Obama on ObamaCare: “Season for Action”

by elpresidente | 5:48 pm, September 9, 2009

6:18–”back from the brink”??? Politico has a preview, via Hot Air: The time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together, and show the American people that we can still do what we were [...]

How to Enjoy Watching Obama’s Health Care Speech to Congress Tonight

by Ben DeGrow | 4:01 pm, September 9, 2009

Tonight is President Obama’s latest in a long line of big speech about why he’s finally clear on just what exactly he intends to do about how government health care will magically improve lives through competition (and other assorted sweet-talking nonsense)….
The address to Congress is scheduled to start at 8 PM Eastern, or 6 [...]

Real-time commentary on Obama’s health care speech

by Brian Schwartz | 3:47 pm, September 9, 2009

See Cato-at-Liberty for live comments and commentary by Cato’s health policy experts. The speech which will be streamed on the Cato blog.

Reid Errs on International Health Comparisons

by Ari Armstrong | 11:26 am, September 9, 2009

Tonight President Obama will renew his pitch for more political control of medicine. One important part of the debate is how the U.S. compares to other nations. Recently the Denver Post republished an article from the Washington Post by T. R. Reid on the matter.

As my dad and I have pointed out (and again), the U.S. outperforms various European nations by measures such as cancer survival and access to technology.

As is also well documented, nations with the most severe political controls of medicine ration care (see also Patient Power). To take just one recent example, see the following article in the British Telegraph: “Sentenced to death on the NHS: Patients with terminal illnesses are being made to die prematurely under an NHS scheme to help end their lives, leading doctors have warned.”

However, the fundamental choice is not between the current American system and some system similar to that of some other nation. The fact is that American medicine is already mostly controlled by politicians, and in that respect it already resembles the politically controlled systems throughout Canada and Europe. To the degree that American medicine fails, it fails because politicians have mucked it up. Where health care in other nations succeeds, that is largely to the extent that it retains some elements of freedom and borrows the successes of American innovations.

Reid definitely comes at the matter with the presumption that it’s the government’s job to ensure “universal coverage.” It is not. Rather, it is the government’s job to protect individual rights, including rights to offer and purchase health care and insurance on a free market, by voluntary exchange. The fact that government has violated rather than protected our rights is what has created the medical mess in which we now live. (For a historical survey, see the article by Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh.)

If government would protect our rights rather than interfere in medicine, health care would be better in quality, lower in cost, and widely accessible. It is ironically the political crusade for “universal coverage” and care that leads to skyrocketing costs, rationing, and widespread difficulties in getting good health care.

Part of Reid’s confusion is to treat politically controlled insurance and health providers as “private.” If politicians control something, it is not “private” in any meaningful sense, even if the ownership is nominally so.

With an eye toward Reid’s mistaken premises, then, let’s evaluate his arguments.

Reid helpfully concedes that U.S. health is hardly a free market:

In some ways, health care is less “socialized” overseas than in the United States. Almost all Americans sign up for government insurance (Medicare) at age 65. In Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands, seniors stick with private insurance plans for life.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is one of the planet’s purest examples of government-run health care.

However, Reid seems to think this counts as a reason for expanding political controls in the U.S.

Reid grants that Canadian health features waiting lines. However, he claims, “studies by the Commonwealth Fund and others report that many nations — Germany, Britain, Austria — outperform the United States on measures such as waiting times for appointments and for elective surgeries.”

Reid simply misstates the survey results.

Here’s what the Commonwealth Fund actually says, contrary to Reid’s summary: “The U.S. patients reported relatively longer waiting times for doctor appointments when they were sick, but relatively shorter waiting times to be seen at the emergency department, see a specialist, and have elective surgery.”

The survey also notes that the difference is partly attributable to the fact that some Americans lack health insurance, and this is primarily a problem resulting from political controls of insurance, which drive up costs.

It would have been helpful had Reid pointed out some of the other findings of the survey.

On the matter of doctor visits, the question is “Waited 6 days or longer for a doctor appointment (last time sick or needed medical attention.” Australia came in at 10 percent of surveyed “sicker adults,” Canada at 36 percent, Germany at 13 percent, New Zealand at 3 percent, the UK at 15 percent, and the U.S. at 23 percent. Notice that this question pertains to a patient’s scheduling of a doctor visit, not necessarily the availability of doctors.

