Perhaps he’s auditioning for Obama’s forthcoming Ministry of Truth?

I would, however, like to propose a couple of rules for commenting on this story. Politicians who are going to use this CBO report against the existing health-care reform proposals must do some combination of the following:

a) Support, as the CBO says you should, the eradication of the tax exclusion that protects employer-based health-care insurance;

b) Support, as Lewin and Commonwealth say you should, a public insurance option that can bargain at Medicare’s rates;

c) Support, as the Office of Management and Budget and every health-care wonk in town says you should, one of the various policies floating around to give MedPAC authority to continually reform and modernize Medicare;

d) Support some form of aggressive cost-sharing that would make people extremely angry because it will save money by reducing their access to health-care services;

e) Support comparative effectiveness review that can judge not only the effectiveness but also the cost-effectiveness of various treatments, and give the federal government authority to use that data when deciding reimbursement rates.

How about, instead, I support ending a system where the sniffles are to be covered right along side lung cancer? You see, Ezra, this isn’t just an exercise in debating which bit of socialized medicine we’ll have, but whether or not socialized medicine is a worthwhile objective. Given that my view is that its unworkable, your rules for objecting are nonsense.

The root cause of our health care insurance crisis (and that is what it is – not a health care crisis, but a crisis in the insurance we use to pay for health care) is Medicare, Medicaid and the rapid spread of health care insurance which was triggered by the massive run-up in health care costs stemming from Medicare and Medicaid. Once upon a time, no one had health insurance – and everyone could go to the doctor; now we’ve got health insurance out the wazoo, and 46 million can only go to the doctor by heading for the ER and burdening everyone with their health care costs.

Now, we can’t end Medicare and Medicaid because the people simply will not see where their problem lies – plus, the left side of the aisle will say we want granny and the grand-kids to die, because we’re mean, old Republicans. Our problem then comes about in how to reform Medicare/Medicaid to prevent it from bankrupting the country while at the same time creating programs which will take away the “everyone will die without socialized medicine” propaganda meme from the left. The solution?

1. Charge $50 for doctor visits for Medicare/Medicaid recipients – that’s all; everything else is free…but by putting a significant charge on going, we’ll get people to stop going for every trivial thing which comes up.

2. Allow people to buy insurance where ever they choose.

3. Allow people to band together in whatever groups they wish to buy insurance in bulk.

4. Provide a government-subsidized catastrophic health care insurance – doesn’t cover basic care, but it does cover you for sudden terrible injuries or illness, as well as care for debilitating, chronic conditions.

5. Work via the Department of Education to provide grants to ease the cost of medical school and other medical training in order to vastly increase the number of health care providers, thus driving down the cost of using medical services over time.

And that, Mr. Klein, will solve the problem – without trillion dollar increases in spending, massive new taxation, or government control.

UPDATE: As is entirely expected, Obamacare opens up vast, new revenue sources for trial lawyers. What? You thought that with a fair and wonderful government plan that malpractice suits would stop? Geesh! What planet have you been on?

The mullahs haven’t entirely won the day:

A sermon by powerful cleric and opposition supporter Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani reignited Iran’s simmering protest movement Friday, heartening thousands of supporters who braved tear gas and club-wielding militiamen to march and chant slogans across Tehran.

In a highly anticipated speech, Rafsanjani slammed the hard-line camp supporting President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, criticized the June 12 election results and promoted several key opposition demands. Analysts said his description of the unrest as an ongoing “crisis” was a signal to keep the pressure on Ahmadinejad and supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Rafsanjani is, of course, his own version of creepy – but he’d not be as creepy as those currently in power, and even an incremental change for the better is to be welcomed. It might, after all, end up being a way-station on the road to Iranian liberty.

We should be doing more to encourage and support Iran’s democratic movement – even if parts of that movement bear no love for us. We don’t want the love of other nations – we just want them to be free.

