Continuing the health care debate, I ran across this column by Steven Findlay in USA Today. I chose this column to rebut because Findlay does a good job at summarizing the pro-reform crowd who are convinced that our medical system is deeply flawed and must be completely overhauled. I encourage you to read Findlay’s words, and then read my response to his talking points below. Findlay is just one example of many who clearly don’t understand the facts of this debate and are therefore either ignorant of the issue or are deliberately trying to deceive the public into supporting something that will ultimately be harmful. You can decide that for yourself. Here are some of Findlay’s main points:
Gov’t insurance wouldn’t have a competitive advantage over the private industry. “it wouldn't be that difficult to design a public option that abides by the same rules as private insurers and has no competitive advantage”. The argument is that a gov’t system would eventually squeeze out the private sector and before long we would all find ourselves insured by the government, thus putting our health in the hands of bureaucrats. What would start out as a “government option” would eventually become the only option. Findlay says this is a bogus argument, that no such scenario would happen and anyone who beats that drum is just fear-mongering. Bull.
How Findlay can say that a gov’t program would have no competitive advantage over the private sector is beyond me. A “public option” would have a huge competitive advantage in federal subsidies. The bottomless pockets of the US taxpayer would ensure that a public option could undercut the market and eventually drive away any competitors. Private companies don’t have access to this type of subsidy. So this fear is very real. A public option could most definitely become the only option, just as it is in Canada and England.
Quality and access won’t suffer. “Cookbook and rationed care? This fear stems from concerns that the government aims to dictate what doctors do and cut costs by limiting access to care. These notions are wrong. Rather, what Obama and both Democratic and Republican leaders want to do is aggressively measure the quality of care that doctors and hospitals deliver and change the way those providers get paid so quality of care — rather than quantity — is rewarded.” It’s simple math. Today’s doctors manage a group of patients while walking a fine line between quantity and quality. However, we get paid by volume, the more patients we see the more payment we get. That allows for good access since most doctors can comfortably see 3-4 patients an hour and still deliver quality care. But what if this were changed so that ONLY quality was rewarded? Well, suddenly doctors wouldn’t be as concerned about volume. Spending 30-45 minutes with a patient would lead to better payments, meanwhile access vanishes. A doctor that usually sees 3-4 patients an hour is now seeing one or two. In other words, appointments will be hard to come by. Quality and Quantity in medicine are inversely related. That is a hardened fact. Increase one at the other’s expense. Today, we walk that line rather well, but changing the rules puts access at risk. And when you consider that 45 million people will suddenly flood the primary care system in a public option and it’s easy to see just how difficult it will be to get in and see your doctor.
“The medical industry must be challenged to cuts costs;” Findlay says that medicine is too expensive and much of this comes from unnecessary tests and procedures. He wants a leaner, more efficient medical community, with doctors who only order tests that are necessary. I agree with this, but changing the current system of compensation isn’t the way to go about it. Findlay and those like him seem to think that we order unnecessary tests because it is financially beneficial to do so. That’s untrue. If I order a CT scan, I don’t see a dime of that money. However, ordering such a scan, even though the likelihood of finding an abnormality is slim, could potentially protect me from a lawsuit a few years down the road. This is called defensive medicine. I know that this patient doesn’t need a CT scan. But I also know that in a courtroom, a hired physician can armchair-quarterback in front of a jury and claim that I should have ordered that scan and potentially saved the patient some pain and suffering. It’s very, very easy to armchair-quarterback in medicine. So I order the scan, and this ultimately costs the system, which is wrong.
In order to stop things like this, then it’s the legal system that should be reformed. When doctors stop fearing the lawsuit, then they are more apt to avoid the unnecessary tests. Findlay makes absolutely no reference to the legal community in his article.
An earlier post of mine referred to some key points about improving health care in America. 2 of those things involve reforming the payers, so that we don’t have to hire people to fight with insurance and medicare in order to get our payments, and we don’t have to deal with declining reimbursement for our services. I also mentioned tort reform and more focus on preventive medicine. If these things aren’t addressed, then the system will not improve. Findlay didn’t hit a single one of these points. He simply has no idea, and neither does Washington.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Healthcare...the first of many posts
First, let me say that if Mark Sanford doesn’t resign as Governor, then the people of South Carolina must come together and demand that he resign. Not only did he violate the trust of his family and his constituents, but he also abandoned his responsibility as chief executive. You can’t just disappear for a few days without word, without notifying someone of how to contact you. Had there been some sort of disaster that required the Governor’s response, what would have happened? That is dereliction of duty and Sanford must resign as a result.
The other day I happened to catch Michael Moore’s “Sicko” on cable. Luckily, I didn’t spend any money on this nonsense. This film is one of the most dishonest, deeply deceiving propaganda flicks ever produced and since Obama is pledging to reconstruct our healthcare system I figure it’s time for this post.
I think the number of uninsured is somewhere around 47 million. The problem with that number is in the details, which also brings up the problem of covering them all. Statistics show that about 25% of the uninsured are illegal immigrants. Another 25% are people who already qualify for some form of government insurance but have not taken the time or the effort to apply for it. And yet another 25% are people who make over $50K a year. So, that really puts things into perspective. Do we really have a problem with lack of health insurance coverage?
I guess it depends on your ideology. Should the US taxpayer be responsible for paying for the medical care of illegal immigrants? I say no, even though we already pay for it when free care is given at your local ER. Regardless, advertising it would be a bad idea. There is no better reason to break the law and come to America illegally than to get free medical care.
And what about those who make over $50K. I think if you paid a visit to their homes you would find things that don’t fit the description of “necessity”. How many flat screen TVs would you find? How many satellite dishes, or cable boxes? How many riding lawnmowers? How many SUVs? The point is, we tend to view healthcare as a right that should be provided by the government and not a responsibility for us to provide for ourselves. We purchase luxury items without thinking twice, but cringe at the idea of paying $500 a month for health insurance. Call me insensitive or whatever, but the bottom line is that most people who make over $50K can afford health insurance but simply choose not to. It’s that simple.
And what of those who already qualify for gov’t aid? This brings the real motives of the pro-universal coverage folks into light. You see, if they were truly concerned about getting people healthcare then they would focus more effort on educating and enrolling these people who can already get healthcare from the government. It would be less difficult and certainly less expensive since the money has already been allocated. But that’s not the case. The universal coverage folks don’t really care about insuring the uninsured as much as they care about controlling as many people as they can. If you depend on the gov’t for healthcare, then you have sold those who provide it your vote. Dependence begets servitude.