On the question of waiting four or more hours in the emergency room, only Germany beats the U.S.

“Waited 4 weeks or longer to see a specialist?” The U.S. comes in at 23 percent, compared to 57 percent in Canada and 60 percent in the UK.

“Waited 4 months of longer for elective surgery?” The U.S. stands at 8 percent, while Canada is at 33 percent and the UK at 41 percent.

All that said, such surveys are inherently limited in reliability. For example, people in different cultures might have very different ideas about when a doctor’s visit is “needed.” And people are not likely to try to see a specialist or get elective surgery if they think their attempts will be fruitless, so the U.S. might perform even better than the survey results indicate.

But, again, it is not enough just to compare the U.S. against other nations. We have to get at the underlying causes of problems in the U.S. and abroad.

Writing for Reason, Shikha Dalmia points out:

The fact of the matter is that America’s health care system is like a free market in the same way that Madonna is like a virgin — i.e. in fiction only. If anything, the U.S. system has many more similarities than differences with France and Germany. [A]part from England, most European countries have a public-private blend, not unlike what we have in the U.S.

Dalmia points out that government pays for nearly half of all health care dollars in the U.S. and “directly covers about a third of all Americans through Medicare (the public program for the elderly) and Medicaid (the public program for the poor).” The U.S. also forces emergency rooms to provide care without compensation.

Dalmia adds, “This is not radically different from France, where the government offers everyone basic public coverage, of course — but a whopping 90% of the French also buy supplemental private insurance to help pay for the 20% to 40% of their tab that the public plan doesn’t cover.”

Moreover, a significant minority of Germans “opt out of the public system altogether and rely solely on private coverage.”

What about rationing? Dalmia points out:

Struggling with exploding costs, the French government has tried several times—only to back off in the face of a public outcry—to prod doctors into using only standardized treatments. In 1994, it started imposing fines of up to roughly $4,000 on doctors who deviated from “mandatory practice guidelines.” It switched from this “sticks” to a “carrots” approach four years later, and tried handing bonuses to doctors who adhered to the guidelines.

Meanwhile, in Germany, “sickness funds” — the equivalent of insurance companies—have imposed strict budgets on doctors for prescription drugs. Doctors who exceed their cap are simply denied reimbursement, something that forces them to prescribe less effective invasive procedures for problems that would have been better treated with drugs. But the most potent form of rationing in France and Germany—and indeed much of Europe — is not overt but covert: delayed access to cutting-edge drugs and therapies that become available to American patients years in advance.

Cato’s Michael Tanner has written both an op-ed and a longer policy paper about international comparisons. He points out:

Those countries with national health care systems that work better, such as France, the Netherlands and Switzerland, are successful to the degree that they incorporate market mechanisms such as competition, cost-consciousness, market prices, and consumer choice, and eschew centralized government control.

In France, for example, co-payments run between 10 and 40 percent, and physicians can balance bill over and above government reimbursement rates, something not allowed in the U.S. Medicare program. On average, French patients pay roughly as much out of pocket as do Americans. The Swiss government pays a smaller percentage of health care spending than does the U.S.

In his longer paper, Tanner goes into more detail on the health policies of particular countries.

Reid also argues that American insurance, which he laughably calls “free enterprise,” has higher administrative overhead than other countries. I do not doubt that this is true despite the fact that Reid is probably ignoring the relevant administrative costs elsewhere (such as tax compliance). But this is only true because American politicians have totally screwed up the insurance market, turning insurance into expensive pre-paid health care. (See my article, “What is Health Insurance?”

Finally, Reid argues that it’s “cruel” if politicians don’t force insurers to ignore pre-existing conditions. I’ve addressed the matter in a first and second article. The upshot is that insurers and consumers have the right to enter voluntary contracts, and insurance controls create bad incentives and higher costs, leading to cries for more controls.

In general, Reid attempts to make his case by omitting the relevant facts.