An Instapundit reader asks:

Notice how there was no “antiwar” movement during the ‘90’s, even though we were at war the entire time in Iraq, Haiti, Kosovo, a dab here and there in Afghanistan and Sudan. Then, after 9/11, it was the “Next Vietnam” with a passionate “antiwar” movement with the NYT’s full treasonous participation, just like the good old days. And now, even though the daily death count has matched the highest daily rate we ever saw in Iraq, there is no “antiwar” movement or daily casualty count in all the newspapers. It’s like the “antiwar” movement can be turned off and on like a switch, depending on which party is in the White House.

Well, where are you guys? Where the “no blood for oil” demonstrations? The attempts to put Obama up on war crimes charges? The “Obama lied, people died” posters? Come now – or is being “anti-war” really just a matter of being “anti-GOP”?

…by grace of Pure, Dumb Luck of the United States and Expensive Purses Beyond the Seas, Queen, Defender of Obamania, Employer of Minions.

A lot of them, too:

“In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much,” she said. “See, that’s why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service, ” Michelle Obama

No, Michele Obama does not get paid to serve as the First Lady and she doesn’t perform any official duties. But this hasn’t deterred her from hiring an unprecedented number of staffers to cater to her every whim and to satisfy her every request in the midst of the Great Recession. Just think Mary Lincoln was taken to task for purchasing china for the White House during the Civil War. And Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salary for her personal secretary.

How things have changed! If you’re one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain destitution, earning less than subsistence wages stocking the shelves at Wal-Mart or serving up McDonald cheeseburgers, prepare to scream and then come to realize that the benefit package for these servants of Miz Michele are the same as members of the national security and defense departments and the bill for these assorted lackeys is paid by John Q. Public:

The article then goes on to note the Michelle Obama staffers and what they make – including some one who is a “Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady”; ie, someone who drafts the e mail replies for someone else to swiftly edit and approve. Purses costing thousands of dollars, sneakers costing hundreds of dollars, a “night out” in New York City…this is the most crass lady to be in politics since Imelda Marcos. She’s sure to win the “Let ’em Eat Cake” award for 2009.

Mrs. Obama, we elected your husband President – we elected you nothing. Sit down, shut up and keep your hands out of the taxpayer’s wallet.

As an aside, please note that this story appears to have been broken by Canadian media – and there’s no way in heck that our MSM didn’t know about this. Bunch of cowards who dare not offend their Fearsome Leader.

Michael Yon’s latest:

16 July 2009

Ghor Province, Afghanistan

On a per capita basis, Afghanistan is becoming more dangerous for British and American troops than Iraq ever was. For those who fought in places like Anbar, Basra, Baghdad, Diyala and Nineveh, that’s saying a whole lot. On a per capita basis, there are strong indications that Afghanistan will prove more deadly than Iraq during 2006-2007. One can only imagine how many days and nights Secretary Robert Gates and his advisors must have agonized over troop levels here. On the one hand, we have a fraction of the troops we need, but on the other, increasing troop levels increases hostility toward us. Secretary Gates has made it clear to me that his biggest concern is that we will lose the goodwill of the people and they will turn against us. This happens to be my own biggest concern. The agony is in knowing we need more medicine and the medicine can be highly toxic here. Many people have complained that the new restrictions on air strikes will hurt us, but from my boots, General McChrystal (the new boss here) has fulfilled the intent of his boss, and that the decision, though tough, was wise; if we lose the widespread assent of the Afghan people, it’s all over but for the bleeding.

Today our chances are not good, but there remains a real chance to succeed…

Read the whole thing, then donate to Michael Yon, as he is a reader-supporter war correspondent and the one of the very few we can rely on 100% to tell us the truth, no matter how rough it is.

My view is that we should risk more troops on the ground – but this is Obama’s campaign, and he’s determined to have it done his way, and that means – at least for now – that we’ll go with a smaller force. I hope it works – I pray it works, and President Obama can rely upon my absolute support in the efforts he makes to achieve victory in Afghanistan. Certainly, the our troops and our allies – including, especially, our Afghan allies – seem to have the sheer grit necessary to carry the matter through. As in all American wars, the key is support – if the troops are given proper support from home, they’ll do whatever we ask of them and they won’t quit until they win, even if they have to go through trial-and-error until they find the right talisman for victory.

Do Not Forget These Men and Women – think of them, every day; pray for them, always. Support them, if you can.

Ah, that new age of transparency, right?

