Views on the News
August 8, 2009
Views on the News*
The reason Obama’s policies have stalled is the American people no longer believe him. After six months in the Oval Office, President Obama has a lower job-approval rating than did ten of the last twelve presidents at the same point in their presidencies. Rasmussen reports that the daily tracking poll of the president’s popular standing shows eleven points negative: 28% “strongly approve” and 39% “strongly disapprove.” The support for his signature issue, health-care “reform,” is falling by the day, and the more that Americans learn about it, the more revulsion they feel against it. Now Obama is denying his goal of a socialistic, single payer, universal health care system that he has repeatedly and specifically endorsed in front of multiple audiences through the years. His big economic “stimulus” bill has not delivered what he said it would. In fact the “stimulus” has delivered just the opposite effect with individual tax receipts down 22% from last year, corporate taxes down 57%, Social Security taxes down for only the second time since 1940, and Medicare taxes down for only the third time. A giveaway “stimulus” is the Democrats’ usual alternative to tax cuts, on the theory of “increase demand” as opposed to “increase supply.” Unemployment in a few important states has now soared to 17%, and nationally it has risen close to 10%. Further, while Obama still ranks high in personal popularity, his numbers have fallen from percentages in the high 60s down to the low 50s, and are still dropping. His policies are much disliked: unimaginably high deficits, ever-greater state controls over industry after industry, a certain preference for raw leftist ideology over the needs and feelings of ordinary people. The Mainstream Media would like us to believe that two million jobs created and an average unemployment rate of 5.1% in 2005 was bad, but today’s loss of 3.4 million jobs and an unemployment rate of 9.4% is good! Obama is delivering his own version of moral instruction, but it does not appear that the public is buying his message.
As a Saul Alinsky “Rules for Radicals” acolyte, Obama apparently is befuddled since the book only deals with how to act when out of power, not how to fend off criticism when in power! Many Obama voters, against all the evidence, believed his promises of post partisanship, moderation and transparency… now they know better. All over the country citizens are exercising their God-given rights of assembly and free speech. That has put ordinary citizens in the cross-hairs of Obama White House officials and allies who are dishing out politics Chicago style. Average, everyday Americans are showing up at Democrat Congressional town hall events across the country to voice their frustration with the far left liberal agenda being stampeded through Congress by the Democrat majority. Mostly comprised of seniors and veterans, these large grass roots crowds at the town hall meetings are actually reading the healthcare bill and asking the tough questions. They’re being called everything from angry mobs, phonies, right wing extremists and Astroturf, meaning they’re not really grassroots Americans at the town hall meetings but they are supposedly being bussed in and paid like ACORN members. I suppose in ObamaLand these days, a legitimate American protester has to be funded by a Hungarian billionaire. I guess we are to believe that protests against Bush were patriotic, but protests against Obama are psychotic? Apparently still unable to transition from campaign mode to governance, Obama fell back yesterday on the one thing he really knows: community organizing. He sent out an email to his acolytes in OFA (DNC “brownshirts”) attempting to drum up fake, Astroturf support for his government takeover of healthcare, who have already disrupted several town hall meetings with their thug tactics. Instead of acknowledging the widespread anger millions of Americans are feeling this summer toward Democrat-controlled Washington, Washington Democrats are trying to dismiss it as a fabrication. That isn't likely to sit well with Americans outside of Washington who are struggling and wondering when their elected leaders are going to wake up and change course. Meanwhile the “silent majority” is sick and tired of being ignored by their government representatives, and this grass roots movement is “silent, no more” and being heard at town hall meetings across the country!
As Obama elongates the recession with his continued spending, he has resorted to symbolic gestures to distract the American public from his abysmal results. The Administration announced 77 spending cuts they should be applauded for cutting $102 million from the federal budget, but these kind of expenditure reductions that the Democrats are proposing are the same kind of thing that the business world does regularly – just business as usual! Meanwhile Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner predicted that the unemployment rate may not peak until the second half of 2010. The Democrat policy makers understand that the economic prosperity that was generally enjoyed by the United States from around 1960 to the present was fairly well correlated with the general rightward shift in American presidential politics and economic policies during that same period, so continued recession works for their leftist agenda. Strangely enough it is the liberals, bent on portraying their conservative opponents as extremists and changing the subject to help a President under increasing scrutiny for the substance of his policies, who are driving the “birther” story. As the economy rebounds naturally on its own, Obama is trying to take political credit which is like claiming to solve the darkness by taking credit for the sunrise, another natural event.
