President Obama is trying to, once again, stir up resentment of “big business.” Obama does not mention that “big unions” and other Democrat-loving lobbies are larger spenders in political campaigns, largely unfettered now while corporations are under McCain-Feingold campaign finance restrictions.  Obama is trying to politick his way out of his many political defeats, protect his liberal base, and is doing so by pursuing his consistent opposition to free speech.  His transparency is evident, and boomeranging.

In the 2008 campaign, as Michael Barone wrote, “attempts to shut down political speech have become routine for liberals.”  President Obama is consistent in continuing this shameful pursuit.

Once elected, President Obama issued an order barring officials from talking with lobbyists about the spending of “stimulus” funds.  The ACLU was critical:

The rule is intended to prevent stimulus funds from being “distributed on the basis of factors other than the merits of proposed projects or in response to improper influence or pressure,” according to the memo.

While applauding that goal, Michael Macleod-Ball, chief legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union and himself a lobbyist, questioned the means, saying, “The question is whether this restriction, as it’s drafted, is the best way to achieve that end with the narrowest amount of limitation on an individual’s rights possible. “From our perspective, the pretty clear answer is ‘no, it’s not.’”

The “megascandal”  is not widely reported, however, that “stimulus” funds have been steered to Democrat congressional districts, and on no other basis such as socio-economic need.

President Obama appointed Cass Sunstein to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, with influence thoughout the Executive branch and regulatory agencies.  Sunstein favors “using the courts to impose a "chilling effect" on speech that might hurt someone's feelings,” to stifle criticisms of politicians.

The return of David Plouffe, who managed Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, to the Obama White House is telling of President Obama’s choice to pursue deceitful politicking instead of support free speech.

Not a new economic team. Not a new chief of staff. Not even a new national security staff to replace the gang that dropped the ball on the Christmas Day bomber. No, with the Obami, it is never about substance or getting the policy right. It’s not about governance. It is about the perpetual campaign. So the campaign manager gets the emergency call.

Plouffe is coupled with "campaign law expert and partisan warrior” Bob Bauer, who worked for Plouffe in the 2008 election, appointed in November as White House Legal Counsel.

Bauer is a supporter of campaign finance laws. He argued against the Citizens United challenge to them before the US Supreme Court.

The government contends the current campaign finance rules are constitutional. The Democratic National Committee is backing the government's position. In a brief co-filed by attorney Bob Bauer, who was later named White House counsel, the DNC argued that if the court swept away corporate spending restrictions, for-profit companies could overwhelm the power of individual small-dollar donors.

It also would leave political parties, which can't raise unlimited sums, at a disadvantage in responding to a barrage of corporate political ads attacking their candidates or supporting their opponents, and there "would be a heightened risk of corruption," the Democrats argue.

Plouffe is an architect of Obama’s misleading campaign verbiage.  Together, they are behind President Obama’s denunciation of last week’s US Supreme Court decision to overturn some of the excess restrictions on political spending in the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign law and following Federal Election Commission regulations and rulings.

President Obama pronouncement:

"I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest," Obama said. "The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington, or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of the elections."

The Associated Press reported, “Yet the president is among those who see it as blowing open the doors to big-business influence over democracy. He predicted that anyone who runs for election and tries to take on powerful special interests will now be more likely to be "under assault come election time."

President Obama’s rhetoric ignores that currently his allies, like unions, are both favored by McCain-Feingold and the largest contributors to campaigns. Open Secrets lists the organizations that are Major Donors between 1989-2010.  Of the top 100, far more lean Democrat, including 8 of the top 10.  So far, in the 2010 election cycle, 60% of Political Action Committee contributions are to Democrats. In addition, Independent Expenditures between 1989-2010 on political campaigns by organizations, ostensibly uncoordinated with a political party, lists by far the largest coming from unions.

The sheer audacity of liberal groups is evident at the ACLU, which argued in support of the case brought in Citizens United but is now considering reversing itself. “ ‘The worst thing you could do – the absolutely worst thing you could do – is transform a civil liberties organization into a liberal political organization,’ Mr. Abrams, one of the most famous First Amendment lawyers in the country, told the board.” That hasn’t stopped the ACLU before.

The Supreme Court decision will not unleash major corporation contributions to political campaigns.  Most are pressed during the current economy.  Most want to avoid contentious public issues, so as not to harm their “brand.”  Most important, most large ones contribute to Democrats and Republicans, shifting their weight with which is in power.  Most, especially the large ones, are most interested in feeding at the public trough than in being partisan.  Unions, however, find their bread buttered only with Democrats.

