members of Congress have their children in private schools.

Rationing oil exploration, the use of fossil fuels and nuclear energy (in favor of expensive “alternatives” such as ethanol) as well as the rationing of carbon emissions in a “cap-and-trade” program are all elements of Obama’s “green” agenda. Of course the government, which has “bailed out” automakers, is also pressuring them to “ration” the production of cars that don’t meet Obama’s “green” standards. The net effect will be to ration consumer choices and also to impose the largest tax increase (on energy) in American history.

Regarding national defense, Obama’s most ambitious rationing proposal is his call for a worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons. So far, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Al Qaeda and others threatening the United States have shown no inclination to follow Obama’s lead. Will Obama “ration” military spending and efforts against terrorism to the point that the country will be judiciously protected? His first 100 days have raised several questions in that regard.

The one area where Obama has failed to ration is in his massive expansion of government spending, taxation, indebtedness and control. Obama has ignored several opportunities to cut pork projects and other government waste, abuse and corruption.

As President Obama celebrates his first 100 days in office with nary a nod to what he is rationing and what he is failing to ration, consider that he still has 1360 days in office to make either the right or the wrong decisions about rationing.

Since we can’t rely on his press secretary or many in the mainstream media to reveal what’s really happening, it’s important that we don’t ration our vigilance or our outspokenness.

The Far Left

The Perspective:

Longtime conservative leader Morton Blackwell, a Reagan administration alumni and once the youngest Goldwater delegate at the GOP convention, is perhaps best know as the originator of the phrase “Personnel is policy.”

Blackwell’s observation speaks a great truth about American government. Since no one man or woman can do it all, alone, we have followed the French in the development of bureaucratic systems that allow for power and authority to be delegated to subordinates who are responsible, on a daily basis, for the administration of public policy. It is these people, even more than the president, who directly impact the way policies are developed and carried out.

The people chosen to fill positions within an administration, no matter how minor those positions might be, matter; they matter because they are being handed the tools with which to make real decisions that have an effect on the American people, the American economy, our legal system, our national defense and just about any other issue you can name on a day-to-day basis.

Throughout the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama presented himself to the American people as a change-oriented centrist, slightly to the left of the middle of the road. The way he has governed over his first 100 days, however, shows him to be anything but the image he projected, particularly where many of his appointments are concerned. And it is these appointments that will determine the direction of policy in his administration over the next four years.

Some of the names and some of the circumstances are already familiar. Obama may have a Cabinet that, to borrow a phrase from Bill Clinton, “looks like America.” But they certainly don’t pay taxes like the rest of us. Several of his most high level appointees, chief among them Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, have been exposed as having failed to pay the taxes they owed at the time these should have paid them.

Then there is Attorney General Eric Holder, who prior to his appointment may have been best known for helping fugitive financier Marc Rich obtain a pardon in the waning days of the Clinton administration. Since coming into office, however, he shocked the nation when, during a presentation to mark Black History month, he called America a “nation of cowards” on the issue of race. Writer Joe Klein, who is generally sympathetic to the liberal point of view, denounced Holder for his remarks, saying they provided “absolutely no acknowledgement of the incredible progress that has been made over the last 40 or 50 years.”

Janet Napolitano, who leads the Department of Homeland Security, similarly came under fire after her department released a report on so-called rise of right-wing extremism in America that lumped returning veterans and anti-abortion activists into the same group as white power organizations and Timothy McVeigh, who helped mastermind the 1995 bombing of the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City. Embarrassed, she met with veterans groups in Washington on Friday and gave what an American Legion representative characterized as a “heartfelt” apology.

But it’s not just the apples at the top of the barrel that are reason to be suspicious that a leftward drift is underway. There are plenty of secondary appointments, not all of which are subject to the Senate’s advice and consent, which make up the new administration’s gallery of liberal rogues.

