Link: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6213R520100310

On May 25, 2009, President Obama and Congressional Democrats set a deadline for the end of July for passage of a health care bill.

On July 23, 2009, when lawmakers said they could not get it done by the August recess, President Obama set a deadline for December. “I want it done by the end of this year,” Obama said. “I want it done by the fall.”

Democrats lost the ability to pass bills in the Senate without Republican support after Scott Brown was elected U.S. Senator from Massachusetts on January 19.

Yesterday, President Obama set a deadline of March 18 for Congress to find some way to push a Frankenstein bill through without Republican support.

The linked Reuters article shows how this deadline is being received by his fellow Democrats on Capitol Hill. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D, MD) said, “None of us have mentioned the 18th other than [Obama Press Secretary] Mr. Gibbs". No Democratic lawmaker even gave lip service to upholding the deadline.

Dick Durbin, the John Madden of politics:

“Deadlines are both a blessing and a curse,” said Richard Durbin, the No. 2 Senate Democrat. “They are a blessing because they get you focused on making a decision but they are a curse if you can’t make them, and this has happened over and over again.”

Nancy Pelosi, a progressive for progress:

“We’re making good progress and if we get some final figures from the Congressional Budget office we can even make more progress,” she said.

Of course, health care reform is not the only area where Barack Obama has set deadlines and let them lapse. The closing of Guantanamo Bay was supposed to happen within a year of taking office, and it’s still open. A decision on the augmentation of troop levels in Afghanistan was supposed to come in July, then November, but wasn’t made until December. And of course, Iran passed its September and December deadlines to make concessions on its nuclear program without any consequences whatsoever.

With all these fake deadlines, what respect does this Democratic Congress have for our Democratic president? About the same respect that foreign leaders have for him.

Back in July of last year, asked why he felt so strongly about his deadline for the end of that month, Obama replied, “because if you don’t set a deadline in this town, nothing happens.” Someone needs to explain the difference between setting a deadline, and enforcing it.

After one or two empty threats, people get wise to the fact that you can walk all over someone. Children figure this out with soft parents. So after three missed health care deadlines (and various others), what have the sharp minds on Capitol Hill figured out? What have the American people figured out? What have our allies and enemies abroad figured out? That like much of his rhetoric, Obama’s deadlines are meaningless.

If President Obama can not stand up to Congress and show that missed deadlines have consequences, how can we expect that he will stand up for our country?

In fact, liberal policies are all inherently acquiescent. If someone fails to pay their mortgage, liberals demand banks give them time and taxpayers give them money. If automakers can’t sort out their own problems and hurl themselves toward bankruptcy, liberals bail them out with our earnings. If a welfare recipient screws up and has a fourth child, liberals give them even more of other people’s money. If foreign nations fail to live up to their diplomatic agreements, liberals pursue … more diplomacy. In every case it is about (supposedly) solving the problem in the moment, rather than seeing how such acquiescence creates the problems in the first place. They may claim it is about forgiveness. It is not. It is about weakness.

Link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2010/Jan/21/supreme_court_rolls_back_campaign_spending_limits.html

The Supreme Court just ruled (5-4) that corporations are free to spend money independent of candidates’ campaigns.

See the linked article for details.

This is in line with what I always thought is a principled way to solve the free-speech/corruption dichotomy of American campaign finance law: prohibit contributions of money to political candidates, but allow people (and organizations such as labor unions and corporations) to spend as much as they want talking about the candidates. This avoids direct contributions that fuel corruption, but also avoids limitations on free speech.

How progressives and supposed unbiased journalists in the last few days, both in anticipation of Brown’s victory and in its aftermath, have been telling Democrats in Congress to push forward with health care reform regardless? Heaps. Here’s a small sample:

The Boston Globe editorial board
Ezra Klein
Dan Kennedy
Jacob Hacker, Daniel Hopkins
Paul Waldman
Tim Fernholz
Jonathan Alter
Jonathan Cohn
Jonathan Chait (are all these guys named Jonathan?)
Paul Krugman
… and on and on.

These people will kill the left-wing agenda for decades. My greatest hope is that the Massachusetts election would come and go, Brown would get elected, and these people will convince Democrats to carry on their merry way to the political abyss of government-run health care. It would have been better if this Great Warning was hidden, but it’s just as good if it’s out in the open and is completely ignored.

Part of their problem is the human urge to be utterly defiant. No, they scream, what we are doing is not illegal! We can dither on seating Scott Brown! We can find creative legislative solutions to pass Obamacare! You will not kill our agenda with the election of merely one senator!

Do Republicans or conservatives claim that what the Democrats are doing is illegal? That the Democrats can’t find a crafty way to pass Obamacare? That Senator-elect Brown speaks for more than just Massachusetts? No, no, and no.

These fools are confused. People, through their words and their votes, are not telling them what they can and cannot do. They are telling them what they should or should not do. Not even what they should do “for the good of the country” or “to obey the public trust” or anything like that. But what they should do for their own good. But they don’t listen. Hooray! Down with the progressives and their odious agenda! Off the cliff they ride and … (dusting off of hands) … good riddance!

Link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/politics_nation/2010/01/in_recent_special_elections_so.html

Mike Memoli reports at RCP in the above link that U.S. senators in special elections have not in the past taken as long to seat as Democrats are envisioning with Massachusetts if Republican Scott Brown wins the special election next Tuesday. Their analysis shows that, in the eight special elections to the U.S. Senate since 1990 that resulted in new senators, the least number of days between election and swearing-in was two while the most was twenty-four and (by my analysis of their analysis) the average was two. So unless the election is very close, it is reasonable to think that the winner would be seated by the end of January. He also notes that the maximum amount of time cities and counties have to deliver their results for certification is 10 days. So that’s the maximum it should take for the results to be certified.

Of course, that’s counting on the Democrats to play fair. If there is one trait that Democrats do not possess, it’s fairness.

Link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-10-06-health-lobby_N.htm

According to the linked USA Today article, the Senate Democratic health care reform bill picks and chooses who gets taxed and who gets spending cuts. The special interests are all at the table looking for their pet carve outs. Can’t Democrats ever pass a bill that treats all people equally? Can’t they ever avoid targeting this constituency or that? Can’t they ever stop the blatant vote buying? They are the kings of discrimination, and everyone knows it.

Now I have said before on this blog that “discrimination” is not necessarily a bad thing. We all discriminate in what we buy, who our friends are, what we do for a living, and just about every choice we make. But government and the law should never discriminate. It should not pick winners and losers. But that is what Democrats do. In fact, that is the main reason Democrats are involved in government in the first place: to have the power over other people, to make distinctions, and to engineer society based on those distinctions. Individual freedom means nothing; government in the hands of Democrat elites decides who is good, who is bad, and then forces its will on everyone.

Liberals used to say that conservatives force their morality on other people. Quite the opposite is true.

The special interests involved may be a minority, may be a majority, but never is the American public at large. Check out this quote from the article:

Erin Shields, a spokeswoman for committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., said the bill is crafted for families, small businesses and seniors. “Every decision Sen. Baucus makes about this bill, he makes for them — no matter what any industry or any special interest wants,” she said.

My ass still hurts from falling off my chair. Families, small businesses, and seniors are all … special interests! I guess when you’ve been in Washington carving amendments in tax legislation for this many years, you become blind to all this. But the public is waking up. All entitlement programs are a zero-sum game. So when some group is favored, everyone else is disfavored. When Baucus says he’s crafting it for “families, small businesses, and seniors", people hear that he’s screwing single people, workers, and everyone who hasn’t retired. Stick it in your press release, it’s the unspoken truth.