Another missed outcome of the Supreme Court decision is that tax-favored Non-Profit corporations, most heavily Democrat and liberal, are enthusiastic at being able to spend on political campaigns. “The ruling could make it easier for advocacy groups to speak out, says Abby Levine, deputy director of advocacy programs at Alliance for Justice, an association of environmental, civil rights, mental health, and other advocacy groups.”

Critics of McCain-Feingold’s restrictions on free speech, however, weighed in with more reasoned Constitutional sense.  For example:

If you look at it from the overall view of the role of the First Amendment, this is a decision that gets back to basics and back to first principles.  The first principle of the First Amendment that nearly everyone agrees on is that its purpose is to protect political speech and enhance democracy, because the more speech you have, the better democracy you have.

It's a great decision to strike down a system of prior restraints.  The Court said that the combination of these incredibly complex rules and regulations about when you can speak about politics and when you can't and who can speak about politics and who can't, combined with the Federal Election Commission-a government agency that basically has to approve your political speech-together that operates as a de fact system of prior restraint. As we know, a system of prior restrains is the reason the Framers wrote the First Amendment.

I previously wrote about The McCain-Feingold Ghoul.

Even today's New York Times' analysis recognizes: "Legal scholars and social scientists say the evidence is meager, at best, that the post-Watergate campaign finance system has accomplished the broad goals its supporters asserted."  Now that it's proven by experience, that only leaves partisan BS for Obama et. al.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is more attuned to popular political winds than President Obama, and her speaking out on Internet freedom is welcome across the political spectrum. Nonetheless, there are other forces at play. Her motives aren’t pure, not startling in a politician, but bear examination.

Her recent speech favoring Internet freedom, in the wake of Google’s resistance to Chinese Internet repression and hacking, is in stark contrast to the Obama administration’s ignoring human rights to now, including in Iran where internal regime change possibly offers a best hope for averting catastrophe. Her speech is hoped to really signal a turn.

Importantly, Sec. Clinton made it clear that the Obama Administration is ready to commit significant resources to this effort. She said that, over the next year, the State Department plans to work with others to establish a standing effort to promote technology and will invite technologists to help advance the cause through a new “innovation competition” that will promote circumvention technologies and other technologies of freedom. Sec. Clinton also challenged private companies to stand up to censorship globally and challenge foreign governments when they demand controls on the free flow of information or digital technology.

We haven’t heard any support yet directly from President Obama.  In light of her diminished bulb within his administration, is Hillary trying to brighten it and to position herself for his possible 2012 implosion?

Other forces at play include riding the positive publicity that Google received for its resistance to Chinese muzzling of the Internet, that seems more aimed at helping Google to compete elsewhere, and hacking into Western companies’ software codes, which threatens their future profits. (See my previous post.)

Another factor at play is that the Obama administration is more protectionist than prior administrations, a sop to his labor union backers. Protectionism is a recurring populist theme. But, Obama is still teetering as US multinational companies,  who have also contributed heavily to gain entre to his chambers, favor continuing free trade policies.  Still, for example in Vietnam, where Western investment is critical to regime stability, "investors have largely avoided [it] over the past year as reform momentum stalls." The Wall Street Journal notes the wider arena: “It's been said that Vietnam aims to copy China's economic development model. Trying to frighten foreign investors into line, a la Beijing and Rio Tinto [Brazil], isn't a lesson worth copying, especially for a poor country trying to join the league of middle-income nations.” Using “human rights” leverage to increase US multinationals’ access to less fettered investing may be more a pressure tactic to open markets than to open minds.  The Obama administration gains support from the unions and big business by now highlighting Internet freedom concerns.

More attention to Internet freedom, also, serves to ameliorate scathing criticism from such needed major media players as the Washington Post, which editorialized on December 31, 2009 about increased repression in China and Vietnam:

Some Vietnam analysts believe the government's crackdown is intended to set the stage for a ruling party congress scheduled for 2011. Yet surely Vietnam, like China, has taken note of the Obama administration's relaxed attitude toward supporting dissidents and its public proclamations that human rights issues must be balanced against other interests. While the U.S. Embassy in Vietnam has criticized the crackdown, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said nothing in public about the arrests when she met Vietnam's foreign minister in October. Instead she focused attention on the "tenfold" increase in bilateral trade she said had taken place since 2001.