White House Science Advisor Dr. John P. Holdren is a noted alarmist where the idea of global catastrophes is concerned. In 1971, he predicted that “some form of eco-catastrophe, if not thermonuclear war, seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century.” That same year Holdren also claimed that “population control, the redirection of technology, the transition from open to closed resource cycles, the equitable distribution of opportunity, and the ingredients of prosperity must all be accomplished if there is to be a future worth living.”

More recently, in 2006, Holdren suggested that global sea levels could rise by 13 feet by the end of this century. The 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report suggests a potential sea level rise of just 13 inches.

Another Obama appointee clearly outside the mainstream of American thought and values is Harold Koh, the Yale Law School dean whom Obama tapped be the State Department’s legal adviser.

Koh is, as columnist Andy McCarthy has written, “a radical trans-nationalist.” His view is that the United States is not, in essence, an independent nation with a natural right to govern its own national security. Rather Koh’s view is this country should be governed by a “trans-national jurisprudence” that “assumes America’s political and economic interdependence with other nations operating within the international legal system.” In Koh’s world, U.S. law should be subordinate to some kind of international code.

Then there is Rosa Brooks, who has been tapped to be a key adviser to the undersecretary of defense for policy. A former columnist with The Los Angeles Times, Brooks once compared the work product of Bush’s Office of Legal Counsel to “the so-called Big Lie theory of political propaganda, articulated most infamously by Adolf Hitler.” In 2007, according to various sources, she characterized Al Qaeda as “little more than an obscure group of extremist thugs, well financed and intermittently lethal but relatively limited in their global and regional political pull.” And she once wrote “George W. Bush and Dick Cheney shouldn’t be treated like criminals who deserve punishment. They should be treated like psychotics who need treatment…. Because they’ve clearly gone mad.”

Hardly the calm, rational and reasoned approach one has every right to expect from a senior Pentagon adviser.

Almost everywhere you look in the Obama administration you can find appointees whose beliefs are clearly outside the mainstream, who are, in a word, extremists. David Ogden, the nominee for the No. 2 job at the U.S. Department of Justice, who, according to FOXNews.com once filed a brief on behalf of a group of library directors arguing against the Children’s Internet Protection Act. The act ordered libraries and schools receiving funding for the Internet to restrict access to obscene sites. But Ogden’s brief argued that the act impaired the ability of librarians to do their jobs. He called it “unconstitutional,” though the Supreme Court later disagreed with him and upheld the act.” He also “argued, on behalf of several media groups, against a child pornography law that required publishers of all kinds to verify and document the age of their models (which would ensure the models are at least 18). The provisions were struck down. — Ogden was quoted at the time saying the potential reach of the law was ‘mind-boggling’ and even ‘terrifying.’”

And then there’s Dawn Johnson, who was nominated to be assistant attorney general and head of DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, who has written that “abortion restrictions reduce pregnant women to no more than fetal containers” and who has opposed the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a ban on partial birth abortion.

Rather than an administration of centrists, the Obama presidency is shaping up to be one in which the dominant voice is that of the American far-left. Right before our eyes, based on the appointments thus far, we are seeing “Changing we can believe in” being transformed into “Change we can’t believe.”

First 100 Days: No Money Left Barry

The Perspective:

We were in a fiscal hole when President Obama came into office and for 100 days he’s been digging it deeper and deeper. The numbers involved are astonishing and power is being concentrated in the hands of Washington insiders to an unprecedented degree. What it adds up to is an unprecedented expansion in the size, scope, and intrusiveness of the federal government and a suffocating burden of debt.

When Obama took office the deficit for 2009 (assuming current projections for receipts and economic activity) amounted to 9.7 percent of the U.S. economy. Obama has already grown that to 11.9 percent with the stimulus and omnibus. The proposals in his new budget will take it to an astonishing 12.9 percent.

The bailout tab went from a shocking $7.7 trillion under Bush to an utterly incomprehensible $12.8 trillion in just 100 days. A trillion is tough concept to understand. This might help: A million seconds is 12 days. A billion seconds is 31 years. A trillion seconds is 31,688 years. What does $12 trillion look like? This video might help.