The recently launched federal subsidy program “cash for clunkers” will credit you up to $4,500 to trade in your old car for a more fuel-efficient vehicle. Think of “cash for clunkers” as a sort of “bizarro twin” of that “bucks for banks” (TARP) program from last autumn. Sales surges are good, but it’s not that simple, because there is no doubt that if you hand out cash, people will take it. First, it’s not clear that “cash for clunkers” actually increased sales, since over 100,000 buyers put their purchases on hold waiting for the program to launch. Secondly, in any given month 60,000 to 70,000 “clunker-like” deals happen with no government program in place. The 200,000-plus deals the government was originally prepared to fund through the program’s Nov. 1 end date were about the “natural” clunker trade-in rate. This rebate program is also emblematic of the administration’s unwise approaches to economic policymaking. It borrows money to generate economic activity, which in effect borrows growth from the future, since eventually that loan will have to be paid back through higher taxes. It picks and promotes a particular industry in a sort of small-scale industrial policy. It also places an emphasis on consumer spending as a route to renewed prosperity over greater investment — and isn’t that how the American economy got in trouble in the first place? As much as “cash for clunkers” is good public relations there may be no net increase in sales, only change of timing, and ultimately only a net increase in federal debt.
The more Obama talks about his health plan, the less the public supports it. Voters have connected the dots between the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and ObamaCare. They have seen the meager results and huge deficits that the stimulus produced, and can't come up with a good reason to embark on yet another government shopping spree. For the public, the stimulus was bad economic medicine. Now Obama wants it to try another, unapproved experimental drug. The 2009 deficit rose to $1 trillion in June. Saddling the budget with a massive deficit is only one of the ways that the stimulus hurt ObamaCare's prospects. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid rejected the conservatives' good ideas and turned the stimulus into one giant early Christmas present for every Democratic special-interest group in the country--and a stocking full of coal for those bad little Republicans. The stimulus was a huge wealth transfer from future taxpayers to today's alternative energy and social service industries. The Republicans thus had no reason to support it, and the stimulus passed without a single House Republican vote. This freed them to criticize both the stimulus and ObamaCare, and to argue that the administration has done little to promote economic recovery. The stimulus also lulled the White House into a false sense of security. The recovery act was the centerpiece of Obama's economic agenda; it is really the only tangible domestic achievement of his presidency to date; and with it passed, the president clearly felt he could move on to other priorities, such as the budget, cap-and-trade, health care, and education policy. Now we have the health plan, and Obama has campaigned vigorously for its passage, setting deadlines that will not be met, and crisscrossing the country in a so-far unsuccessful attempt to rally support. The CBO has estimated the cost of the House and Senate health care proposals $1.1 and $1.5 Trillion, respectively, over ten years and increasing the deficit by $239 Billion over the same period. The underreported news is the new spending that will continue to increase well beyond the 10-year period that CBO examines, and that this blowout will overwhelm even the House Democrats’ huge tax increases, Medicare spending cuts and other “pay fors.” Health Systems Innovations believes that the CBO likely understates the true costs of expanding health coverage and would cost between $2.1 trillion and $2.4 trillion, respectively. One of the strangest developments from Obama advisor Ezekiel Emanuel is the suggestion to junk the Hippocratic Oath to cut costs, a tactic first advocated in 1936 by the Nazis. There are now three states (Oregon, Tennessee, and Maine) that have attempted health care reform along the lines of ObamaCare and each has over-promised, under-delivered, and is now stuck with an unaffordable, ineffective entitlement program – why not learn from our mistakes? Obama, according to the Saul Alinsky “Rules for Radicals” playbook, has resorted to demonizing the health insurance industry as a distraction from the public happiness with their current health care plans and attempting to refocus attention on a mythical “oppressor.” This demonization tactic would be more credible and less hypocritical if Obama hadn’t surrounded himself with insurance CEOs and lobbyists when he kicked off his effort in March. Why isn't the message gaining traction? Could the answer be that even if the health insurance needs reform, the federal government has a long history of making bad situations even worse? We needn't look any farther back than February, when he signed a bill into law that's become a political liability, and hasn't fixed the economic crisis that brought Obama to office. To fund this huge health care program, all Congress needs to do is repeal the authorization on spending for the remaining sums in President Obama's record-breaking and non-stimulating $787 billion stimulus bill – you can’t have both! More than a million people have signed a petition to stop ObamaCare. Obama didn't know it at the time, but his signature would bring into being an anti-deficit constituency that would confound his ambitions to expand government, and sever the connection between his rhetoric and economic reality, and thus the stimulus paved the way for the failure of ObamaCare.