Obama wants to change to a pay-for-performance model for doctors. In short, we get paid for quality of care rather than quantity, which tells me Obama knows absolutely nothing about healthcare. Outcomes depend on patient compliance. If I see a diabetic, I can follow the standard of care and maximize that person’s treatment but it will be completely fruitless if that person doesn’t do what I say, and under Obama’s plan I will be paid less because of it. This will create a system where patients who are non-compliant won’t be able to find any doctors willing to see them, and then we’re back to square one. Bad idea, Mr President. Perhaps you should actually consult with some doctors before you advance your plans to fix the healthcare system.
And let me address one statistic that Moore and the rest of the universal-coverage loons love to parrot. The US spends 17% of GDP on healthcare and ranks 50th in the world in life-expectancy. They love this statistic. For some reason they believe that the amount of money spent is directly related to life expectancy, and any discrepancy in these numbers suggests a deficiency in healthcare quality. In their eyes, the more money we spend should translate into a longer life expectancy, and that’s the rationale behind the need for universal coverage. This is preposterous.
It wouldn’t matter if we spent 100% of our GDP on healthcare, we’d still have a poor life expectancy. Why? Well (for lack of better terms) Americans, in general, have a tendency to be fat, lazy, tobacco-addicted, drunken whores. We overindulge in things that are bad for us. Our diets are terrible, we don’t exercise, we play too many video games, spend too much time on facebook, drink too much alcohol, smoke too many cigarettes and have too much sex with lots of different people. This leads to disease, which ultimately leads to death. Giving us all universal coverage will do little to change that. That’s why some third world countries who spend less on healthcare have higher life expectancies, because they aren’t filled with fat, lazy, tobacco-addicted, drunken whores. We have a poor life expectancy because we have trouble controlling our vices. Simple as that.
A more pertinent statistic would be obesity rates, which tend to be inversely related to life expectancy and directly related to healthcare expenditure. The higher the obesity rate, the lower the life expectancy and (because of disease caused by obesity) the more money is spent on healthcare. But don’t count on the universal coverage loons to parrot that one…especially not Michael Moore.
The other day I happened to catch Michael Moore’s “Sicko” on cable. Luckily, I didn’t spend any money on this nonsense. This film is one of the most dishonest, deeply deceiving propaganda flicks ever produced and since Obama is pledging to reconstruct our healthcare system I figure it’s time for this post.
I think the number of uninsured is somewhere around 47 million. The problem with that number is in the details, which also brings up the problem of covering them all. Statistics show that about 25% of the uninsured are illegal immigrants. Another 25% are people who already qualify for some form of government insurance but have not taken the time or the effort to apply for it. And yet another 25% are people who make over $50K a year. So, that really puts things into perspective. Do we really have a problem with lack of health insurance coverage?
I guess it depends on your ideology. Should the US taxpayer be responsible for paying for the medical care of illegal immigrants? I say no, even though we already pay for it when free care is given at your local ER. Regardless, advertising it would be a bad idea. There is no better reason to break the law and come to America illegally than to get free medical care.
And what about those who make over $50K. I think if you paid a visit to their homes you would find things that don’t fit the description of “necessity”. How many flat screen TVs would you find? How many satellite dishes, or cable boxes? How many riding lawnmowers? How many SUVs? The point is, we tend to view healthcare as a right that should be provided by the government and not a responsibility for us to provide for ourselves. We purchase luxury items without thinking twice, but cringe at the idea of paying $500 a month for health insurance. Call me insensitive or whatever, but the bottom line is that most people who make over $50K can afford health insurance but simply choose not to. It’s that simple.
And what of those who already qualify for gov’t aid? This brings the real motives of the pro-universal coverage folks into light. You see, if they were truly concerned about getting people healthcare then they would focus more effort on educating and enrolling these people who can already get healthcare from the government. It would be less difficult and certainly less expensive since the money has already been allocated. But that’s not the case. The universal coverage folks don’t really care about insuring the uninsured as much as they care about controlling as many people as they can. If you depend on the gov’t for healthcare, then you have sold those who provide it your vote. Dependence begets servitude.
Obama wants to change to a pay-for-performance model for doctors. In short, we get paid for quality of care rather than quantity, which tells me Obama knows absolutely nothing about healthcare. Outcomes depend on patient compliance. If I see a diabetic, I can follow the standard of care and maximize that person’s treatment but it will be completely fruitless if that person doesn’t do what I say, and under Obama’s plan I will be paid less because of it. This will create a system where patients who are non-compliant won’t be able to find any doctors willing to see them, and then we’re back to square one. Bad idea, Mr President. Perhaps you should actually consult with some doctors before you advance your plans to fix the healthcare system.
And let me address one statistic that Moore and the rest of the universal-coverage loons love to parrot. The US spends 17% of GDP on healthcare and ranks 50th in the world in life-expectancy. They love this statistic. For some reason they believe that the amount of money spent is directly related to life expectancy, and any discrepancy in these numbers suggests a deficiency in healthcare quality. In their eyes, the more money we spend should translate into a longer life expectancy, and that’s the rationale behind the need for universal coverage. This is preposterous.
It wouldn’t matter if we spent 100% of our GDP on healthcare, we’d still have a poor life expectancy. Why? Well (for lack of better terms) Americans, in general, have a tendency to be fat, lazy, tobacco-addicted, drunken whores. We overindulge in things that are bad for us. Our diets are terrible, we don’t exercise, we play too many video games, spend too much time on facebook, drink too much alcohol, smoke too many cigarettes and have too much sex with lots of different people. This leads to disease, which ultimately leads to death. Giving us all universal coverage will do little to change that. That’s why some third world countries who spend less on healthcare have higher life expectancies, because they aren’t filled with fat, lazy, tobacco-addicted, drunken whores. We have a poor life expectancy because we have trouble controlling our vices. Simple as that.
A more pertinent statistic would be obesity rates, which tend to be inversely related to life expectancy and directly related to healthcare expenditure. The higher the obesity rate, the lower the life expectancy and (because of disease caused by obesity) the more money is spent on healthcare. But don’t count on the universal coverage loons to parrot that one…especially not Michael Moore.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Unrelated but equally disturbing
Here is a brief timeline:
Sept 18, 2008 – Illinois Senator Dick Durbin was present in a closed meeting between Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and key Congressional leaders. In this meeting, Paulson and Bernanke asked Congressional leaders to devise legislation aimed at helping troubled banks
Sept 19, 2008 – Durbin dumps his stocks and mutual funds into the open market at a total of $115,000. He then used a portion of that money to invest in Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway. Within a few weeks, his total investment into Buffet’s company was nearly $100,000.