The bailouts are just the beginning. Decisions that used to be made by ordinary Americans living their lives, going to work, and spending time with their families will instead be made by big government bureaucrats. People who played by the rules, took care of their families, and paid their taxes are going to pick up the tab for special interests on Wall Street and in Washington.

The tea parties showed that ordinary Americans understand what’s happening a lot better than media and political elites would like. Ordinary Americans are called stupid or ignorant when they worry that they’ll be forced to pay for trillions of dollars in new spending. Taxes will only be increased on the top 5 percent, President Obama says. But there is simply not enough money there to pay for this unprecedented spending spree. Middle class Americans know that Obama will eventually have to reach into their pockets — through taxes, inflation, or a combination of both — for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks: that’s where the money is.

The big-government power-grab shows no signs of slowing down. A government health care takeover, a massive energy tax, a federal education power-grab, and sweeping increases in federal power in every area of economic life are staring us in the face.

Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid call this “progress” and call themselves “progressives.” But the idea of centralized control, of enlightened bureaucrats or royalty dictating to people how to live their lives is one of the oldest, least progressive ideas in the world. It looks more like 13^th century feudalism than anything innovative, new, or forward-looking.

The really progressive idea is human freedom, allowing individuals to own the rewards of hard-work and risk-taking when it works and to suffer to consequences of failure and to learn from them. A free society requires a government that sets the basic ground rules, assures contracts are enforced, maintains public safety, and prevents and punishes force and fraud. Forays into central economic planning or regulating people’s private lives never turn out well.

The lesson of the 20^th century should have been that free markets work and central planning is a disaster. Unfortunately, it looks like we may need to learn that lesson one more time the hard way before we’ll fully understand it.

How To Save The United States Automakers

The Perspective:

In the wake of news that General Motors is on an expedited path to bankruptcy and that Chrysler will pair up with Italian automaker Fiat, things are not looking up for the American auto industry. While the credit crunch and the ongoing recession have played a significant role in reaching this point, frankly much of the blame rests with policy makers in Washington, D.C.

The shibboleth that the plight of the Big Three (Ford, Chrysler and GM) is simply a function of their terrible product line is tired, worn out, and in most respects simply untrue. Actually government industrial policy has been more harmful to the American automobile industry than any of the decisions of the auto industry management. And now that the industry is on a rendezvous with destruction, perhaps we ought to make a change before it’s too late.

Here are 3 policy shifts that will restore life and vitality to the automakers each of which ought to be considered immediately and certainly before any more taxpayer bailouts are considered.

1. Adopt a 3 Year Moratorium on UAW (United Auto Worker) Union Representation and Immediately Suspend the Existing UAW Union Contract.

The federal government policy of authorizing and enabling an all too powerful union to represent employees of all of the American automakers has been a costly mistake. Using the protections of law and possessing little interest in the ongoing concerns of the host corporations, the UAW has acted like a predator going after any or all of their targets when they were most vulnerable.

And this strategy has paid off handsomely for the unions, but there’s been little to no return for the automakers or the car buying consumer. The UAW contracts run over a thousand pages in detail and all focus on extracting and maintaining medical, pension, and retiree obligations that are now nearly $30 billion for GM alone. These costs make GM and Chrysler uncompetitive and were never sustainable, and now having overwhelmed the automakers they’ll be passed along to the American taxpayer if we don’t act soon.

Today as most Americans sit at their kitchen table deciding on cost cutting measures that will allow them to keep their houses and their families intact, the UAW continues to hold out hope that it can keep its excessive gains that its maintained over the last 30 years. Since the UAW can’t act responsibly their contract should be suspended and a 3 year moratorium should be put in place to give the American auto industry the running room necessary to survive and thrive without needing further taxpayer bailouts.

2. Let the Market Decide the Automotive Product Line, Not Environmentalists and Washington, D.C. Bureaucrats.

In the midst of plunging auto sales which set new records lows each month it is essential that the automakers be unleashed from rules that require them to sell products based on the desires of powerful eco-interests groups instead of those of the buying public.