In their zeal to protect their members from politically hazardous votes on issues such as gay marriage and gun control, Democrats running the House of Representatives are taking extraordinary steps to muzzle Republicans in this summer’s debates on spending bills.

On Thursday, for example, Republicans had hoped to force debates on abortion, school vouchers and medical marijuana, as well as gay marriage and gun control, as part of House consideration of the federal government’s contribution to the District of Columbia’s city budget.

No way, Democrats said.

At issue are 12 bills totaling more than $1.2 trillion in annual appropriations bills for funding most government programs—usually low-profile legislation that typically dominates the work of the House in June and July. For decades, those bills have come to the floor under an open process that allows any member to try to amend them. Often those amendments are an effort to change government policy by adding or subtracting money for carrying it out.

…It was a right the Democrats zealously defended when they were the minority party from 1995 through 2006…

…Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., acknowledged in a brief interview that one reason for restricting amendments is to save members of his party from having to cast politically painful votes.

So instead of debating an attempt backed by House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio to allow more children living in Washington to receive school vouchers, the House will vote on a Quixotic attempt to eliminate the President’s Council of Economic Advisers.

“What they want to do is they want to avoid tough votes on appropriations bills,” said Rep. David Dreier of California, senior Republican on the Rules Committee.

Even some Democrats are chaffing at the heavy-handed clampdown on debate. Abortion opponent Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., on Thursday lashed out at his party’s leaders for denying him and others a chance to vote on restoring a long-standing directive by Congress blocking taxpayer-funded abortions in Washington, D.C.

Is this what you liberal rank-and-filers signed on for? Limited debate in order to insulate the Democrat party from having to cast difficult votes? If you don’t denounce your party at this point then you, too, are just miserable, cowardly liberal fascists. All honor to those few Democrats like Stupak who are are least not taking this lying down…but if he really has the courage of his convictions, he’ll switch to GOP, or Independent, if the House leadership refuses to return the House to its democratic ways.

This is seriously the stuff of which revolutions are made – entrenched elites attempting to stifle debate and prevent the people from having a full airing of the issues. This is a rearguard action from an exhausted ruling class which is afraid of the people they claim to represent. What say you, liberals? Are you for liberty, or slavery?

Where is the Liberty Tree, today?

The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending against all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. – Samuel Adams

Sam Adams, come back to us!

Why? Here’s why:

Though President Obama and Democratic leaders have repeatedly pledged to alter the soaring trajectory — or cost curve — of federal health spending, the proposals so far would not meet that goal, (CBO chief) Elmendorf said, noting, “The curve is being raised.” His remarks suggested that rather than averting a looming fiscal crisis, the measures could make the nation’s bleak budget outlook even worse.

Elmendorf’s blunt language startled lawmakers racing to meet Obama’s deadline for approving a bill by the August break. The CBO is the official arbiter of the cost of legislation. Fiscal conservatives in the House said Elmendorf’s testimony would galvanize the growing number of Democrats agitating for changes in the more than $1.2 trillion House bill, which aims to cover 97 percent of Americans by 2015.

A lot of Democrats want to see more savings, said Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), who is leading an effort to amend the bill before next week’s vote in the Energy and Commerce Committee. “There’s no way they can pass this bill on the House floor. Not even close.”

A lot of House Democrats are staring at the abyss of the 2010 mid-terms…while Nancy Pelosi seems to think that her majority is permanent, those Democrats who have to run for re-election in GOP or GOP-leaning districts realize that Obamunism is political kryptonite. Even if Pelosi manages to hold on to her majority after passing job-killers like “cap and trade” and Obamacare, moderate Democrats will find that cold comfort as they are giving their concession speeches.

And here we have, once again, that Obama demand that we rush it through. He wants this by the August recess. I’ve started seeing campaign ads asking people to call their Senator to demand that we rush, rush, rush Obamacare through because it simply must happen right away. As to just why, that remains un-stated – though the implication seems to be that people will die if we don’t ram this through like there’s no tomorrow. I believe, though, that the ability to rush through 1,000+ page bits of legislation is waning – there’s already been two such things and the American people (especially election-deciding Independents) are starting to have a sinking feeling in their stomach that we’re be forced into socialism even though no one voted in favor of such a thing this past November.