I seem to remember Martha Stewart going to jail for something similar.
Iran supposedly re-elected Ahmedinejad as predicted and, surprise, there are serious questions regarding the election process. As a result, many Iranians are now engaged in protests against the regime. Those protestors were recently engaged by the Revolutionary Guard and seven people were killed. As of this post, President Obama has yet to issue a statement supporting a peaceful democratic process, has yet to say anything in support of those who are protesting for a fair and transparent election process.
This is unfortunate. Obama says he doesn’t want the US to appear as though we are “meddling” in the affairs of other countries. How ridiculous? The US has always stood for liberty and democracy, even and especially when such a stance – in the eyes of some - amounted to “meddling”. Iran is a nation under tyranny. We have an obligation as human beings to speak out against it. Supporting those who demand fair and transparent democracy is not meddling, it’s simply the right thing to do. If other countries don’t like it, then those countries aren’t on the side of liberty. Nobody’s asking Obama to send in troops, but a statement supporting the protestors would be nice. He is the leader of the free world and is therefore obligated to support those who support liberty. The message he sends is that you’re on your own if you want liberty in Iran.
When Chinese students took a stand for democracy in 1989, George Bush was quick to voice his support. He even called for sanctions when the Chinese military steamrolled the protestors. Obama is wrong…terribly wrong.
Sept 18, 2008 – Illinois Senator Dick Durbin was present in a closed meeting between Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and key Congressional leaders. In this meeting, Paulson and Bernanke asked Congressional leaders to devise legislation aimed at helping troubled banks
Sept 19, 2008 – Durbin dumps his stocks and mutual funds into the open market at a total of $115,000. He then used a portion of that money to invest in Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway. Within a few weeks, his total investment into Buffet’s company was nearly $100,000.
I seem to remember Martha Stewart going to jail for something similar.
Iran supposedly re-elected Ahmedinejad as predicted and, surprise, there are serious questions regarding the election process. As a result, many Iranians are now engaged in protests against the regime. Those protestors were recently engaged by the Revolutionary Guard and seven people were killed. As of this post, President Obama has yet to issue a statement supporting a peaceful democratic process, has yet to say anything in support of those who are protesting for a fair and transparent election process.
This is unfortunate. Obama says he doesn’t want the US to appear as though we are “meddling” in the affairs of other countries. How ridiculous? The US has always stood for liberty and democracy, even and especially when such a stance – in the eyes of some - amounted to “meddling”. Iran is a nation under tyranny. We have an obligation as human beings to speak out against it. Supporting those who demand fair and transparent democracy is not meddling, it’s simply the right thing to do. If other countries don’t like it, then those countries aren’t on the side of liberty. Nobody’s asking Obama to send in troops, but a statement supporting the protestors would be nice. He is the leader of the free world and is therefore obligated to support those who support liberty. The message he sends is that you’re on your own if you want liberty in Iran.
When Chinese students took a stand for democracy in 1989, George Bush was quick to voice his support. He even called for sanctions when the Chinese military steamrolled the protestors. Obama is wrong…terribly wrong.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Iranian elections and illegal poker money
Today, the people of Iran will select their president. Ahmedinejad is running for re-election and apparently the election experts tell us that the race will be close. Yeah, right. I just heard someone on the radio talking about this. He was formerly with the Israeli foreign ministry and was able to shed some light on Iran’s election process.
When the people in Iran vote they don’t have a ballot like we would think. There are no circles to fill in, or holes to punch, or fancy electronic machines that help through the entire process. No, the people in Iran have to go into the polling station and write down the name of the candidate, fill-in-the-blank style, whom they want to vote for. The problem is that 20% of Iran’s citizenry is illiterate. So the government provides election volunteers to “help” these people cast their vote. They ask the voter who they want to vote for and then write that person’s name down on the paper – or so it seems.
And somehow we’re supposed to believe that this will be a fair election, and that when Ahmedinejad wins he will have been legitimately elected?
And since I’m writing about government corruption, I think it’s appropriate to include this link regarding the federal government’s recent action to freeze winnings from online poker sites. The fed has ordered banks to stop paying winnings to private citizens, and since these banks are effectively owned by the government they must comply with the order. This is not company money, it does not belong to the individual website, it belongs to individual people – and it was obtained legally. I thought the Constitution forbade the seizure of private property without due process, but then again when has the Constitution ever stopped the government from fulfilling its own agenda? Once again, liberty has suffered a little bit more. Perhaps the next step will be voting with fill-in-the-blank ballots.
When the people in Iran vote they don’t have a ballot like we would think. There are no circles to fill in, or holes to punch, or fancy electronic machines that help through the entire process. No, the people in Iran have to go into the polling station and write down the name of the candidate, fill-in-the-blank style, whom they want to vote for. The problem is that 20% of Iran’s citizenry is illiterate. So the government provides election volunteers to “help” these people cast their vote. They ask the voter who they want to vote for and then write that person’s name down on the paper – or so it seems.
And somehow we’re supposed to believe that this will be a fair election, and that when Ahmedinejad wins he will have been legitimately elected?
And since I’m writing about government corruption, I think it’s appropriate to include this link regarding the federal government’s recent action to freeze winnings from online poker sites. The fed has ordered banks to stop paying winnings to private citizens, and since these banks are effectively owned by the government they must comply with the order. This is not company money, it does not belong to the individual website, it belongs to individual people – and it was obtained legally. I thought the Constitution forbade the seizure of private property without due process, but then again when has the Constitution ever stopped the government from fulfilling its own agenda? Once again, liberty has suffered a little bit more. Perhaps the next step will be voting with fill-in-the-blank ballots.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Memorial Day
"Some people wonder all their lives if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem." - Ronald Reagan
Friday, May 22, 2009
Perception...and reality
President Obama at the US Naval Academy graduation today:
"We uphold our fundamental principles and values not just because we choose to, but because we swear to -- not because they feel good, but because they help keep us safe...When America strays from our values, it not only undermines the rule of law, it alienates us from our allies, it energizes our adversaries and it endangers our national security and the lives of our troops."