A key failure of Washington policymakers over the last 30 years has been its view that Washington knew better what products the Big Three should bring to market than the companies themselves. After spending nearly $25 billion of taxpayer dollars to keep Chrysler and GM operational, its high time we revisit this attitude.

It simply isn’t true that federal policy requiring ever greater fuel efficiency and emissions reductions line up with the interests of the buying public. One glaring fact is that for the last 15 years the single best selling vehicle in the U.S. has been that paragon of fuel efficiency, the American pick-up truck. Yet Washington still insists that automakers must focus ever greater efforts on selling smaller, lighter “enviro” friendly autos?

Derided as “automotive birth control” by car aficionados these fuel efficient vehicles have been seen by the auto buying public (particularly in the exurbs) as unattractive, unsafe, slow and incapable of meeting the basic transportation needs of working families. Notably every Toyota Prius, the icon of fuel efficiency, is sold at a loss. In other words the other cars Toyota sells subsidize the cost of making the Prius available to the public. Even when gasoline was over $4 a gallon Toyota can’t profitably sell the Prius. On the other hand pick-up trucks, SUVs and sports cars are much more profitable to make than hybrids and they outsell the hybrids by nearly 10 to 1.

Continuing mandates that ever greater percentages of the new vehicles manufactured must be either hybrids and/or emissions free vehicles can only be considered what economists call the “the Triumph of Hope over Experience.” This mindset is damaging to the auto industry and to the taxpayer. Rather than continue forcing the taxpayers to bear the operational costs of the American automakers as they are forced to sale products that the buying public eschews, we should temporarily repeal these mandates and allow the automakers to sell as many of their most profitable cars as the public wants. Especially in a plunging market it is more important than ever to let the market dictate sales not Washington, D.C. and green activists.

3. Instead of having U.S. government backed warranties, we should lower the costs of servicing and maintenance of all vehicles.

The so called “Motor Vehicle Owners’ Right to Repair” should be enacted to require that both dealer and non-dealer repair shops can provide automobile repair service. President Obama’s decision to put the federal government in the business of “backing” the warranties of American automakers is exactly the wrong policy. It perpetuates a monopolistic practice and shifts the burden of keeping the automakers operational to all taxpayers (even those who can’t afford to buy a new car) all the while doing nothing to encourage potential customers concerned about repair and servicing costs.

Because new cars and trucks are increasingly sophisticated virtually every aspect of the vehicle is either monitored or controlled by computers. The upside is that these vehicles are far more efficient, environmentally friendly and reliable than ever before (even without the government mandates).

But the systems necessary to keep them in safe and efficient working condition requires access to complete and accurate repair information from the car companies. The auto industry has refused to make this information available outside of their dealer network even on a fee basis. Notably the cost of dealer service is a major hindrance to auto buying even for late model used cars (which are increasingly just as sophisticated as new vehicles) and this is especially true during this recession.

The costs to car owners when they have their vehicle repaired at the dealership is estimated to be as much as 25 percent higher with labor charges alone, according to a study comparing dealer repair tags compared with those of an independent service center. And the problem is worse for those who live in rural areas as the added cost of gas and travel time to the nearest dealership is an added burden.

There is no safety issue involved here - in fact just the opposite. Some newer vehicles are not getting properly serviced at all as job layoffs and recession worries cause them to delay or put off altogether a costly dealer servicing visit. While this monopolistic practice might have been overlooked during a boom time now that the taxpayers are subsidizing the automobile industry this practice must come to an end.

In conclusion, in essential respects US policy towards the automakers is shortsighted and in most respects unlikely to accomplish any other objective than saddling the taxpayers with ever greater levels of debt. Each of these three solutions focus on returning the American automakers back to profitability by doing what they do best - selling the types of automotive products that consumers want without unneeded mandates and monopolistic interventions.

After dismal car and truck sales in 2008, and with demand off more than 33 percent in the first three months of this year already unless we want to see the ultimate demise of the auto industry major industrial policy changes are in order.