Fix the existing Medicare program first, before expanding the federal government ownership into another industry where they know nothing about! Medical care in the United States is derided as miserable compared to health care systems in the rest of the developed world. Economists, government officials, insurers, and academics beat the drum for a far larger government role in health care. Much of the public assumes that their arguments are sound because the calls for change are so ubiquitous and the topic so complex. Before we turn to government as the solution, however, we should consider some unheralded facts about America’s health care system:
· Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.
· Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.
· Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.
· Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.
· Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians.
· Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom.
· People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed.
· Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians.
· Americans have better access to important new technologies such as medical imaging than do patients in Canada or Britain.
· Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.
Most people in the rest of the world are free riders on the productivity and ingenuity of American medicine, and reap the benefits of American medical innovation without paying, or without paying in full, for them. The top five American hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in all other developed countries. America has outpointed all other countries combined in Nobel Prizes for medical and physiology since 1970. American theoretical health research financed by the National Institutes of Health and by American market-oriented pharmaceutical companies outshines the rest of the world combined. The rest of the world tends to get the benefits at cut rates. American taxpayers finance NIH, which reports results publicly to the whole world. Voters also do not think health care is an urgent problem. Gallup poll reports only 20% of Americans believe the health care system is in crisis and the vast majority are satisfied with their insurance and see health coverage as peripheral to larger concerns such as jobs, the economy, and the federal debt. The Wall Street Journal poll, for example, found health care ranked third in the list of the public priorities, around where it typically resides. The NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey, of course, was that pluralities disapprove of the way Obama is handling "health reform," 46% to 41%, with 47% calling Obama's plan a "bad idea." Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and care for the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries and does not require any wholesale expansion or rebuilding. It is ironic that an administration that promised hope and change is instead pursuing policies that could stifle American creativity. It is encouraging that, on health care, so many Americans are recoiling from that prospect and, as polls show, starting to appreciate the wonders of American achievement.
We should be fixing the current bankrupt Medicare system rather than working towards government takeover beyond any hope of ever being able to reverse the damage done. If the proposed Medicare cuts in care were used to restore the fiscal soundness of Medicare, then those cuts would at least have some understandable rationale. It has long been recognized that the Medicare deficit, the future unfunded liability of projected Medicare spending, is a fiscal issue that dwarfs all others in magnitude, including the projected Social Security deficit. If the administration’s proposed cuts in Medicare were used to fund that program’s deficit instead of a government-run health-care system, Medicare’s long-term deficit would be reduced by 15% and it would put off insolvency by two years. One reason for the rationing of care is to use “savings” from Medicare to pay for a radical, risky, and enormously expensive proposal for government-run health care. Except that it doesn’t: These short-term “savings” are a drop in the bucket compared to the massive expenditures required by the bill. As CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf testified to Congress on July 16: “…without changes in policy, the federal government would be spending almost as much, as a share of the economy, on just its two major health care programs as it has spent on all of its programs and services in recent years.” By 2035, they will cause spending to equal today's recession levels and then set all-time records. Revenues break records even sooner. In just a quarter of a century, they reach the highest percentage in U.S. history, and from there they grow. However, as Elmendorf stated: “…even if revenues rose to those unprecedented levels, they would not be sufficient to keep the budget in balance over the long term.” In 70 years, even with exorbitant shares of the economy taxed away, the deficit would be 50% greater than today's. The deficit's increase relative to the economy means the federal debt held by the public also increases relative to the economy and reaches historical highs just before mid-century. Hard as it is to grasp these percentages, it is harder to grasp their impact. CBO's director warns, “Eventually, if the debt-to-GDP ratio keeps increasing and the budget outlook does not improve, both foreign and domestic lenders