This argument is wearing thin. First, we have not “strayed” from our values in any way. No law was broken during Bush’s anti-terror campaign, there was nothing unconstitutional about it. Further, our enemies don’t hate us because of a supposed “stray” from our values. If that were true, then how do we explain the multiple attacks on the US prior to the Bush administration. If Obama were correct, then closing Gitmo would suddenly remove the motivation of the terrorists to attack and kill Americans, even though such motivation was quite apparent before the prison at Gitmo was opened, before Bush became president, before Abu Ghraib, before the international wire taps.
Dick Cheney said it best: “It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so…But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things...
"And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them…As a practical matter, too, terrorists may lack much, but they have never lacked for grievances against the United States…
"List all the things that make us a force for good in the world – for liberty, for human rights, for the rational, peaceful resolution of differences – and what you end up with is a list of the reasons why the terrorists hate America. If fine speech-making appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field. And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don’t stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for – our unity gone, our resolve shaken,our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.”
"We uphold our fundamental principles and values not just because we choose to, but because we swear to -- not because they feel good, but because they help keep us safe...When America strays from our values, it not only undermines the rule of law, it alienates us from our allies, it energizes our adversaries and it endangers our national security and the lives of our troops."
This argument is wearing thin. First, we have not “strayed” from our values in any way. No law was broken during Bush’s anti-terror campaign, there was nothing unconstitutional about it. Further, our enemies don’t hate us because of a supposed “stray” from our values. If that were true, then how do we explain the multiple attacks on the US prior to the Bush administration. If Obama were correct, then closing Gitmo would suddenly remove the motivation of the terrorists to attack and kill Americans, even though such motivation was quite apparent before the prison at Gitmo was opened, before Bush became president, before Abu Ghraib, before the international wire taps.
Dick Cheney said it best: “It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so…But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things...
"And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them…As a practical matter, too, terrorists may lack much, but they have never lacked for grievances against the United States…
"List all the things that make us a force for good in the world – for liberty, for human rights, for the rational, peaceful resolution of differences – and what you end up with is a list of the reasons why the terrorists hate America. If fine speech-making appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field. And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don’t stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for – our unity gone, our resolve shaken,our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.”
Obama's talk = Bush's walk
Geithner vows to cut deficit
Timmy Turbo Tax echoed Obama’s promise to cut the federal deficit over the next four years. As of this year’s budget, deficit spending is a staggering 12.9% of GDP, an unprecedented level. Geithner says that the goal would be to reduce deficit spending to about 3% of GDP. But I wonder if he has cleared that with his boss?
Because 2-3% of GDP was the level of deficit spending under George W. Bush, and Obama seems to have a big problem with it. Type in “Obama blames Bush” on a google search and you will get 4.56 million hits. Yesterday, in one speech alone, Obama referred negatively to Bush a total of 28 times despite his own call to end partisan bickering. But the blame has been most vocal regarding the Bush deficit spending, which he blames for his own budget that quadruples Bush’s level. Yet, Obama’s own treasury secretary just admitted that Bush’s level of deficit spending is the target for the current administration some four years from now. So what gives? Is it possible that Obama is endorsing Bush’s level of deficit spending, and that all his rhetoric is just politics as usual?
And since we’re on the topic of Obama and his talent for saying one thing and doing another, this column from Charles Krauthammer takes it one step further. Bush’s economic policies aren’t the only thing being endorsed by Obama. The Bush foreign policy – or at least all the good parts – are also being adopted by the new administration. But Obama would never admit that. No, instead he stands in front of his teleprompter and tongue-lashes Bush, having us all believe that he has completely changed course from the “mess” of the previous administration; and then when we’re not looking he takes the Bush policy, gives it a new paint job, and pawns it off as his own. Or as Krauthammer puts it: “the usual Obama three-step: (a) excoriate the Bush policy, (b) ostentatiously unveil cosmetic changes, (c) adopt the Bush policy”
I can’t explain it other than to say that the Dems think most Americans simply don’t know better. And they may be right. If Bush does it, then it’s a bad policy; but if Obama does it, then we’re on the right track. At least that’s what the mainstream media tells us, and since many people believe what the MSM says those same people are likely to fall for the shell game, continue to hand over their money thinking that next time they’ll be able to pick the shell containing the little rubber ball. The question is: How long will Americans be conned by the smoke and mirrors?
Personally, I think it’s great that Obama is adopting the Bush strategy, but it is still incredibly dishonest of him to blast Bush for the same strategies that he has adopted simply because it is politically advantageous to do so. This further proves that our new President is nothing more than another two-bit politician who is really good at reading a well-prepared speech from a teleprompter but has no genuine ideas of his own and has yet to discover within himself the character that is required to lead a nation.
Timmy Turbo Tax echoed Obama’s promise to cut the federal deficit over the next four years. As of this year’s budget, deficit spending is a staggering 12.9% of GDP, an unprecedented level. Geithner says that the goal would be to reduce deficit spending to about 3% of GDP. But I wonder if he has cleared that with his boss?
Because 2-3% of GDP was the level of deficit spending under George W. Bush, and Obama seems to have a big problem with it. Type in “Obama blames Bush” on a google search and you will get 4.56 million hits. Yesterday, in one speech alone, Obama referred negatively to Bush a total of 28 times despite his own call to end partisan bickering. But the blame has been most vocal regarding the Bush deficit spending, which he blames for his own budget that quadruples Bush’s level. Yet, Obama’s own treasury secretary just admitted that Bush’s level of deficit spending is the target for the current administration some four years from now. So what gives? Is it possible that Obama is endorsing Bush’s level of deficit spending, and that all his rhetoric is just politics as usual?
And since we’re on the topic of Obama and his talent for saying one thing and doing another, this column from Charles Krauthammer takes it one step further. Bush’s economic policies aren’t the only thing being endorsed by Obama. The Bush foreign policy – or at least all the good parts – are also being adopted by the new administration. But Obama would never admit that. No, instead he stands in front of his teleprompter and tongue-lashes Bush, having us all believe that he has completely changed course from the “mess” of the previous administration; and then when we’re not looking he takes the Bush policy, gives it a new paint job, and pawns it off as his own. Or as Krauthammer puts it: “the usual Obama three-step: (a) excoriate the Bush policy, (b) ostentatiously unveil cosmetic changes, (c) adopt the Bush policy”
I can’t explain it other than to say that the Dems think most Americans simply don’t know better. And they may be right. If Bush does it, then it’s a bad policy; but if Obama does it, then we’re on the right track. At least that’s what the mainstream media tells us, and since many people believe what the MSM says those same people are likely to fall for the shell game, continue to hand over their money thinking that next time they’ll be able to pick the shell containing the little rubber ball. The question is: How long will Americans be conned by the smoke and mirrors?