The Tyrants Are Watching Barry Obama

The Perspective: Perhaps the major reason it has been 200 years since pirates dared challenge the United States of America on the high seas was the decisive action taken by Thomas Jefferson (the first Democrat) against them. Jefferson dispatched the schooner USS Enterprise in 1801 to the same Barbary Coast where today’s Somali (and as back then) Islamic pirates demanded financial tribute from the United States. The U.S. Navy soundly defeated the pirates.

Two years later the pirates were back for more. This time, they captured the USS Philadelphia along with its captain, William Bainbridge, the officers and crew and held them hostage. On the night of Feb. 16, 1804, Lt. Stephen Decatur, Jr. led a small band of the first American Marines. The Marines commandeered a Tripolitan ketch, which they re-christened USS Intrepid, to deceive the guards on board the Philadelphia and get close enough to the ship to storm the vessel. With support from American ships, the Marines set fire to the Philadelphia, preventing her use by the pirates and went on to capture the city of Tripoli. This is where the line came from in the Marine H ymn about “the shores of Tripoli”.

So far, the reaction by modern Democrats has been less than inspiring. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry has threatened to hold hearings! That should strike fear into the hearts of the pirates. What will the Obama administration do if the pirates are captured alive? He won’t sent them to Gitmo, which he is closing down. Will they get ACLU lawyers? Will there be testimony from a “pirates rights” group? Will they be released on a technicality after a trial in U.S. courts? If there is not as forceful a response as there was during the Jefferson administration, it will invite more of these incidents. The world’s tyrants are watching to see how President Obama reacts. The message they get will determine how they respond to America and whether we will be in greater peril.

Amnesty=Bullshit.

The Perspective: It's all about taxes.

The New York Times reports this morning that President Obama intends to make immigration “reform” a priority this year. The Times quotes Cecilia Muñoz, deputy assistant to the president and director of intergovernmental affairs in the White House, calling for “policy reform that controls immigration and makes it an orderly system.”

Translating through the policy speak, Ms. Munoz is calling for amnesty. But what she is not calling for is any sort of fence, to secure the U.S.-Mexican border. Amnesty + No Fence is a formula for disaster.

But that’s the liberal Democratic agenda (shared by some Republicans, unfortunately), and it must be stopped. Open border advocates and some in Congress are urging Obama to stop construction of the 670 mile fence along the Mexican border.

Others are are even pushing for the fence to be completely dismantled, ignoring the will of the American people who overwhelmingly rejected the McCain-Kennedy amnesty plan in 2007 and instead supported border security.

During the recent presidential elections, the illegal immigration crisis was downplayed by both major party presidential candidates and virtually ignored by the elite media and pundits in New York and Washington. That was good news for Obama, who supported amnesty in 2007, but it was bad news for John McCain, who never could see that border security was a potential game-changer for him.

Many “Washington political experts” stated that illegal immigration was no longer an issue. But according to a recent Rasmussen Reports national survey, most Americans support the continued construction of a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border and the use of the military, if necessary, in border areas.

The pro-open border, anti-fence activists are now emboldened because former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, the new Secretary of Homeland Security, is perceived to be one of them and may try to halt or further delay construction of the much-needed barrier.

The issue of border security is all the more important at a time when Mexico is in crisis. Some 5,700 deaths last year in Mexico were blamed on drug violence–is now the time to make it easier to cross the border?

In addition, America is now plunging into what could be a deep and protracted recession. With unemployment on the rise, American workers need the work, and the United States government can no longer afford the economic costs associated with illegal immigration.

The Obama administration should complete the fence and secure our borders. The legal status of those here illegally should wait–although, of course, all Americans should obey the law, and nobody should be here illegally.

If Obama won’t fulfill his sworn duty to defend the nation, and to protect the American people, then he should be held to account, by peaceful political action.

And that calling to account will happen, starting with the 2009 elections, in Virginia and New Jersey.

Budget Tricks

The Perspective:

Congressional Democrats reacted to the shocking scope of President Obama’s plan to spend $3.6 trillion next year in his budget (and a stunning $42.2 trillion over ten years) the way Washington insiders usually do — they turned to tricks and gimmicks. They “trimmed” his budget and got it down to $3.0 trillion for next year and about $15 trillion over five years without actually cutting any spending. Strip off the gimmicks, however, and the Congressional budgets still look almost exactly like the president’s budget.