That trade boom makes Vietnam sensitive to Western criticism of its human rights record. So the staging of trials of pro-democracy activists during the holiday season is almost certainly not a coincidence. The tactic just might be working: A State Department spokesman said Wednesday that no public statement had been made about Mr. Kim's case, because "no one asked." He then e-mailed us a statement saying "the United States is disappointed in the results of the trial" and noting that Mr. Kim's case was among those raised during a U.S.-Vietnam dialogue on human rights in November. No doubt Hanoi regards such talk as perfunctory; certainly, the Obama administration has done nothing that would suggest otherwise.

The Obama administration has demonstrated that foreign policy is secondary to its radical domestic priorities, and thus is more flexible in tamping down concerns about its fundamental fecklessness in facing up to threats abroad. Hillary Clinton’s speech is therefore an easy sop.

OK, all said aside, if the Obama administration actually follows through with more than words, energetically, that is very welcome despite ulterior motivations.  As Human Rights Watch just reported, "Rights-respecting governments should speak up to protect peaceful activists and rights defenders in Vietnam and insist that the government abide by its international commitments," Adams [Asia director] said. "Donors have been far too quiet about rights in recent years, but Vietnamese activists say that they will never succeed without consistent support from influential governments."  The same goes for elsewhere among despotic regimes.

China has rejected Hillary’s appeal to more openness, calling it “information imperialism.”  Russia, Vietnam, Iran, Arab states, Venezuela, Bolivia express similar scorn.

Will the Obama administration actually show real spine on Internet freedom, or continue on its path of hollow words.  Despots are betting on the latter.

Outdoor Life magazine, “The source for hunting and fishing adventure”, brings us celebrities who enjoy these sports.  Here’s some of my favorites. Comments are excerpted from the magazine.

“Palin can make moose chili for us anytime.”

Lorrie Morgan: “legendary country crooner cutie…[has] ‘always been good with a gun,’ she says.”  [Let’s have a shoot-out.]

Jewel: “blond, beautiful, and a talented singer and performer [roped] her husband and former rodeo cowboy Ty Murray.” [Well tie me up!]

Miranda Lambert  says “I’ve got some trophy mounts.” [I’ve got the horns!] 

Natalie Gulbis “lamented catching nothing. We bet she won’t have a problem finding a better fishing guide.” [My rod is ready.]

 Check the link above for others, men. And this link.

Avril Lavigne: “"My brother used to be like, 'You're a girl. You can't go hunting or fishing. I'd be like, 'You're stupid.' And we'd get into a huge fight." Alrighty then!” [Love to wrassle!]

Eva Longoria: “"I can skin a deer and a pig and a snake- and rabbits." If there is a more perfect woman, someone please tell us- like, now!”

OK guys, get hunting and angling if you want to be skinned.

Tiger Woods “makes frequent angling trips.”  

Going in to the 2010 November elections, should Congressional Republicans just be saying no to Democrats’ ObamaCare or offer their own program? 

Reluctantly, as there are some constructive remedies in the Republican approaches, no is the correct answer.  President Obama and Congressional Democrats in recklessly swinging their 2008 majority stick have blithely poked the hornets nest and are being chased by a popular uprising saying “no to Washington.”  There’s no reason to help Obama or Democrats or to damage Republican prospects.

Hard-core proponents of ObamaCare say they’re already damaged politically, and would lose more liberal support if delaying, so they might as well charge ahead, and even unilaterally ram it through. As ABC reports, however, the public has spoken, “no.”

Congressional Democrats still have a large majority and will not accept a Republican program unless large elements of the Democrats’ is included.  That would still move us down the road toward government control of individual choices, toward larger deficits and higher taxes. Most hard-core left Democrats have not and will not give up on getting their way.

Congressional Democrats and the liberal media would use a Republican alternative as an opportunity to shred Republicans as uncaring or not doing enough to meet their visions, and delusions, that there is a magic bullet that solves all real and purported problems.

Washington is still Washington, regardless of party, and lobbies would again kick into high gear to tilt to their own narrow advantage Republican proposals.  Enough Republicans, like Democrat politicians, would be swayed, and Republicans as a whole would be tarred and Republicans’ most energetic base be turned off by smarmy politics as usual in Washington.

Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, Tricare, civil service employees and other government health spending already have constituencies of almost half the population.  They will fight against almost any changes, especially benefit reductions or higher out-of-pocket costs or taxes, and many Republican leaners among them would turn away from Republicans.