Personally, I think it’s great that Obama is adopting the Bush strategy, but it is still incredibly dishonest of him to blast Bush for the same strategies that he has adopted simply because it is politically advantageous to do so. This further proves that our new President is nothing more than another two-bit politician who is really good at reading a well-prepared speech from a teleprompter but has no genuine ideas of his own and has yet to discover within himself the character that is required to lead a nation.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
One hell of a speech...
As prepared for delivery Vice President CheneyRemarks at the American Enterprise InstituteThursday, May 21, 2009
Thank you all very much, and Arthur, thank you for that introduction.It’s good to be back at AEI, where we have many friends. Lynne is one of your longtime scholars, and I’m looking forward to spending more time here myself as a returning trustee. What happened was,they were looking for a new member of the board of trustees, and they asked me to head up the search committee.
I first came to AEI after serving at the Pentagon, and departed onlyafter a very interesting job offer came along. I had no expectation of returning to public life, but my career worked out a little differently.Those eight years as vice president were quite a journey, and during a time of big events and great decisions, I don’t think I missed much.
Being the first vice president who had also served as secretary of defense, naturally my duties tended toward national security. I focused on those challenges day to day, mostly free from the usual political distractions. I had the advantage of being a vice president content with the responsibilities I had, and going about my work with no higher ambition. Today, I’m an even freer man. Your kind invitation brings me here as a private citizen – a career in politics behind me, no elections to win or lose, and no favor to seek.
The responsibilities we carried belong to others now. And though I’m not here to speak for George W. Bush, I am certain that no one wishes the current administration more success in defending the country than we do. We understand the complexities of national security decisions. We understand the pressures that confront a president and his advisers. Above all, we know what is at stake. And though administrations and policies have changed, the stakes forAmerica have not changed.
Right now there is considerable debate in this city about the measures our administration took to defend the American people.Today I want to set forth the strategic thinking behind our policies. I do so as one who was there every day of the Bush Administration –who supported the policies when they were made, and without hesitation would do so again in the same circumstances.
When President Obama makes wise decisions, as I believe he has done in some respects on Afghanistan, and in reversing his plan to release incendiary photos, he deserves our support. And when he faults or mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer. The point is not to look backward. Now and for years to come, a lot rides on our President’s understanding of the security policies that preceded him. And whatever choices he makes concerning the defense of this country,those choices should not be based on slogans and campaign rhetoric, but on a truthful telling of history.
Our administration always faced its share of criticism, and from some quarters it was always intense. That was especially so in the later years of our term, when the dangers were as serious as ever, but the sense of general alarm after September 11th, 2001 was a fading memory. Part of our responsibility, as we saw it, was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America … and not to let 9/11 become the prelude to something much bigger and far worse.
That attack itself was, of course, the most devastating strike in a series of terrorist plots carried out against Americans at home and abroad. In 1993, terrorists bombed the World Trade Center, hopingto bring down the towers with a blast from below. The attacks continued in 1995, with the bombing of U.S. facilities in Riyadh, SaudiArabia; the killing of servicemen at Khobar Towers in 1996; the attack on our embassies in East Africa in 1998; the murder of American sailors on the USS Cole in 2000; and then the hijackings of 9/11, and all the grief and loss we suffered on that day.
Nine-eleven caused everyone to take a serious second look at threats that had been gathering for a while, and enemies whose plans were getting bolder and more sophisticated. Throughout the 90s,America had responded to these attacks, if at all, on an ad hoc basis.The first attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a law enforcement problem, with everything handled after the fact – crimescene, arrests, indictments, convictions, prison sentences, caseclosed.
That’s how it seemed from a law enforcement perspective, at least –but for the terrorists the case was not closed. For them, it was another offensive strike in their ongoing war against the United States. And it turned their minds to even harder strikes with higher casualties. Nine-eleven made necessary a shift of policy, aimed at a clear strategic threat – what the Congress called “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of theUnited States.” From that moment forward, instead of merely preparing to round up the suspects and count up the victims after the next attack, we were determined to prevent attacks in the first place.
We could count on almost universal support back then, because everyone understood the environment we were in. We’d just been hit by a foreign enemy – leaving 3,000 Americans dead, more than we lost at Pearl Harbor. In Manhattan, we were staring at 16 acres of ashes. The Pentagon took a direct hit, and the Capitol or the WhiteHouse were spared only by the Americans on Flight 93, who died bravely and defiantly.
Everyone expected a follow-on attack, and our job was to stop it. We didn’t know what was coming next, but everything we did know in that autumn of 2001 looked bad. This was the world in which al-Qaeda was seeking nuclear technology, and A. Q. Khan was selling nuclear technology on the black market. We had the anthrax attack from an unknown source. We had the training camps of Afghanistan, and dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists.
These are just a few of the problems we had on our hands. And foremost on our minds was the prospect of the very worst coming to pass – a 9/11 with nuclear weapons. For me, one of the defining experiences was the morning of 9/11 itself. As you might recall, I was in my office in that first hour, when radar caught sight of an airliner heading toward the White House at 500 miles an hour. That was Flight 77, the one that ended up hitting the Pentagon. With the plane still inbound, Secret Service agents came into my office and said we had to leave, now. A few moments later I found myself in a fortified White House command post somewhere down below.
There in the bunker came the reports and images that so many Americans remember from that day – word of the crash in Pennsylvania, the final phone calls from hijacked planes, the final horror for those who jumped to their death to escape burning alive. In the years since, I’ve heard occasional speculation that I’m a different man after 9/11. I wouldn’t say that. But I’ll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities.
To make certain our nation never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy, beginning with far greater homeland security to make the United States a harder target. But since wars cannot be won on the defensive, we moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks. We decided, as well, to confront the regimes that sponsored terrorists, and to go after those who provide sanctuary, funding, and weapons to enemies of the United States. We turned special attention to regimes that had the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction, and might transfer such weapons to terrorists.