Here are the top 5 tricks they used to do it:

5. Hiding Years 6 Through 10

President Obama criticized Bush for not following the practice of the Clinton years of doing 10-year budgeting, opting instead for shorter 5-year budgets. The White House made the case that showing longer-term obligations was important given the enormity of the country’s fiscal challenges. Congressional Democrats, however, decided that the quickest and easiest way to conceal a huge portion of the Obama budget from the public was to simply shorten it to 5 years, hiding some of the biggest big ticket items in the secret second 5 years.

4. A Hidden Wall Street Bailout

President Obama included $250 billion in additional Wall Street bailouts in his budget (a bit of a budget trick in itself — since it assumes that $750 billion in assets would be purchased that could later be sold for $500 billion). Both the House and Senate budget resolutions failed to show any funding for the almost certain new rounds of Wall Street bailouts, despite the fact that Treasury Secretary Geithner has already announced an expanded plan, and the Washington-Wall Street bailout machine shows no signs of slowing down. Future bailouts could cost hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars, making a budget that fails to include them an extreme low-ball.

3. Hidden Tax Hikes

The Senate and House both pretend that the Making Work Pay tax credit — Obama’s big campaign promise, originally a $500 per worker credit that’s since been trimmed to $400 — will expire after 2010 (House) or 2012 (Senate). Obama would pay for those so-called tax cuts (more than 42 percent, according to the White House which would take the form of checks to non-income tax payers) through revenues from his cap-and-trade energy tax.

Cap-and-trade is included in the Congressional budgets but there is no word about how high the tax hike would be. In fact, the Congressional budgets claim, unbelievably, that this tax would be “revenue-neutral.” Congress also pretends that the Alternative Minimum Tax will be allowed to slam the middle class, providing only for a 1-year fix, despite the White House insistence that there be a permanent reform. Even the 1-year cost, though, is hidden from the deficit total through a reserve fund.

2. Secret Reserve Funds

Speaking of reserve funds, lots of them are being used to hide a wide variety of tax hikes and policy changes that would substantially change the overall budget numbers — making them look like the original Obama budget — it they were properly accounted for. The House has 17 reserve funds and the Senate 15, most of which claim to be deficit-neutral without any explanation of how substantial tax cuts and spending increases could be done in a deficit-neutral fashion without big tax hikes. One reserve fund that does have an associated funding level is the Medicare reserve fund that would increase mandatory spending $285 billion over 10 years-on top of the reported total numbers for spending and deficits. These reserve funds serve no purpose other than to avoid accountability and transparency, and make the budget look a lot smaller than it really is.

1. Using the Reconciliation Trick for Health Care

This is by far the worst and most dangerous trick in the budget. The cap-and-trade energy tax could potentially be forced through Congress in budget reconciliation, a trick to avoid proper debate and the normal 60 vote requirement for important legislation. Fortunately, last week Sen. Mike Johanns of Nebraska introduced a budget amendment to prohibit the use of reconciliation for cap-and-trade, and it passed on a solid 67-31 vote. Every Republican supported the amendment, as did 26 Democrats. Unfortunately, Democrats are still poised to pull the same reconciliation trick for their plan to nationalize and ration health care.

While the Senate passed a budget resolution without reconciliation language, the House budget specifically includes a section authorizing the use of reconciliation for a national health care plan. This is despite the fact that reconciliation only matters in the Senate, where it can short-circuit debate and pass legislation with only 50 votes instead of the regular sixty. This sets up a conference committee where Senate reconciliation instructions can be inserted and railroaded through, despite the fact that the Senate already rejected this approach.

The country deserves an honest, public discussion of where we’re going on issues like health care, energy, taxes, and spending. Unfortunately we have a Congress whose budget is a big bag of tricks and gimmicks to hide its true cost and to slip major policy changes in through the back door.