may not provide enough funds for the government to meet its obligations…More government borrowing would drain the nation’s pool of savings, reducing investment…In addition, a worsening fiscal situation might put pressure on monetary policy, potentially endangering the Federal Reserve’s ability to keep inflation low and stable.” Democrats continue to use the “Big Lie” tactic accusing Republicans of having no ideas, when reality is that Democrats reject and vote down any free market improvements as a public plan distraction. To begin to address costs, conservatives should stress some ways of combating the inefficiencies of the current system beginning with ending the tax penalty for purchasing health coverage outside the employer system in the form of a refundable tax credit for individuals. Next Republicans should call for reforms of insurance regulation to allow for the sale of coverage across state lines, and to allow small businesses to join together in negotiating coverage for their workers. They should make a forthright case for medical liability reform, to lower costs and free doctors from the burdens of defensive medicine. Meanwhile, to encourage greater stability and portability of coverage, Republicans should champion a federal-state partnership to create health insurance marketplaces--large risk pools that would act as aggregators of options for consumers and of buyers for insurers but would not impose burdensome new regulations. When the current Medicare system is basically bankrupt, why would we believe expanding the entitlement would decrease its costs or increase its quality?
The bottom line is that the Obama/Democrat health overhaul legislation would result in thorough and detailed government control over health care, government rationing that will deny you health care, severe loss of freedom of choice and control over health care, disabling, record high taxes that will leave America uncompetitive in the world economy, higher, not lower, overall health costs, and higher not lower federal spending and deficits. Peter Ferrara details all of his analysis and conclusions in his Heartland Institute study. This all translates into a major decline in the standard of living for the American people. Today Americans enjoy the most advanced, sophisticated, cutting edge health care in the world, with those deprived of essential health care flocking to our shores from the world over seeking survival. However under the Obama/Democrat health regime, this will be gone, replaced by the outdated, failed, throwback, socialized medicine policies of foreign countries that reflect their lower standards of living. This will be true most of all for our nation's seniors, who are most in need of high quality medical care. As former Clinton advisor Dick Morris, in his new book Catastrophe, argues that Obama's health care proposal is, in effect, the repeal of the Medicare program as we know it. The elderly will go from being the group with the most access to free medical care to the one with the least access. Indeed, the principal impact of the Obama health care program will be to reduce sharply the medical services the elderly can use. No longer will their every medical need be met, their every medication prescribed, their every need to improve their quality of life answered. Cost estimates for the Obama health plan from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), have ranged around $1.5 trillion. Independent private estimates have ranged even higher, $3.5 trillion to $4.1 trillion. This year's deficit is already ballooning over $2 trillion, the largest in history by far, almost 10 times Reagan's largest deficit. While Obama says his health plan will reduce federal deficits, even the CBO says it will increase the deficit by hundreds of billions, even with all the tax increases in the plan.
As the Senate prepares to take up the Waxman-Markey bill (mis-named as American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009), opposition is understandably focused on the bill's questionable content and the destructive economic fallout that will result from the bill's becoming law. Drew Thornley identified questions that the Senate still has not answered sufficiently:
· What are the reasons this legislation is necessary in the first place?
· If this is about saving our planet, where's the evidence that we're at risk of destroying it?
· If this is about global warming, can you prove the existence of a major threat and that this bill will counter it?
· If this is about greenhouse-gas emissions, where is the proof that carbon dioxide and other GHGs are, on balance, bad for the earth and humanity?
· Assuming CO2 and other GHGs are, on balance, negative, then why no acknowledgment that the U.S. controls emissions more successfully than the developing world and that the future emissions from the developing world will dwarf those of the industrialized?
· Why unfounded hopes that other major emitters will curb emissions, once we do?
· If this is about freeing us from dependence on foreign oil, why so little talk about the common-sense solution of extracting of more of our domestic resources, while searching for alternatives that can make meaningful contributions to our transportation-fuel supply?
· Why the urgency and where is the thorough cost-benefit analyses?
· Why no better acceptance of the fundamental economic reality that raising the cost of producing energy will lead to less energy, which is the opposite of what our country needs, as we continue to grow?