We did all of these things, and with bipartisan support put all these policies in place. It has resulted in serious blows against enemy operations … the take-down of the A.Q. Khan network … and the dismantling of Libya’s nuclear program. It’s required the commitment of many thousands of troops in two theaters of war, with high points and some low points in both Iraq and Afghanistan – and at every turn,the people of our military carried the heaviest burden. Well over seven years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of this time on the defensive – and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed.
So we’re left to draw one of two conclusions – and here is the great dividing line in our current debate over national security. You can look at the facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked, and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event – coordinated, devastating, but also unique and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort. Whichever conclusion you arrive at, it will shape your entire view of the last seven years, and of the policies necessary to protect America for years to come.
The key to any strategy is accurate intelligence, and skilled professionals to get that information in time to use it. In seeking to guard this nation against the threat of catastrophic violence, our Administration gave intelligence officers the tools and lawful authority they needed to gain vital information. We didn’t invent that authority. It is drawn from Article Two of the Constitution. And it was given specificity by the Congress after 9/11, in a Joint Resolution authorizing “all necessary and appropriate force” to protect the American people.
Our government prevented attacks and saved lives through theTerrorist Surveillance Program, which let us intercept calls and track contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and persons inside the UnitedStates. The program was top secret, and for good reason, until the editors of the New York Times got it and put it on the front page. After9/11, the Times had spent months publishing the pictures and the stories of everyone killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11. Now here was that same newspaper publishing secrets in a way that could only help al-Qaeda. It impressed the Pulitzer committee, but it damn sure didn’t serve the interests of our country, or the safety of our people.
In the years after 9/11, our government also understood that the safety of the country required collecting information known only to the worst of the terrorists. And in a few cases, that information could be gained only through tough interrogations. In top secret meetings about enhanced interrogations, I made my
own beliefs clear. I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program. The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed. They were legal,essential, justified, successful, and the right thing to do. The intelligence officers who questioned the terrorists can be proud of their work and proud of the results, because they prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.
Our successors in office have their own views on all of these matters.By presidential decision, last month we saw the selective release of documents relating to enhanced interrogations. This is held up as a bold exercise in open government, honoring the public’s right to know. We’re informed, as well, that there was much agonizing over this decision.
Yet somehow, when the soul-searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth. The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question. Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release.For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.
Over on the left wing of the president’s party, there appears to be little curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists. The kind of answers they’re after would be heard before a so-called “TruthCommission.” Some are even demanding that those who recommended and approved the interrogations be prosecuted, in effect treating political disagreements as a punishable offense, and political opponents as criminals. It’s hard to imagine a worse precedent, filled with more possibilities for trouble and abuse, than to have an incoming administration criminalize the policy decisions of its predecessors.
Apart from doing a serious injustice to intelligence operators and lawyers who deserve far better for their devoted service, the danger here is a loss of focus on national security, and what it requires. I would advise the administration to think very carefully about the course ahead. All the zeal that has been directed at interrogations is utterly misplaced. And staying on that path will only lead our government further away from its duty to protect the American people.
One person who by all accounts objected to the release of the interrogation memos was the Director of Central Intelligence, LeonPanetta. He was joined in that view by at least four of his predecessors. I assume they felt this way because they understand the importance of protecting intelligence sources, methods, and personnel. But now that this once top-secret information is out for all to see – including the enemy – let me draw your attention to some points that are routinely overlooked.
It is a fact that only detainees of the highest intelligence value were ever subjected to enhanced interrogation. You’ve heard endlessly about waterboarding. It happened to three terrorists. One of them was Khalid Sheikh Muhammed – the mastermind of 9/11, who has also boasted about beheading Daniel Pearl.
We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country. We didn’tknow about al-Qaeda’s plans, but Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and a few others did know. And with many thousands of innocent lives potentially in the balance, we didn’t think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all.
Maybe you’ve heard that when we captured KSM, he said he would talk as soon as he got to New York City and saw his lawyer. But like many critics of interrogations, he clearly misunderstood the business at hand. American personnel were not there to commence an elaborate legal proceeding, but to extract information from him before al-Qaeda could strike again and kill more of our people.
In public discussion of these matters, there has been a strange and sometimes willful attempt to conflate what happened at Abu Ghraib prison with the top secret program of enhanced interrogations. At Abu Ghraib, a few sadistic prison guards abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulations, and simple decency. For the harm they did, to Iraqi prisoners and to America’s cause, they deserved and received Army justice. And it takes a deeply unfair cast of mind to equate the disgraces of Abu Ghraib with the lawful, skillful,and entirely honorable work of CIA personnel trained to deal with a few malevolent men.
Even before the interrogation program began, and throughout its operation, it was closely reviewed to ensure that every method used was in full compliance with the Constitution, statutes, and treaty obligations. On numerous occasions, leading members of Congress,including the current speaker of the House, were briefed on the program and on the methods.
Yet for all these exacting efforts to do a hard and necessary job and to do it right, we hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative. In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists.
I might add that people who consistently distort the truth in this way are in no position to lecture anyone about “values.” Intelligence officers of the United States were not trying to rough up some terrorists simply to avenge the dead of 9/11. We know the difference in this country between justice and vengeance. Intelligence officers were not trying to get terrorists to confess to past killings; they were trying to prevent future killings. From the beginning of the program,there was only one focused and all-important purpose. We sought,and we in fact obtained, specific information on terrorist plans.
Those are the basic facts on enhanced interrogations. And to call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved American lives, and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims. What’s more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation methods in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness, and would make the American people less safe.
The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism. They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum.If liberals are unhappy about some decisions, and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may seem to them that the President is on the path of sensible compromise. But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States.
Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy. When just a single clue that goes unlearned … one lead that goes unpursued … can bring on catastrophe – it’s no time for splitting differences. There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance.
Behind the overwrought reaction to enhanced interrogations is a broader misconception about the threats that still face our country.You can sense the problem in the emergence of euphemisms that strive to put an imaginary distance between the American people and the terrorist enemy. Apparently using the term “war” where terrorists are concerned is starting to feel a bit dated. So henceforth we’re advised by the administration to think of the fight against terrorists as,quote, “Overseas contingency operations.” In the event of another terrorist attack on America, the Homeland Security Department assures us it will be ready for this, quote, “man-made disaster” –never mind that the whole Department was created for the purpose of protecting Americans from terrorist attack.