If Republicans do get or get near a Congressional majority in November, there will be a better chance for enacting some strictly limited improvements. But, they must be highly focused and uniformly supported, without any addition of Democrat statism.  Rather than being put forth as going for too much and all-or-nothing like the Democrats have theirs, the Republican proposals should be presented as reasonable incrementals that improve without financial excesses or intrusion into personal lives.  That doesn’t mean that improvements will be minor but, rather, reasonable, respectful of individual needs, and limit government interference in free choices.

Here’s what would work, cumulatively helping the poor, the middle-class, and the more affluent, enlarging care for all without taking away deserved care.

1. Allow individual tax-deductions for premiums. Individuals who don’t get that deduction currently would be encouraged to obtain health insurance.  The poorer would be no worse or better off.  The middle-class uninsured would be on equal terms to those receiving employer-paid benefits.

2.  Broaden IRS Section 125 to allow individuals to use pre-tax income for health care  expenses.  Eliminate the current “use-it-or-lose-it” provision so such savings can accumulate toward catastrophic needs, Part D Medicare Rx “donut-hole” expenses, professional long-term care for loss of two or more of the currently defined “activities of daily living”, or other IRS Section 213 (the Section that lists allowed professional medical treatments) retirement medical care. Section 213 would be broadened to include Over-The-Counter medications, if prescribed by a doctor or dentist.  Again, the middle-class would be benefitted who aren’t employed and provided Section 125 plans or employed and not offered employer Section 125 plans.  Current health savings accounts, HRA’s and HAS’s, would remain the same, and be immediately vested if funded.

3. Retain Medicare Advantage programs, which have higher benefits and lower co-pays  than straight Medicare, and are more widely used by the poorer, but limit those higher benefits and lower co-pays to medical, dental and vision care, dental care not currently provided.  This would allow some reduction in government subsidies.  Other ancillary non-core benefits would be eliminated, so broader need core benefits would be provided.  Medicare Advantage plans use networks with negotiated rates and some gatekeeper-usage controls, which reduces their costs and, as presently, would have to compete with each other.

4. Require full portability of individual medical insurance to other carriers at the same or lower actuarial level of benefits, reducing loss of coverage when moving to another area and increasing competitive measuring across carriers that reduces confusion.  Rather than guarantee issue incenting individuals to wait until after they’re sick or injured, driving up the premiums of the more responsible, individuals would have more incentive to at least lock-in more affordable and more catastrophic benefits.

5. Allow insurers to offer their plans nationally, to increase choices of benefit levels.  Of course, premiums in each area would reflect local costs.  This would, also, increase measurement and knowledge of local variations in costs on an apples-to-apples basis, and competitive pressures reduce higher outliers.

6. Allow all immigrants, whether legal or illegal, to enroll in private or government health plans but require full payment of full-cost premiums.  This would reduce their uninsurance among the more more responsible and those able to afford premiums.  Legal immigrants would be required to provide proof of insurance, whether private or governmental, and could not be naturalized to citizenship unless providing proof of “credible” medical insurance (“credible” as per the current HIPAA law) from the date of entry to the US.

7. Provide means-testing (includes income and all financial assets up to, say, medical expenses of 10% of their combined total) of uninsured citizens and legal immigrants who obtain professional health or dental care, possibly professional long-term care (as discussed above) in order to apply for government assistance. The government assistance would be for the cost in excess of that 10% per year that is above the same rates as the provider’s highest rates negotiated with a private insurer + 20%. Currently, “list” prices charged those uninsured may be 30-100% higher than negotiated with insurers.  This would protect the poor while incenting obtaining coverage, at least cheaper catastrophic coverage.  Those qualified uninsured would be required to enroll in the appropriate government program.

8. Require tort medical cases to be heard by specialized courts, to reduce the sway of emotions in outsize judgments.  Tort attorneys would receive fees up to 30% of pre-negotiated settlements, but 25% of trial judgments, encouraging more reasonable and less legally costly results for those who deserve recompence.

9. State Medicaid or SCHIP programs offering benefits above the federal level of benefits or enrollee income would be ineligible for any federal subsidies. Higher “welfare” states would not be able to pass their largesse on to taxpayers elsewhere, and would have to justify them to their own voters.

10. Private or government retiree health programs would be required to become fully actuarially funded within 5-years, or face loss of tax-reduction in the case of private plans or be required to reduce of benefits in the case of government plans.  This would include previously negotiated union plans.

The Democrats’ vision of the “perfect” is the enemy of the “good.”  There is little public support for the Democrats’ overexpansive, excess cost, intrusion into our very lives.  There is widespread support for the above reasonable improvements.