We can stop them – remember, we stopped Hillarycare in 1993 when we were in the Congressional minority, so we can do it again. The key will be moderate Democrats – they are where we’ll have to apply pressure.

A rare victory against liberal fascism, but not the last:

A US District Judge has blocked the Los Angeles Community College District from enforcing its sexual harassment policy, which the judge ruled had promoted a hostile environment for the free speech rights of a Christian student.

U.S. District Judge George H. King agreed with Jonathan Lopez, a student attending Los Angeles City College (LACC), that the District’s policy as written had created the environment that emboldened his speech professor to call Lopez a “fascist ba***rd” for explaining his Christian beliefs and how they related to his views against same-sex “marriage.” …

…Represented by lawyers with the Alliance Defense Fund, Lopez had filed a lawsuit against the District and LACC back in February after he had been censored and threatened with expulsion by Professor John Matteson, who had assigned the members of his public-speaking class in mid-November to give an informational speech on any topic.

Lopez decided to give an informational speech to students on his own Christian beliefs, including Christian views on marriage. Lopez had read aloud the definition of marriage from the dictionary and had also quoted two verses from the Bible, when Matteson interjected in the middle of the speech and called Lopez a “fascist ba***rd” before his classmates.

Matteson refused to let Lopez finish, and instead invited other students to leave if they felt offended. But with no student taking up Matteson’s invitation to depart, Matteson ordered the class dismissed. Instead of giving the assignment a grade, Matteson mocked Lopez on his written evaluation, taunting, “Ask God what your grade is.”

A week after the incident, Matteson threatened to see to Lopez’s expulsion after he saw Lopez speaking with the college’s dean of academic affairs.

Faced with legal action, the District disciplined Matteson, and gave Lopez an A in the course; however the ADF argued that the District’s sexual harassment policy had created an environment in which Matteson felt comfortable to intimidate Lopez from stating his beliefs.

Thank God Mr. Lopez was like a rock in his faith – a lot of people, faced with that sort of hatred and intimidation, would have backed down. This is one of the best (or worst, as it were) examples of liberal fascism we’ve seen lately – an allegedly enlightened liberal censors free speech and then attempts to punish the person who dared dissent from the liberal party line. This is not a rare event, either: speech codes and other fascist tactics at our institutions of higher learning are routinely used to suppress anti-liberal thought and intimidate students into a mindless conformity to authortarian views.

Now, liberals: what say you to this? You can try to spin your way out of it – and be tagged as a lick spittle coward…or you can admit there is a fundamental malfunction in your worldview. That, just perhaps, liberty and liberalism are not the same thing – that they are, indeed, at war with each other.

Hey, its not me saying it – its the CBO:

Today I had the opportunity to testify before the Senate Budget Committee about CBO’s most recent analysis of the long-term budget outlook.

Under current law, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path, because federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run. Although great uncertainty surrounds long-term fiscal projections, rising costs for health care and the aging of the population will cause federal spending to increase rapidly under any plausible scenario for current law. Unless revenues increase just as rapidly, the rise in spending will produce growing budget deficits. Large budget deficits would reduce national saving, leading to more borrowing from abroad and less domestic investment, which in turn would depress economic growth in the United States. Over time, accumulating debt would cause substantial harm to the economy…

…The current recession and policy responses have little effect on long-term projections of noninterest spending and revenues. But CBO estimates that in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, the federal government will record its largest budget deficits as a share of GDP since shortly after World War II. As a result of those deficits, federal debt held by the public will soar from 41 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal year 2008 to 60 percent at the end of fiscal year 2010. This higher debt results in permanently higher spending to pay interest on that debt. Federal interest payments already amount to more than 1 percent of GDP; unless current law changes, that share would rise to 2.5 percent by 2020.

Obama’s solution? Spend more; much, much more. Oh, and tax more. And borrow more. And print more.

The rational solution? Spend less; much, much less. And reduce taxes on capital formation. And borrow nothing. And get back to hard currency.

Our problem? Obama is President until 2012, at least.

Gonna be a loooong four years.