And when you hear that there are no more, quote, “enemycombatants,” as there were back in the days of that scary war on terror, at first that sounds like progress. The only problem is that the phrase is gone, but the same assortment of killers and would-be mass murderers are still there. And finding some less judgmental or
more pleasant-sounding name for terrorists doesn’t change what they are – or what they would do if we let them loose.
On his second day in office, President Obama announced that he was closing the detention facility at Guantanamo. This step came with little deliberation and no plan. Now the President says some of these terrorists should be brought to American soil for trial in our court system. Others, he says, will be shipped to third countries. But so far, the United States has had little luck getting other countries to take hardened terrorists. So what happens then? Attorney GeneralHolder and others have admitted that the United States will be compelled to accept a number of the terrorists here, in the homeland,and it has even been suggested US taxpayer dollars will be used to support them. On this one, I find myself in complete agreement with many in the President’s own party. Unsure how to explain to their constituents why terrorists might soon be relocating into their states,these Democrats chose instead to strip funding for such a move out of the most recent war supplemental.
The administration has found that it’s easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo. But it’s tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America’s national security. Keep in mind that these are hardened terrorists picked up overseas since 9/11. The ones that were considered low-risk were released a long time ago. And among these, we learned yesterday, many were treated too leniently, because 1 in 7 cut a straight path back to their prior line of work and have conducted murderous attacks in the Middle East. I think the President will find,upon reflection, that to bring the worst of the worst terrorists inside the United States would be cause for great danger and regret in the years to come.
In the category of euphemism, the prize winning entry would be a recent editorial in a familiar newspaper that referred to terrorists we’ve captured as, quote, “abducted.” Here we have ruthless enemies of this country, stopped in their tracks by brave operatives in the service of America, and a major editorial page makes them sound like they were kidnap victims, picked up at random on their way to the movies.
It’s one thing to adopt the euphemisms that suggest we’re no longer engaged in a war. These are just words, and in the end it’s the policies that matter most. You don’t want to call them enemy combatants? Fine. Call them what you want – just don’t bring them into the United States. Tired of calling it a war? Use any term you prefer. Just remember it is a serious step to begin unraveling some of the very policies that have kept our people safe since 9/11.
Another term out there that slipped into the discussion is the notion that American interrogation practices were a “recruitment tool” for the enemy. On this theory, by the tough questioning of killers, we have supposedly fallen short of our own values. This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar fashion, it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It’s another version of that same old refrain from the Left, “We brought it on ourselves.”
It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so. Nor are terrorists or those who see them as victims exactly the best judges of America’s moral standards, one way or the other.
Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them.
As a practical matter, too, terrorists may lack much, but they have never lacked for grievances against the United States. Our belief in freedom of speech and religion … our belief in equal rights for women… our support for Israel … our cultural and political influence in the world – these are the true sources of resentment, all mixed in with the lies and conspiracy theories of the radical clerics. These recruitment
tools were in vigorous use throughout the 1990s, and they were sufficient to motivate the 19 recruits who boarded those planes onSeptember 11th, 2001.
The United States of America was a good country before 9/11, just as we are today. List all the things that make us a force for good in the world – for liberty, for human rights, for the rational, peaceful resolution of differences – and what you end up with is a list of the reasons why the terrorists hate America. If fine speech-making appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field. And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don’t stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for – our unity gone, our resolve shaken,our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.
What is equally certain is this: The broad-based strategy set in motion by President Bush obviously had nothing to do with causing the events of 9/11. But the serious way we dealt with terrorists from then on, and all the intelligence we gathered in that time, had everything to do with preventing another 9/11 on our watch. The enhanced interrogations of high-value detainees and the terrorist surveillance program have without question made our country safer. Every senior official who has been briefed on these classified matters knows of specific attacks that were in the planning stages and were stopped by the programs we put in place.
This might explain why President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate. What value remains to that authority is debatable, given that the enemy now knows exactly what interrogation methods to train against, and which ones not to worry about. Yet having reserved for himself the authority to order enhanced interrogation after an emergency, you would think that President Obama would be less disdainful of what his predecessor authorized after 9/11. It’s almost gone unnoticed that the president has retained the power to order the same methods in the same circumstances. When they talk about interrogations, he and his administration speak as if they have resolved some great moral dilemma in how to extract critical information from terrorists. Instead they have put the decision off,while assigning a presumption of moral superiority to any decision they make in the future.
Releasing the interrogation memos was flatly contrary to the national security interest of the United States. The harm done only begins with top secret information now in the hands of the terrorists, who have just received a lengthy insert for their training manual. Across the world, governments that have helped us capture terrorists will fear that sensitive joint operations will be compromised. And at the CIA,operatives are left to wonder if they can depend on the White House or Congress to back them up when the going gets tough. Why should any agency employee take on a difficult assignment when,even though they act lawfully and in good faith, years down the road the press and Congress will treat everything they do with suspicion,outright hostility, and second-guessing? Some members of Congress are notorious for demanding they be briefed into the most sensitive intelligence programs. They support them in private, and then head for the hills at the first sign of controversy.
As far as the interrogations are concerned, all that remains an official secret is the information we gained as a result. Some of his defenders say the unseen memos are inconclusive, which only raises the question why they won’t let the American people decide that for themselves. I saw that information as vice president, and I reviewed some of it again at the National Archives last month. I’ve formally asked that it be declassified so the American people can see the intelligence we obtained, the things we learned, and the consequences for national security. And as you may have heard, last week that request was formally rejected. It’s worth recalling that ultimate power of declassification belongs to the President himself.President Obama has used his declassification power to reveal what happened in the interrogation of terrorists. Now let him use that same power to show Americans what did not happen, thanks to the good work of our intelligence officials.
I believe this information will confirm the value of interrogations – and I am not alone. President Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair, has put it this way: “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.” End quote. Admiral Blair put that conclusion in writing, only to see it mysteriously deleted in a later version released by the administration – the missing 26 words that tell an inconvenient truth. But they couldn’t change the words of GeorgeTenet, the CIA Director under Presidents Clinton and Bush, who bluntly said: “I know that this program has saved lives. I know we’ve disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than theFBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National SecurityAgency put together have been able to tell us.” End of quote.
If Americans do get the chance to learn what our country was spared,it’ll do more than clarify the urgency and the rightness of enhanced interrogations in the years after 9/11. It may help us to stay focused on dangers that have not gone away. Instead of idly debating which political opponents to prosecute and punish, our attention will return to where it belongs – on the continuing threat of terrorist violence,and on stopping the men who are planning it.