It’s a start – ACORN turns in Fla. workers on voter fraud charges

by Mr. Bob | 11:01 am, September 9, 2009

#ACORN #tcot #redco #voterfraud #hhrs
ACORN is taking credit for turning in the workers (who were following orders) to falsify registration cards. This is typical of how ACORN handles things, they blame the workers (who are by the way working on less than a living wage) for doing exactly what they’ve been taught to do.

ACORN hopes this will tame down the accusations and lawsuits to show they are handling this internally….I say its just a smokescreen to hide the true intent of this TAXPAYER FUNDED organization.

From Breitbart;

Help Reveal Colorado’s Political Temperature: It’s Survey Time Again!

by Ben DeGrow | 8:37 am, September 9, 2009

We’re back at it again. After the results and analysis from the July 2009 survey in which we are grateful that more than 600 of you participated, we’re at it again.
Yes, El Presidente and I have commissioned and fashioned another survey that we hope you will take 10 minutes or so to complete — [...]

Wednesday Wrap-Up

by Jon Caldara | 8:26 am, September 9, 2009

***Our 5 year old education blogger, little Eddie, made quite a splash with his thoughts on Obama’s speech to school children. It evidently struck a chord with one of the writer’s from the Westword, who penned this response. What sort of man picks a fight with a 5 year old??
***The good Guv Ritter gets [...]

Malkin: Daschle is “human toe fungus”

by Rossputin | 6:34 am, September 9, 2009

In what has to be one of the top 3 political metaphors of recent years, Michelle Malkin explains why tax cheat Tom Daschle is “human toe fungus”:

http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2009/09/09/the_k_street_tax_cheat_whos_lobbying_to_save_obamacare

Stories of government-run medicine

by Rossputin | 6:18 am, September 9, 2009

Over at RedState, Brian Faughnan will be posting stories from a book called “Shattered Lives” by the National Center for Public Policy Research.  Today is the first story, and it’s truly tragic:

http://www.redstate.com/brianfaughnan/2009/09/08/lives-shattered-by-government-run-health-care/

Wednesday’s important events

by Rossputin | 1:21 am, September 9, 2009

There are (at least) two newsworthy events today, one of which has received much more attention than the other.

Tonight, President Obama will address a rare joint session of Congress to lay out his vision of health care “reform”.  Obama will probably give a “yes, but” discussion of a “public option” along the lines of his belief that it’s an important part of real reform (since for him “reform” means maximizing government control) but that he’s willing to do other things so that at least something can “get done” and leave a public option off the table. Which is to say, he’ll get all he can now, and then get the public option later, because make no mistake, the liberals will never give up on government-run medicine.

Obama’s speech carries both risk and potential reward.  It would not surprise me to see his approval ratings take a modest bounce after a steady multi-month downtrend.  But once Obama makes this speech, his “ownership” of the issue increases dramatically.  If he fails to pass legislation, which I most sincerely hope turns out the be the case, his political capital will be diminished even more than it would be by a failure of Congressional Democrats to pass legislation with Obama sitting coolly on the sidelines.

Obama knows this and it’s one reason he will probably try to blame Republicans for “obstruction”.  There are two huge problems with this accusation:  First, the public knows it’s right to obstruct a bad bill.  Second, the public knows that the Democrats have such large majorities in both houses of Congress that they could pass this without any Republican support if there really were widespread Democratic support.  A recent Rasmussen Report shows the rapidly increasing skepticism among the public about the House bill. Fewer than 25% of voters believe the Democrats should even try to pass a bill that can’t get any Republican support. Again, that’s part of the reason Obama will try to coerce a Republican or two (particularly Maine’s Olympia Snowe, a RINO of the worst sort) to sign on to a bill and give him political cover.  However, even if they get Snowe, they may not get enough Democrats to pass a bill. And even if they get Snowe, the public knows what she is (and what she is will certainly be emphasized in advertising against her and the bill almost immediately if she caves in.)  In short, Obama’s blaming Republicans will show his desperation and the degree to which he’s lost control of the issue.

On Sunday, Obama’s handler David Axelrod spoke about the health care issue, using the phrase “competition and choice” over and over.  Obama and his team are banking on the idea that repeating a big enough lie enough times will make the public believe it.  There is no sense in which a public option is about competition or choice.  It is about control.