· Why no acknowledgment that the countries that take the best care of their environment are the richest?
· Why no talk that this bill will lower national wealth and, thus, lead to more environmental neglect and degradation?
· Instead of putting the law ahead of technology and economics, why not employ some common-sense solutions to meeting our growing energy needs, while also protecting the environment?
· Why not tap more of our nation's abundant natural fuels, in ways that are as or more environmentally friendly than other nations?
· Final question: Have you read the 1,428-page bill, so that you know what you're voting on?
Let us hope that he senate does a better job of cost-benefit analysis than the House, since we can not afford to bankrupt our economy based on wishful thinking and junk science.
Sarah Palin is playing for higher stakes than many may suppose because she seeks to change the nation's political landscape. J. Robert Smith believes that common Americans are increasingly disillusioned with, and alienated from, both major political parties. They may well be growing doubly so with the Democrats, whose standard-bearer, the princely Barak Obama, sold voters his special brand of snake oil. Taking the nation on a leftwing bender, the President is succeeding only in loosening the newly formed attachments that a large bloc of voters made to his party. If you think the bender is bad, wait for the hangover. Most Americans are natural conservatives; they're pragmatists who care little about ideology, especially of the leftwing sort. That should be of little consolation and comfort to the recently discounted Republicans, who may well be lulled by polls showing voter movement in their direction. Republicans can't just oppose the President's statist gambits; they have to stand for something, a conservative something. The good ex-governor intends to remake the GOP, first by reaffirming basic conservative principles, then by drawing distinct lines from those principles to the everyday lives of voters. She'll take whacks at more than a few liberal shibboleths, whether they involve taxes, foreign affairs, national defense, welfare or public education. She will certainly go into a full court press against longstanding leftwing-inspired false dichotomies. She's done so already concerning an issue near and dear to her heart: energy. And if Palin is wise, she'll make her crusade about more than fixing the mess that President Obama Democrats are making. She'll be a reform conservative. The fact is voters do crave meaningful reform. What liberals gave Americans in the 20th Century, Social Security, welfare, the public schools monopoly, is nearly not working anymore. Voters see that more clearly than their myopic leaders do. The President's numbers are collapsing precisely because voters don't believe he's making authentic reform, but making a rehash and expansion of every big government idea under the sun. The President may have given liberalism a spiffy new paint job, but it's the same old rust bucket underneath. Voters aren't fooled for very long. Sarah Palin's aim is to cobble together a coalition of the willing, a majority coalition that she aims to give a rebirth to the Republican Party.
* There is so much published each week that unless you go out of your way to find it, you will miss important breaking events. I package the best of this information into my “Views on the News” each Saturday morning for your reading pleasure and to fill in factual vacuums.
If you are sick and tired of government and politics as usual, read my web site with its individual issue analysis and recommendations sections at: http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com . Individual issue updates this week include:
· Foreign Aid at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/fp/aid.html
Week’s Best Articles:
· “Climate Bill’s Still-Unanswered Questions” by Drew Thornley dated July 31, 2009 published by Investor’s Business Daily at http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=333844317710412 .
· “Generations of Debt” by J.T. Young dated July 31, 2009 published by Human Events at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32933 .
· “Obama Administration Finally Gets Something Right” by Bruce Bialosky dated August 2, 2009 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/BruceBialosky/2009/08/02/obama_administration_finally_gets_something_right .
· “Geithner Says Unemployment May Peak in Second Half of 2010” by Steve Matthews and Susan Decker dated August 2, 2009 published by Bloomberg at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=apdEGYly_Qeg .
· “Cash for Clunkers” dated August 2, 2009 published by The Wall Street Journal at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574324350084909302.html .
· “Palin and the Battle for the GOP’s Soul” by J. Robert Smith dated August 2, 2009 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/palin_and_the_battle_for_the_g.html .
· “10 Things Media Won’t Tell You About American Healthcare” by Noel Sheppard dated August 2, 2009 published by News Busters at http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/08/02/10-things-media-wont-tell-you-about-american-healthcare .
· “Don’t Punish Seniors for Health-Care Reform” by Sam Brownback dated August 3, 2009 published by National Review Online at http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDNiNDIzOTBlMzQ4YjE4MmYwZDc2YTNjNjQyYjBiNGY= .
