On the Western Banks of the Shenandoah

Reason Magazine points out that the Obama administration is using the Stimulus as a backdoor to begin implementation of universal healthcare. The first step: 

One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis. According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

Because government always knows best. Health care is the most personal of all industries, and treatment options should always be up to a patient and their provide, not some faceless bureaucrat in an office miles of way deciding what is best for “the people” as a collective and not as individuals. 

Reason also points out why this is so troubling in light of the stimulus “debate”:

It is backdoor but massively intrusive provisions like this one that make the Obama administration’s “there’s no time to debate” push to silence critics and prevent a thorough analysis of this bill all the more troubling.

Helen Thomas made her expected appearance in last night’s presser with President Obama. Her question, however, made it clear that Ms. Thomas has gone from hard reporting to political activism masquerading as serious journalism. From Hot Air:

Behold the left’s journalist hero, using her moment on national television not to ask a probing question of the president but to grandstand by asking a question everyone knows the answer to. She’s trying to get Obama to say “Israel” so that she can embarrass herself with a follow-up about why it’s okay for them to have apocalyptic weapons but not the anti-semitic, eliminationist fanatics in Tehran. 

Kudos to President Obama for avoiding the issue of Israel, despite her incessant pleas for a follow-up. However, does Ms. Thomas really still have a place in the White House Briefing room? She doesn’t work for a wire service and is approaching her 89th birthday. While I admire her gusto and ability to work well past retirement age, it has become clear that she no longer represents anyone but herself.

It appears that some at least one o f the companies that received TARP funds would rather get out from under the controversial government program that the Obama administration is now using to plainly interfere and disrupt the marketplace in favor of “the little guy” (which we’ll all be leveled out to soon enough). From CNN:

David Viniar, Goldman Sachs’ (GS, Fortune 500) chief financial officer, made headlines Wednesday when he voiced that very sentiment to attendees of a Credit Suisse conference, saying it would be easier for the company to run its business if it could pay back the $10 billion in capital it received from the government last fall.

And in a statement to CNNMoney.com Thursday, Bank of New York Mellon (BK, Fortune 500), which received $3 billion last year, said it was looking to redeem the government’s investment “as soon as is practical.”

…..

Earlier this week, President Obama struck back, announcing that the government would limit executive pay for any institution that accepts government financial aid in the future from programs such as the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

Is executive pay often exorbitant? Yes, but as we’ve seen, many companies are paying the ultimate price for lavishing so much attention upon their executives. It’s the market, and its all intertwined. Executives who are clever are compensated very well; however, when they risk it all, they can very quickly find their fortunates and reputations ruined. When you limit what companies can compensate their employees at any level, you’re stifling innovation and competition and thus threatening the company’s bottom line. There isn’t just one simple part that can be fixed–when you mess with one part, you mess with it all, just like a game of Jenga.

I say bully for Goldman Sachs–they realize the perils of the market but would rather be free to fail that be confined by the Obama administration’s desire to say just who can and can’t be successful. However, it appears they won’t get the chance:

Ultimately Goldman and other banks simply don’t like being susceptible to the government’s bidding, according to one hedge fund manager, especially as the White House gears up to unveil its latest efforts to deal with the financial crisis on Monday.

“What it really comes down to is Goldman Sachs does not have control of its own destiny,” said James Ellman, head of San Francisco-based Seacliff Capital, a hedge fund specializing in financial services. “The President of the United States does and the President of the United States will tell us in 3 to 4 days what Goldman Sachs’ options are.”

From Hot Air, word that the AP is suing the creator of the iconic Obama poster that defined the “unified message/diffused effort nature of the campaign. By their account, the court will likely come down on Fairey’s side:

The nature of the copied work is simple documentary photography of a press conference, not something fictional or highly creative. And the poster doesn’t reduce the value of the AP photo; if anything, it greatly increases it. The only factor that cuts the AP’s way is number three, the fact that Fairey swiped pretty much the whole image to make his poster — but then, that’s what Google does to make its thumbnails and everything’s copacetic with that. Verdict: Fairey wins in a walk. Rock on, “rebel” establishment hagiographer!

Some might expect me to express schadenfruede over the lawsuit, but really, I’m on Fairey’s side with this one. (Plus, however creepy and Che-esque the image may be, it really helped coalesce Obama’s strategy, and you can’t argue with success) With the explosion of the availability of images, sound and video over the internet, there has been alot of discussion over copyright, and with good measure. I respect AP’s copyright and the work they do; however, when they ferociously defend their copyrights in such a manner and almost seek to limit their relevance to the professional newsmakers, they’re actually harming their reputation. With freely available material, news websites have made possible an explosion in citizen activism. Whether they like it or not, the challenges bloggers make to the mainstream media actually help bolster their position, as they will always be a need for “reputable” organizations with the resources and reach of traditional news organizations. Markets thrive on choice, and we’ve already seen the value of competition. However, when news organizations such as AP want to make themselves available to only one player, they’re sealing their destiny in the dustbin of history.

Forget the first 100 days–Obama and Congressional Democrats have already raised their first tax just a little over two weeks in to the new administration. From Townhall.com:

President Obama approved his first tax hike today.

The bill he signed to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program contains a provision to increase taxes on tobacco by a whopping 155 percent. That means the federal taxes on cigarettes have gone up an additional 61 cents a pack. This brings federal taxes on a pack of cigarettes to $1 per pack total.

And as Americans for Tax Reform points out, this is a violation of Obama’s tax pledge during the campaign, when he promised not to raise taxes on any Americans who earn below $250,000 a year:

55 percent of smokers are considered “working poor” and one in four live below the poverty line. 