The good news is that the public, including importantly senior citizens, seem disinclined to believe Obama. It is mostly far-left political ideologues, kool-aid drinking members of Obama’s cult of personality, and the leadership of large labor unions who believe – or more precisely claim to believe – that the public option is really an option or a “tool” for cost savings.

It’s a tool in the same way that a bayonet is a tool.  Its use is likely to be fatal to the thing it’s used on.

Obama has said that his plans will reduce health care cost inflation. But history is so replete with massive underestimation of the cost of government programs, including particularly health care-related programs, that again, no honest intelligent person believes Obama’s claims.

So tonight, our President will make his pitch.  Obama might aim some political capital at Democrats, urging them to do whatever it takes to get something done even if it means leaving out the public option.  That’s a path that Nancy Pelosi is likely to resist.  He might offer a Trojan Horse such as a “trigger” or “co-op”.  Or, he might try to thread the needle and say that “all options are on the table”, trying to both take leadership and leave deniability at the same time.  That’s the most likely scenario for a guy whose favorite vote is “present.”  My guess is that the speech will cause a short-term upward blip in his ratings, followed within 10 days by new lows in his poll numbers are more and more Americans see him for the slick Chicago amateur that he is.

The other important event on Wednesday will be the Supreme Court’s unusual between-term hearing of arguments in the campaign finance law case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Citizens United, a conservative group, made a film entitled “Hillary: The Movie”, which they intended to run in theaters and elsewhere during the last primary election season.  The Federal Elections Committee said that ads for the movie and the movie itself were both “electioneering communications” and thus illegal under the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

You can (and should) read much more about the case HERE.

Citizens United has argued (correctly) that this is clearly a violation of First Amendment free speech protections.  However, Citizens United is pressing the Supreme Court to make a much broader ruling than an exemption for movies from McCain-Feingold.  They are encouraging the Court to reexamine the entire law, including the provisions that curb campaign contributions from corporations.

Based on prior public statements, this case is likely to come down to Chief Justice John Roberts’ willingness to cast aside precedent where that precedent is clearly wrong, such as in the Court’s partial upholding of McCain-Feingold in the case of McConnell v. FEC which was decided in 2003.  Justices Thomas, Kennedy, Scalia, and Alito seem ready to overturn much of McCain-Feingold.  Roberts has in the past been, in my view, too revential of precedent but I believe that may change in this case, particularly if he is irked by the elevation to the Court of Sonia Sotomayor who could strike him (as it does me) to have been a massive dimunition of the Court’s talent while adding a particularly polarized and polarizing political factor.

It could not help the pro-regulation, pro-muzzling of political speech side of the room when the government’s lawyer argued that the existing law could be used to block distribution of a book or distribution of a movie over the internet or on DVD.

So, the Court will hear arguments on the case today. A decision will probably not be known for several months and will likely include some trading among the Justices, particularly the more conservative 5, to try to come up with a majority opinion.  My guess is that substantial parts of McCain-Feingold will be overturned on a 5-4 vote, with a decision that at least starts moving us back toward the recongition that the speech which the Founders most intended to protect with the First Amendment was political speech.  It will be high time, as McCain-Feingold represents one of the blackest marks in recent American political history and, as I’ve said before, probably the blackest mark (or at least in the top 3) on the record of George W. Bush who signed the measure into law while saying he believed much of it to be unconstitutional.

Health care is not a privilege … nor is it a right

by Brian Schwartz | 7:09 pm, September 8, 2009

Pajamas Media has published my article on rights, privilege and health care.  Here’s the introduction:
A popular but flawed argument is that “health care is a right, not a privilege.” Health care is neither a right nor a privilege. Rather, we all have the right to seek medical treatment through voluntary trade or charity.
Ironically, those who [...]

The Right Answers to the “Party of No” Accusation Against Republicans

by Ben DeGrow | 5:50 pm, September 8, 2009

Is the Republican Party these days just the “Party of No”? While many of us wish the erstwhile GOP majorities in Congress had lived by the equivalent of a fiscal and regulatory chastity pledge and just said NO in its spending heyday, that’s not quite what I’m getting at.
I’m referring to the knee-jerk retort one [...]