· “The Message Is the Message” by Jennifer Senior dated August 3, 2009 published by New York Magazine at http://nymag.com/news/politics/58199/ .
· “Public passions are rising on health care overhaul” by Kimberly Hefling dated August 3, 2009 published by Yahoo News at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090804/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul .
· “Cash for clunkers is Obamanomics in microcosm” by James Pethokoukis dated August 3, 2009 published by Reuters at http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/08/03/cash-for-clunkers-is-obamanomics-in-microcosm/ .
· “Two Sides Take Health Care Debate Outside Washington” by Sheryl Gay Stolberg and David M. Herszenhorn dated August 3, 2009 published by The New York Times at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/health/policy/03healthcare.html?_r=2&ref=politics .
· “There’s a method to the democrats’ madness” by Tim Dunkin dated August 3, 2009 published by Renew America at http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/dunkin/090803 .
· “Lack of Progress Report” by Michael Novak dated August 4, 2009 published by National Review Online at http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmY0NDkzMjhjM2ZiN2NkY2U5YTQ5NWY0MzJkZDg4MWM= .
· “Defund the Pork, Pay for Health Care” by Ralph R. Reiland dated August 4, 2009 published by The American Spectator at http://spectator.org/archives/2009/08/04/defund-the-pork-pay-for-health .
· “Revenue Plunge Is Nothing New” dated August 4, 2009 published by Investor’s Business Daily at http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=334276867815560 .
· “The Great Socialist Takeover” by Peter Ferrara dated August 5, 2009 published by The American Spectator at http://spectator.org/archives/2009/08/05/the-great-socialist-takeover .
· “Maine’s Health-Care Difficulties Could Foreshadow National ‘Public Option,’ Critics Say” by Fred Lucas dated August 5, 2009 published by Cybercast News Service at http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=52037 .
· “Liberals’ birther obsession: It’s the left-wing, not the GOP, that’s pumping up the story” by James Kirchick dated August 5, 2009 published by New York Daily News at http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/08/05/2009-08-05_liberals_birther_obsession.html .
· “Cash for Clunkers: Just Spinning Wheels” by James L. Gattuso and Nicolas Loris dated August 5, 2009 published by The Heritage Foundation at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/wm2579.cfm .
· “Our Lyin’ Eyes” dated August 5, 2009 published by Investor’s Business Daily at http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=334364822239829 .
· “Health Reform and the Tax Pledge” by Karl Rove dated August 5, 2009 published by The Wall Street Journal at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204908604574332390310982208.html .
· “Obama Would Stifle Military and Medical Creativity” by Michael Barone dated August 6, 2009 published by Real Clear Politics at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/06/obama_would_stifle_military_and_medical_creativity_97789.html .
· “ObamaCare’s Real Price Tag” dated August 6, 2009 published by The Wall Street Journal at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203609204574314622075560890.html .
· “Another Trillion?” by Stephen T. Parente dated August 6, 2009 published by Front Page Magazine at http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=35845 .
· “Town Hall Twilight Zone” by Connie Hair dated August 6, 2009 published by Human Events at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33034 .
· “Us Versus Them” by Quin Hillyer dated August 7, 2009 published by The American Spectator at http://spectator.org/archives/2009/08/07/us-versus-them .
· “The Community to the Organizer: No Thanks!” by Gary Bauer dated August 7, 2009 published by Human Events at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33055 .
· “Policy as Pipedream” by Mackubin Thomas Owen dated August 7, 2009 published by Front Page Magazine at http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=35852 .
· “Health Care Reform: A Better Plan” by Charles Krauthammer dated August 7, 2009 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2009/08/07/health_care_reform_a_better_plan .
· “Without the Hippocratic Oath, All Things Are Possible” by Jack Kemp dated August 7, 2009 published by Intellectual Conservative at http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/08/07/without-the-hippocratic-oath-all-things-are-possible/ .
· “The Stimulus Lesson” by Matthew Continetti dated August 10, 2009 published by The Weekly Standard at http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/791ucyiq.asp .
· “Real Health Reform” by Yuval Levin dated August 17, 2009 published by The Weekly Standard at http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/822zxukw.asp .