Cruising the Web

Daniel Henninger looks at what the Obama budget says about the President's view of the government: it will tax the wealthy so that the government can figure out how to grow the economy by investing in preferred industries which will in turn help the economy grow.

If you don't like government bureaucrats decreeing what "preventive medicine" should include and who should have to pay for it, just wait until you get used to the "Obamacare Mandate Committee" deciding which services people may or not have insured or which cancer screenings your insurance will cover.

Matt Lewis says that Rick Santorum would rather win the argument than the election.

Is it a mandate or a tax? When talking politically about the health insurance mandate, the Obama administration wanted to say it wasn't a tax. But now in arguing before the Supreme Court they are arguing that it is a tax because then it would fall within Congress's constitutional powers. But now Obama's acting OMB director testified before the House and said it was not a tax. Thus he directly contradicted the administration's brief before the Court. That's going to complicate the administration's defense of the Obamacare mandate. Sometimes talking out both sides of one's mouth comes back to haunt one.

Warren Buffett gets to play the role of both the Baptist and the Bootlegger.

The CSM explains why it is a problem that that we are going into our fourth year without a budget.

Looking at the video that the Obama campaign put out to celebrate the fifth anniversary of his presidential campaign it is clear that what Obama wants to celebrate is Obama the Candidate from 2008, not the Obama who has been president for three years.

Cruising the Web

Using science to figure out why Adele's "Someone Like You" successfully arouses emotions. It's very interesting; there seems to be a formula for jerking out our tears.

David Rivkin and Edward Whelan argue that the President's mandate on religious organizations to offer insurance policies for contraception violates federal law. So expect another constitutional challenge to Obamacare.

How serendipitous. John Kerry got a nice little bonus placed into Obamacare that will benefit a hospital organization that has contributed to his own campaigns. Similar hospital associations in other states don't get the benefit and will have to pay to make up for the benefit to Massachusetts.

South Carolina is going to take on Eric Holder and his war against voter photo identification requirements. The Supreme Court has already upheld such laws. Expect Holder to lose on this also.

Obama and the Democrats are lying that Romney wanted the auto industry to die simply because he didn't support a federal bailout. Both Romney and Obama wanted bankruptcy for GM and Chrysler. They just differed on how they wanted that accomplished.

Michael Boskin explains why, as Larry Summers apparently wrote to Obama, "the government is a crappy venture capitalist." But Obama persists in thinking that he will do better at picking the future's winners and losers than the marketplace. We've seen this tried before and it hasn't worked.

Tony Lee at Human Events examines possible VP selections for Mitt Romney. It's a mite bit early for that; Romney hasn't come anywhere near wrapping up the nomination. The sad thing is how the possible VP choices are so much more attractive than the possible presidential choices we've faced this year.

Politico comes up with seven clichés that journalists should avoid.

Joe Queenan says we should forget about emulating Chinese and French mothers. He prefers Italian-American moms. It's all about the manicotti.

Is this really what we want the campaign to be about?

I like Rick Santorum, but I think he'd be a disaster as the GOP candidate. If he were the nominee, we'd end up having the campaign be about some rather startling comments that he has made on cultural issues. I respect his sincere views that he's willing to enunciate even when he knows they're not popular. I don't happen to agree with him about these issues, but then I don't usually vote based on cultural issues. I mostly vote on economic and foreign policy questions or on the candidate's basic approach to addressing the nation's problems. Santorum is mostly strong on those questions so I could support him.

I just fear, however, that if he were the candidate we'd end up having the entire focus on some of the statements he's made on issues such as the role of women or how contraception has cheapened social relations. That might be fine as a philosophical question, but it shouldn't be a question for a political campaign for president when Republicans are trying to oust a man who has done more to transform the power and scope of the federal government than any other recent American president. If Santorum were the nominee Obama could ignore economic questions and focus on the role of modern women in America while challenging some of Santorum's statements. Ace is similarly nervous about having Santorum's past statements coming back to be the basis of the fall campaign.

Glad we've gotten all the Big Things squared away so we can now focus laser-like on the sin and moral emptiness of people having sex while avoiding pregnancy.

And if you say "gee he's just talking about this stuff:" Um, if a plumber starts talking about the bad rap iron pipes have gotten over the years, and how they're really pretty safe, I assume he's open to the idea of using iron pipes in my house.

He is a plumber, speaking about what he considers to be his area of expertise.

So when a presidential candidate starts talking about the importance of the president taking the lead on the evils of birth control, yes, I assume he believes this to be within the proper functions of the executive.