Obama’s Pastor shows his true colors again

by Mr. Bob | 1:55 pm, September 8, 2009

#tcot #racism #obamacare #teaparty
I’ll let him speak for himself.

If he said this to me in my presence, It would take incredible self-control on my part to avoid slapping him.

A czar too far

by Rossputin | 1:26 am, September 8, 2009

Late Saturday night, Obama’s “Green Jobs” czar, avowed communist, and “9/11 truther” (part of a group that suspects that 9/11 was perpetrated by the US government), Van Jones, resigned from his Obama Administration job.

Some on the left, such as Howard Dean, are saying Jones was the victim of a smear attack. But even the White House knew better, offering the most tepid support of Jones in the days leading up to his resignation.

What we need to be focusing on here, however, is not Jones, but two other key facts:

(1) The government is being run by “czars”, who almost certainly are involved in making regulations in a way which violates constitutional separation of powers. And they’re doing so in areas which are critical to American society, including science, broadcasting, energy, and the incredibly broad are of “regulation”. If the Congress were being run by Republicans, or if a Democratic Congress were facing a Republican president, I expect we’d see some outrage by Congress about the White House taking on the functions of legislators. But the Democrats are not going to criticize The One, as he tries to use the appropriately dictatorially-titled “czars” to jam extreme, even anti-American, rules down the throat of America.

(2) Obama’s choices of czars (and others who work for him) are true radicals. A few examples: Science czar John Holdren has supported mandatory abortion to curtain population growth. Broadcast Diversity czar wants to charge talk radio stations a fee equal to their entire operating budget as a way to kill conservative talk radio. And Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein believes that animals should have standing to sue in civil court. Carol Browner, the “energy and climate” czar, was a high-ranking member of an international socialist organization. Her picture was taken off their web page shortly after her nomination was announced. [The saga of the “scrubbing” of the internet is very interesting, including someone apparently from The New Republic magazine removing reference to Browner’s socialist affiliation from her Wikipedia entry.]

There are over 30 such czars in the Obama Administration, as compared to around a dozen for George W. Bush and fewer than 10 for Bill Clinton.  Furthermore, Fox News reports that the czars, since they do not go before the Senate for confirmation, are not required to fill out the 7-page, 63-question questionnaire which others, such as cabinet secretaries and their deputies must complete.  See no evil, hear no evil?  Maybe, but don’t let that make you believe the Administration doesn’t know EVERYTHING about these people.  They just don’t want it in writing.

The czars’ views and history are not secrets, and of course the White House would know just about everything about each of them before hiring them. Of course they knew that Van Jones is an avowed communist. (He’s a perfect example of a political watermelon: Green on the outside, red on the inside.)

And, though most people aren’t aware of it, Van Jones has been working as a White House “adviser” since March. It was just his promotion to “czar” that got opponents of his overt hatred of capitalism to do a little more digging, to find the “9/11 truth” petition that Jones signed which eventually did him in. Interesting to note that being an overt opponent of capitalism not only didn’t disqualify Jones from working in the White House (sorry for that chain of negatives) but more likely, especially given the resumes of the other czars, was one of his biggest positives in the views of the Obama Administration.

A couple of Jones’ greatest hits:

“The white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people of color’s communities because they don’t have a racial justice frame.”

“We want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to some kind of eco-capitalism.” (That mentality has worked sooooo well in Spain!)

According to IBD: “The green economy will start off as a small subset” of a “complete revolution” away from “gray capitalism” and toward “redistribution of all the wealth,” he said. “And we are going to push it and push it and push it until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society.”

You can see Jones talk about using “Green Jobs” as the banner under which to launch the next “assault”. Also, starting around 2:15 in the video, you can see Jones’ famous moment calling Republicans “assholes”.

But what’s somewhere between amazing and frightening is that Van Jones is not an outlier within Barack Obama’s appointees. And why should he be? Obama’s friends, associates, and mentors from an early age were communists, racists, and terrorists. Nobody who was paying attention to Barack Obama’s history should be surprised by the wrecking crew he’s dispatching to deal with the edifice of American society. Obama is a committed left-wing ideologue who wouldn’t mind losing his second presidential election if he could manage a government takeover of most of the economy during his first term. Van Jones is just one of many who feel the same way…and who now work in the White House, implementing Barack Obama’s dystopian vision of America.