“Tom Daschle and Leona Helmsley believe that only the little people should pay taxes,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.  “Obama agrees; he just raised taxes on millions of lower-income Americans.  His central campaign promise was a lie.”  

Of course, as everyone knows, if there’s any group of people that Democrats hate more than gun owners, its smokers. As smokers seem to have lower popularity than Satan with the general public as well, we’ll probably see little backlash from this one. 

Still, Obama has made it clear that it’s only a matter of time until the financial crisis becomes so that we all have to do our “patriotic duty,” as Vice President Biden would put it. 

From the Daily News Record:

A plan on how to allocate royalties from offshore drilling – should the federal moratorium be lifted – has moved out of a House of Delegates committee.

Reintroduced this year by Del. Chris Saxman, R-Staunton, the bill was approved Friday by the Appropriations Committee by a 21-3 vote.

Saxman proposes using money from natural gas and oil drilling for state investments in transportation, renewable electricity, coastal energy and efforts to clean up the Chesapeake Bay.

Appropriations Committee member Del. Steve Landes, R-Weyers Cave, voted for the bill.

Last year, the bill passed the House of Delegates but was narrowly defeated in the Senate, 18-16.

Unfortunately, even if this bill does somehow manage to pass AND survive a veto by Obama ally Governor Tim Kaine, it won’t have much affect, as Obama certainly isn’t going to break his promises to the environmental lobby.

The administration is far more content to just throw money at problems rather than helping states open up revenue streams of their own.

Gallup has found that while Obama is earning high public approval on most of his early policies, one move is not seeing much public support. From Mark D. Harris:

Gallup just finished polling on some of Obama’s initial decisions and there is a seriously weak link in his armor: abortion. Only 35% of Americans approve of his decision to revoke the Mexico City policy banning taxpayer funding for abortion supporting organizations abroad. 58% of Americans disapprove of the decision. That -23% split is tremendous and one that Republicans should talk about, because almost regardless of what ones view on abortion only the most hard pro-chocie people support taxpayer dollars going to the organizations.

This is one of those perfect issues that lies at the intersection of social and fiscal conservatism. The United States does not have any responsibility to pay for family planning services for the citizens of other nations. Just another instance of how greatly our government has expanded with very few people noticing.

I have never seen a more elegant message about the potential of every unborn life. Too often pro-life supporters venture into the grotesque to get their point across. Here the point is crystal clear but simple: regardless of the circumstances, each life has great potential and is thus precious and worthy of the highest order of protection.

This ad was slated to air during the Super Bowl, but NBC refused, as was within their right. However, we still have the internet. Spread this far and wide. 

Today the Senate voted on an Amendment that would have overturned President Obama’s recent decision to overturn the Mexico City policy. For the uninitiated, the Mexico City policy prohibits taxpayer money from being used to fund groups that perform or recommend abortions overseas. The vote was largely along party lines, with the remaining Northeastern Republicans (and Lisa Murkowski) voting against the amendment and only one Dem voting for it. With the Senate in Democratic hands, the outcome was largely expected.

So why is it important? Because at least one of the “nay” voters actively campaigned as a pro-life Democrat against an extremely pro-life Republican. From RedState, discussion of the fallacy of the pro-life Democrat:

Bob Casey Jr. ran for the Senate seat he currently occupies as an ostensible pro-lifer, just like his dearly-departed and still popular father. Sadly, judging by the election results, many pro-life voters in Pennsylvania believed his rhetoric. Today, Bob Casey Jr. voted against the Mexico City policy on the floor of the Senate, indicating clearly that he is not only pro-abortion, he is pro-government funding of abortion. It’s a helpful reminder, for the 1,000th time, that the “pro-life Democrat” really is a mythical creature, at least in the Senate and the White House.

It seems like every election season, this lesson is forgotten, no matter how many times the Democrats drive it home. To express this axiom somewhat mathematically, as a Democratic politician’s career rises towards President, the probability that he will actually vote pro-life approaches zero. Many prominent Democratic politicians (Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, Dick Gephardt) really do begin life as pro-lifers, but by the time they reach the Senate (and definitely by the time they run for President), they are invariably ardent pro-abortionists with their votes (even if, like Harry Reid, they prefer to say in public that they are pro-life). As we move forward in time from the date when the question of abortion was forcibly removed from the democratic process by the Supreme Court, the Democratic party has ever more successfully enforced pro-abortion orthodoxy upon those who hold offices involved with the selection of Supreme Court justices – i.e., Presidents and Senators.

It should be noted that Ben Nelson of Nebraska did support the amendment. Still, I can’t see how anyone could fathom to call themselves pro-life when they would support a policy that doesn’t just assert the right of a woman to get an abortion but allows taxpayer dollars to be used for them overseas. This outcome proves once again that the Democratic Party is institutionally pro-abortion, even more so than the Republican Party is pro-life.

From FOX News:

House Republican Leader John Boehner issued a statement over the weekend noting that the stimulus bill wending its way through Congress provides $4.19 billion for “neighborhood stabilization activities.” 

He said the money was previously limited to state and local governments, but that Democrats now want part of it to be available to non-profit entities. That means groups like ACORN would be eligible for a portion of the funds.  

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., told FOX News Tuesday that the money could be seen as “payoff” for groups’ political activities in the last election. ACORN generally supports Democratic candidates and actively backed President Obama last year. 

I’m generally against any non-profit with an ideological streak getting taxpayer dollars (or really, any non-profit), but given ACORN’s actions during the election (or at least their slipsoh excuses for “oversight” over their organizers) this one takes the cake. 

But I guess its true what they say. Payback IS A……