And I do not think he wants to limit it to "just talking." You know how people typically introduce ideas that are currently unpopular and outside the Overton Window? They first suggest "talking about" them. As we saw with Entitlement Reform.

Plus, he himself says these are important "public policy issues."

Not personal morality issues. Public policy issues. In other words, the public, voting, or expressing its will through its chosen legislators, gets a say on these "issues."

The opposition will have field day with some of these quotes. It will be a distraction from what Republicans should be talking about 24/7 Obamanomics and Obamacare. Remember when George Stephanopoulos asked Romney that weird question about the state having the power to regulate contraception. Well, the predicate for that question came from things Santorum had said about the right to privacy and the Griswold case. Romney avoided that trap, but it will be there again waiting for Santorum, especially now that the whole HHS mandate on birth control has brought contraception back into the limelight. The media love to ask Republicans about these sorts of issues because they think it shows the Republicans as backwards Elmer Gantrys and turns off a lot of Americans. And if Santorum is going to go off on riffs about how women shouldn't be using contraception because sex should be for procreation within marriage, you can write off whole swaths of the voting public. And Santorum is too honest of a guy not to answer these questions that the media will surely ask him.

I've been surprised that Romney has attacked Santorum on such a distraction as earmarks when these quotes from Santorum's interviews and his own book are out there. Perhaps Romney is afraid of attacking Santorum from the left and irritating social values voters. Time Magazine is already reporting on Santorum's statements so maybe Romney can depend on the media to carry his water for him. If not, he's going to have. If Romney or Gingrich don't make these arguments, we know Obama will. And it will be a disaster for the Republicans.

Cruising the Web

A good question: Why on earth is the federal government subsidizing a $104,000 car being manufactured in Finland?

Tucker Carlson continues his series looking into Media Matters. Today it's the story of a proposal to target Fox News personalities in their public and private lives.

William McGurn has good advice for the Republicans this fall - make Harry Reid's Senate a major issue. Except for passing Obamacare and the stimulus, they've done nothing and that has been a deliberate policy. He doesn't even hold votes on issues that Obama says are a priority. And we're into our third year of no Senate budget.

James Taranto has some fun reading the NYT editorial page as they try to tell us what all the outrage at Obama's mandate on birth control for religious institutions are all about.

With all the spending increases in Obama's 2013 budget proposal, one program he wants to cut is money for Israel's missile defense system.

Jim Geraghty notes how sorry Obama seems to feel for himself.

Everyone recognizes how gimmicky and unrealistic the Obama budget is. But what is really notable is how he's using the budget as a political document to help his base and to give him talking points in the coming campaign. Addressing our fiscal problems and the doom of our entitlements - not so much.

Why is Romney's super PAC spending money in Michigan attacking Newt Gingrich when Santorum is his real rival? It seems doubly stupid since disenchanted Gingrich voters will probably swell Santorum's support.

When spin is simply a lie. And you can revisit Jack Lew's lies from last year.

Dissecting a phony statistic.

Steve Kornacki has a very interesting historical recounting of all the times that political observers thought that there might be a deadlocked convention and how all these fantasies eventually yielded to political reality.

Cruising the Web

An education union leader in New Jersey reveals what he really thinks about poor children stuck in failing schools while arguing against a vouchers program to send poor students to private schools. In his own words, "life's not always fair" and basically that is just tough for those children. Better they stay stuck in bad schools than get out if such a policy would hurt those unionized teachers.

The Daily Caller looks at the coordination between Media Matters, the White House, and the MSM.

George Will explores a question before the courts: is it bribery when an elected official takes actions that financially benefit a contributor if there is no explicit quid pro quo?

Arthur Laffer celebrates the pro-growth revolution taking place in the states. Other states can learn from these steps.

Ron Chernow reminds us of the leadership lessons that can be learned from George Washington.

Robert Samuelson, who really is a Cassandra warning us of what will come, writes of how Social Security mushroomed to the huge fiscal liability that it is today. And the pattern is duplicated even more for Medicare.

The larger budget quagmire now comes into focus. What the federal government does is so vast that it suffocates informed debate and political control. The built-in bias for the status quo reflects the reality that the various parts of government are understood, defended and changed mainly by those who benefit from their existence. However strong the case for revision (and it is powerful here), it is tempered by political inertia. What's sacrificed is the broader public good. The quagmire is of our own making.

Oops, Obama's new Chief of Staff, who used to be the OMB director goofed when he claimed that the Senate hasn't passed a budget because it takes 60 votes. Actually, it just takes a simple majority. You'd think that someone who served as OMB director would know such a basic fact. Or was it an error? Could he just be trying to continue the President's message that he'd be doing such wonderful stuff if it just weren't for those evil Republicans and those pesky checks and balances?