It remains absolutely critical that Republicans, independent voters, and moderate Democrats put the highest level of pressure on their elected representatives to stand up against the ruling left wing of the Democratic Party, people like Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, and Frank, who are feeling as much pressure from their union masters. Obama’s agenda must be stopped unless you want to see the first generation of Americans likely to have a lower standard of living than their parents, unless you want to see freedom of speech destroyed under the fascist code word “diversity”, unless you want to see your cost of living increase massively under the banner of “green”, and unless you want to see America transformed into a country which you would barely recognize (but which East Germans might find familiar.)

Obama’s address to students

by Rossputin | 12:02 am, September 8, 2009

After receiving much unflattering attention, President Barack Obama will broadcast a message to America’s primary school students today.  And while the White House is calling opposition to Obama’s message “silly” (along with Obama proxies like the NY Times’ Thomas Friedman who called the outcry “just stupid”), the tempest is understandable.

First, the Administration has had to modify a “lesson plan” that was to go along with the broadcast which included asking students to “write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.”  For older students, the Department of Education’s lesson plan asked teachers to use excerpts from Dear Leader’s speech to ask question such as “Why does President Obama want to speak with us today? How will he inspire us? How will he challenge us?”

Now it may be that the content of Barack Obama’s speech (see full transcript HERE)  is objectively non-political…though we’ll never know what was in the speech before the public blowback against it.  But the Obama Administration doesn’t do anything without political motivation and the original lesson plan gave a clear glimpse into the open sewer of their minds.  Truly, what horrendous dictator of the 20th century did not try to create a cult of personality within the nation’s young people.  Stalin and Mao both created youth groups. We’ve all heard of the “Hitler Youth.”  Pol Pot operated similarly and Kim Jong Il does now. Obama’s tactics smell far too close to that same rancid broth.

The Obama Adminstration knows that much of its support at the ballot box and in grassroots efforts came from young people who fell into Obama’s cult of personality.  Totalitarians of all stripes put great emphasis on brainwashing the young, and Obama is no exception.

And that’s why there has been so much outcry against Obama’s addressing the students.  It’s not that we know what the content of his speech will be.  But it’s that they’ve already tipped their hand as to their intent.

It should also be noted that House Democrats excoriated President George H.W. Bush for wasting Dept. of Education money on a speech to students in 1991.

Some of the content of the speech is interesting, but most isn’t.  Kids will be falling asleep after the first 5 minutes.  A couple things of note: Although leftists will claim that I’m just a racist or xenophobe, I find it interesting that the three people he mentions by name are Jazmin, Aldoni, and Shantelle.  When you have a president who surrounds himself with people like Van Jones and Jeremiah Wright, it’s not too far afield to suspect he seems himself President of Minority Groups but not truly President of the United States.

I’d also point out that Obama says “Your families, your teachers, and I are doing everything we can to make sure you have the education you need…” and “I’m working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn.”  It’s a remarkable difference from President Bush’s speech where he said “Right now in classrooms across this country, in the communities you call home, when things get tough, when answers are hard to come by, there’s a teacher, a parent, a friend or family member ready to help you.”  The difference in approach is clear.  Obama believe it takes government to raise your child and that you just can’t handle it without His help.

One other point needs to be made:  Several Obama supporters are making the argument that if “just one kid” stays in school or improves his grades then the exercise “will have been worth it.”   That’s simply untrue.

How much is it worth to have one student raise his grades or not drop out? Sure, that’s a good thing, but is it worth the combined cost in money, time, and learning of having literally millions of other students lose an hour or two of study, of having teachers take time that would have gone into their normal course of class planning in order to deal with Dear Leader’s address?

And what of the political biases of the teachers?  Is it OK that the many left-leaning teachers who support President Obama may over-emphasize the speech while other teachers who do not support the president will feel pressured to show a video they strongly disagree with? Is it OK that parents who do not support Obama may have their children forced to watch what the parents believe to be propaganda?