Nate Silver examines the stats to see if Jeremy Lin's fantastic start is a fluke or not.

John Steele Gordon examines the President's semantics.

Will Republicans and Democrats show that they mean it when they talk about getting rid of corporate welfare?

Ari Fleischer explains the "fundamental fraudulence of Obama."

Steve Kornacki has a very interesting historical recounting of all the times that political observers thought that there might be a deadlocked convention and how all these fantasies eventually yielded to political reality.

Obama, the Magic-Money Man

Historians can debate whether Obama's attitude to how money is made is totally cynical, ignorant, or just standard liberal ideology. What is clear is that he either has no understanding of how people make money or just doesn't care if his policies have negative consequences.

Witness his supposed compromise on the HHS regulations on insurance companies having to supply free contraceptive and sterilization care to all women even if their employers are religious institutions with religious objections to such policies. The Obama administration is pretending that the employers won't have to pay for these policies, just the insurance companies. This is mendacious sophistry. Someone has to pay for those policies. Insurance companies don't offer policies for free. That someone will be have to be the religious institution. Somehow, they'll end up paying for Obama's free contraceptive mandate.

Gregory Mankiw explains this.

Consider these two policies:

A. An employer is required to provide its employees health insurance that covers birth control.

B. An employer is required to provide its employees health insurance. The health insurance company is required to cover birth control.

I can understand someone endorsing both A and B, and I can understand someone rejecting both A and B. But I cannot understand someone rejecting A and embracing B, because they are effectively the same policy. Ultimately, all insurance costs are passed on to the purchaser, so I cannot see how policy B is different in any way from policy A, other than using slightly different words to describe it.

Yet it seems that the White House yesterday switched from A to B, and that change is being viewed by some as a significant accommodation to those who objected to policy A. The whole thing leaves me scratching my head.

It's all of a piece with Obama's magic money. He is about to deliver a budget that will purportedly cut billions in spending even though about $800 billion comes from supposed spending cuts of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was never going to spend that money anyway, but now he gets to count not spending the money he was never going to spend somehow saves hundreds of billions of dollars. Why stop there? Why not count money he was not going to spend on all sorts of programs such as a manned colony on Mars and then trumpet those savings?

But it's all magic money that Obama somehow conjures out of nowhere.

The real problem with this whole contraceptive mandate is that Obama has revealed what so many suspected at the time the bill was crammed through. Obama thinks he has the power to establish that people must buy insurance and that he can mandate what that insurance must cover. All that power is concentrated in the executive branch. If he could make this rule now and then change it when there are objections from a powerful voting bloc, he can certainly change the policy if he were to be reelected. All it takes is another rule change by his HHS Secretary. As J.E. Dyer chides the media for mis-reporting the Obama supposed rule change as if it were really a change,

If the federal government can step in and arbitrarily require a company to provide things for “free” that were previously elective, premium-based services, then it is no longer an insurance company. We are not buying insurance from it; we are simply participating in a mandatory government program whose features can be changed at any time, regardless of what we or the “insurers” want. There is no contract. There are only the one-sided decisions of bureaucrats and future presidents.

This Obama move is the opposite of a retreat. It’s a decision to reveal the future to us, and to insist on remaining on course for it.

Yet on their news pages (as opposed to the opinion pages), the mainstream media are stuck in the old mode of interpreting political events in a single dimension, as if all other things remain equal, and a rhetorical “retreat” from a president means the same thing it usually has in the past. We see this in numerous aspects of their coverage. They keep putting out stories in the same old narrative ruts, as if we have a business-as-usual political situation. The president’s people say he has changed his mind on the contraception mandate; in the shallowest of political terms, that can be seen as a “retreat”; and no care is taken to frame the overriding reality that Catholic employers will be required to pay for “insurance” programs that distribute contraception to their employees.

That is not a change of heart, it’s a significant broadening of the state’s control, undertaken at the drop of a hat – and we have a huge mainstream media apparatus that simply does not frame what’s going on in realistic terms. The clear implications of the Obama decision were widely discussed across the conservative blogosphere yesterday, and even on some MSM opinion pages. But in their news reporting, the MSM characterized what had happened – falsely – as a retreat by the president.

The Republicans have to make the larger point. This goes beyond the whole question of religious institutions having to provide free contraceptives. The real issue is whether the president should have such concentrated power without any check. And once we give him that power what else can he mandate when he doesn't have to worry about trying to maintain a pretense of reasonableness before an election?