Different school districts are reacting in different ways.  On Sunday’s “Meet the Press”, David Gregory read a statement from the New Canaan (CT) school district which is not showing Obama’s speech during its broadcast and is reserving the right never to show it:

“In developing their plans our principals have considered issues such as developmental appropriateness, curricular relevance, the time at which the speech is being broadcast and the importance of teachers assuming responsibility for the selection of instructional materials.  In elementary schools the administration and faculty will view the speech, download it and after discussing it, make decisions regarding how it might be used in the future–including deciding its appropriateness for various grade levels. Parents will be notified, if and when, the decision to show the speech is made.”

In Florida, Tampa area schools will allow children to opt-out of watching the speech, but the highly Democratic Broward County area schools will not:

“…(P)roviding for a separation from this Address does not align with our practices and responsibility to provide a well rounded, quality education for all students. This is the first time an American President has spoken directly to students on the importance of education and the challenge to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for one’s learning.”

Anybody wonder where the Broward County superindentent gets his talking points?

I’m not sure whether I would take my child out of the room during Obama’s speech. It might be a better lesson to let a student watch the speech, praise the parts of the speech that really are about making the best of one’s opportunities in life, and criticize anything inappropriately political.

At the end of the day, however, Obama is following the standard liberal belief that “it takes a village” or at least “it takes a Progressive” to raise your child better than you can.  Obama’s speech will likely be saying things that good parents should already be saying.  And while some may argue that the kids will take the President more seriously than their own parents, that raises a few questions:  First, is that true? Second, does it matter? And third, even if the answer to both of the first two questions is “yes”, is it appropriate?

There is a reason that widely broadcast presidential speeches to students are so rare. (I think the last one was George H.W. Bush in 1991, but without any “lesson plan” to accompany the message, but I’m not certain there wasn’t one since then.)  It’s because our presidents usually know that children are to be raised by their parents.   But Obama isn’t our usual president.  He has an ego that knows no bounds. He’s certain, like all dyed-in-the-wool progressives, that their far-left schemes will work this time, despite multiple past failures, if only the right people are put in charge.  And he believes that our children are just another community to be organized.

Yes, the content of Obama’s speech was likely rejiggerd in response to the furor over his giving it (particularly because of the “lesson plan”) so that the speech is mostly apolitical.  But you can forgive the many parents who are extremely skeptical over the Administration’s true motivation.

Interview with Tom Wiens, Colorado Republican Candidate for U.S. Senate

by Ben DeGrow | 10:28 pm, September 7, 2009

Last week former state senator Tom Wiens announced the opening of an exploratory committee to join Colorado’s large and growing Republican primary field for the 2010 U.S. Senate race. On Friday I had the opportunity to interview Wiens by phone. Below are some highlights of our conversation (please note that the quotes are transcribed and [...]

About Those Nazi-Referencing Posts…

by T.L. James | 9:55 pm, September 7, 2009

It is the oft-stated editorial opinion of the directors of People’s Press Collective that casual and gratuitous uses of Nazi imagery or references to Nazism, by persons of whatever political stripe, is not acceptable political discourse. It trivializes the crimes of the Third Reich, a regime which should always serve as one of the measures of human [...]

Visa Waiver Program Tariff

by Night Twister | 2:20 pm, September 7, 2009

Somehow, I don’t think this is what people had in mind when Obama said he would be creating jobs. According to an article by the Associated Press reported at Yahoo News, the European Union is up in arms about a new proposed fee for tourists to the United States from people in countries who [...]

Help Wanted: Green Jobs Czar

by elpresidente | 1:53 pm, September 7, 2009

With the resignation of Van Jones as green jobs czar, will Gov. Bill “Green Economy” Ritter be next in line for consideration?

Bizarre Absences: What is Going on with the Scott McInnis Campaign?

by Ben DeGrow | 11:07 am, September 7, 2009

Update, 9/8: Sources tell me that there have been other recent noteworthy Scott McInnis absences from events attended by his rivals Josh Penry and Dan Maes. The McInnis absences include the Fountain Labor Day Parade, and an event hosted by a grassroots group called ROAR America. I understand there may be more, but these are [...]

Free-market health care slogans

by Brian Schwartz | 10:25 am, September 7, 2009

If you plan to attend the September 12  the Freedom Rally in Denver, here are some slogans to consider if you want to make a sign.  I want to emphasize that opposing the Democrats’ proposals does not mean keeping the status quo. In fact, the policies Democrats advocate would actually entrench bad parts of the [...]

About Those Awful Right-Wing Protest Signs…

by T.L. James | 8:01 am, September 7, 2009

I missed this when it was first published, but the Activist Conservative does a nice job of demolishing the left’s faux outrage over Tea Party and health reform town hall signs. A frequent complaint by those on the left who would make pretense that the tea parties are insignificant is the whiny “where were you [...]

About Those Obama-With-A-Hitler-Moustache Protest Posters

by T.L. James | 7:37 am, September 7, 2009

Here’s a good piece of citizen journalism, exposing the mass media narrative as either incompetence or a lie (or an incompetent lie): While admittedly there have been other examples of inappropriate references to Nazism at center-right protests and rallies this year (we here at PPC have documented a few of them, and even challenged the offenders [...]

Democrats on film showing their true colors

by Rossputin | 3:32 am, September 7, 2009

Baron Hill (D-IN) doesn’t want his townhall meeting videotaped because it might end up “compromising” him on YouTube:

[H/T Russ Hargraves]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtmgQ2W3lhM

and

Pete Stark (D-CA) insults and threatens a reporter:

[H/T Michelle Malkin]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjbPZAMked0

‘Medicare for All’ Will Bankrupt the United States

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, September 7, 2009

Paul Gessing is president of the Rio Grande Foundation has written a good article summarizing some problems with Medicare and why “Medicare for all” would be a disaster.  They include:

“Medicare’s expected future obligations exceeded premiums and dedicated taxes by an astounding $89 trillion. That’s about 5 1/2 times the size of Social Security’s ($18 trillion) [...]

The Coming Reset in State Government – An Opportunity for Smaller Government?

by T.L. James | 8:07 pm, September 6, 2009

Over at the Wall Street Journal, Indiana governor Mitch Daniels issues a warning on state finances – one our own Bill Ritter ought to heed before we end up as the square version of California: The “progressive” states that built their enormous public burdens by soaking the wealthy will hit the wall first and hardest. California, which [...]

And Now They Come For Beck

by ToxicHypoxic | 4:14 pm, September 6, 2009

We clocked off five miles more, and I said, “But suppose there isn’t anything to find?” And the Boss said, “There is always something.” And I said, “Maybe not on the Judge.” And he said, “Man is conceived in sin … Continue reading →

You Stay Away From My Kids!

by ToxicHypoxic | 8:28 am, September 6, 2009

Personally, I think this business of parents keeping their kids home from school is a fine bit of grassroots activism. The town hall Marine that told the politician to “stay away from my kids” spoke for the multitudes. Aside from … Continue reading →

Rationing vs. choosing how to spend your own money

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, September 6, 2009

Ronald Bailey makes the distinction at Reason:
…”rationing” depends on who is allocating the scarce resources. It’s not rationing if an individual decides to spend his money on a 16-ounce steak—but it is rationing if he can only purchase a USDA prime rib eye when he has a coupon issued from a government agency. In other [...]

That’s Racist!

by The Republican Princess | 1:07 am, September 6, 2009

Political correctness gone loco:Dozens of quangos and taxpayer-funded organisations have ordered a purge of common words and phrases so as not to cause offence. Among the everyday sayings that have been quietly dropped in a bid to stamp out racism and …

« go back — keep looking »

Featured Posts

• Judge Rules Americans Can Be Forced to Testify Against Themselves

  In order to protect our rights, our security must be protected. In order to protect our security, our rights must be invaded. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

• World Economic Forum in Switzerland: Global Elites Celebrating Hypocrisy
• SCOTUS decision on warrantless GPS surveillance produces an expected friend of privacy
• You didn’t want your Fifth Amendment rights, anyway, did you?
• Keynesian Economists Finally Catch Up and Agree: China to Have Hard Landing
• The Beauty of Private Property—from China?
• Regime Uncertainty, Regulatory Surge, and Unemployment Numbers