For all the partisan anger that still lingers, our administration will stand up well in history – not despite our actions after 9/11, but because of them. And when I think about all that was to come during our administration and afterward – the recriminations, the second-guessing, the charges of “hubris” – my mind always goes back to that moment.
To put things in perspective, suppose that on the evening of 9/11,President Bush and I had promised that for as long as we held office – which was to be another 2,689 days – there would never be another terrorist attack inside this country. Talk about hubris – it would have seemed a rash and irresponsible thing to say. People would have doubted that we even understood the enormity of what had just happened. Everyone had a very bad feeling about all of this, and felt certain that the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and Shanksville were only the beginning of the violence.
Of course, we made no such promise. Instead, we promised an all-out effort to protect this country. We said we would marshal all elements of our nation’s power to fight this war and to win it. We said we would never forget what had happened on 9/11, even if the day came when many others did forget. We spoke of a war that would“include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success.” We followed through on all of this, and we stayed true to our word.
To the very end of our administration, we kept al-Qaeda terrorists busy with other problems. We focused on getting their secrets,instead of sharing ours with them. And on our watch, they never hit this country again. After the most lethal and devastating terrorist attack ever, seven and a half years without a repeat is not a record to be rebuked and scorned, much less criminalized. It is a record to be continued until the danger has passed.
Along the way there were some hard calls. No decision of national security was ever made lightly, and certainly never made in haste. As in all warfare, there have been costs – none higher than the sacrifices of those killed and wounded in our country’s service. And even the most decisive victories can never take away the sorrow of losing so many of our own – all those innocent victims of 9/11, and the heroic souls who died trying to save them.
For all that we’ve lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings. And when the moral reckoning turns to the men known as high-value terrorists, I can assure you they were neither innocent nor victims. As for those who asked them questions and got answers: they did the right thing, they made our country safer,and a lot of Americans are alive today because of them.
Like so many others who serve America, they are not the kind to insist on a thank-you. But I will always be grateful to each one of them, and proud to have served with them for a time in the same cause. They, and so many others, have given honorable service to our country through all the difficulties and all the dangers. I will always admire them and wish them well. And I am confident that this nation will never take their work, their dedication, or their achievements, for granted.
Thank you very much.
Thank you all very much, and Arthur, thank you for that introduction.It’s good to be back at AEI, where we have many friends. Lynne is one of your longtime scholars, and I’m looking forward to spending more time here myself as a returning trustee. What happened was,they were looking for a new member of the board of trustees, and they asked me to head up the search committee.
I first came to AEI after serving at the Pentagon, and departed onlyafter a very interesting job offer came along. I had no expectation of returning to public life, but my career worked out a little differently.Those eight years as vice president were quite a journey, and during a time of big events and great decisions, I don’t think I missed much.
Being the first vice president who had also served as secretary of defense, naturally my duties tended toward national security. I focused on those challenges day to day, mostly free from the usual political distractions. I had the advantage of being a vice president content with the responsibilities I had, and going about my work with no higher ambition. Today, I’m an even freer man. Your kind invitation brings me here as a private citizen – a career in politics behind me, no elections to win or lose, and no favor to seek.
The responsibilities we carried belong to others now. And though I’m not here to speak for George W. Bush, I am certain that no one wishes the current administration more success in defending the country than we do. We understand the complexities of national security decisions. We understand the pressures that confront a president and his advisers. Above all, we know what is at stake. And though administrations and policies have changed, the stakes forAmerica have not changed.
Right now there is considerable debate in this city about the measures our administration took to defend the American people.Today I want to set forth the strategic thinking behind our policies. I do so as one who was there every day of the Bush Administration –who supported the policies when they were made, and without hesitation would do so again in the same circumstances.
When President Obama makes wise decisions, as I believe he has done in some respects on Afghanistan, and in reversing his plan to release incendiary photos, he deserves our support. And when he faults or mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer. The point is not to look backward. Now and for years to come, a lot rides on our President’s understanding of the security policies that preceded him. And whatever choices he makes concerning the defense of this country,those choices should not be based on slogans and campaign rhetoric, but on a truthful telling of history.
Our administration always faced its share of criticism, and from some quarters it was always intense. That was especially so in the later years of our term, when the dangers were as serious as ever, but the sense of general alarm after September 11th, 2001 was a fading memory. Part of our responsibility, as we saw it, was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America … and not to let 9/11 become the prelude to something much bigger and far worse.
That attack itself was, of course, the most devastating strike in a series of terrorist plots carried out against Americans at home and abroad. In 1993, terrorists bombed the World Trade Center, hopingto bring down the towers with a blast from below. The attacks continued in 1995, with the bombing of U.S. facilities in Riyadh, SaudiArabia; the killing of servicemen at Khobar Towers in 1996; the attack on our embassies in East Africa in 1998; the murder of American sailors on the USS Cole in 2000; and then the hijackings of 9/11, and all the grief and loss we suffered on that day.
Nine-eleven caused everyone to take a serious second look at threats that had been gathering for a while, and enemies whose plans were getting bolder and more sophisticated. Throughout the 90s,America had responded to these attacks, if at all, on an ad hoc basis.The first attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a law enforcement problem, with everything handled after the fact – crimescene, arrests, indictments, convictions, prison sentences, caseclosed.
That’s how it seemed from a law enforcement perspective, at least –but for the terrorists the case was not closed. For them, it was another offensive strike in their ongoing war against the United States. And it turned their minds to even harder strikes with higher casualties. Nine-eleven made necessary a shift of policy, aimed at a clear strategic threat – what the Congress called “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of theUnited States.” From that moment forward, instead of merely preparing to round up the suspects and count up the victims after the next attack, we were determined to prevent attacks in the first place.
We could count on almost universal support back then, because everyone understood the environment we were in. We’d just been hit by a foreign enemy – leaving 3,000 Americans dead, more than we lost at Pearl Harbor. In Manhattan, we were staring at 16 acres of ashes. The Pentagon took a direct hit, and the Capitol or the WhiteHouse were spared only by the Americans on Flight 93, who died bravely and defiantly.
Everyone expected a follow-on attack, and our job was to stop it. We didn’t know what was coming next, but everything we did know in that autumn of 2001 looked bad. This was the world in which al-Qaeda was seeking nuclear technology, and A. Q. Khan was selling nuclear technology on the black market. We had the anthrax attack from an unknown source. We had the training camps of Afghanistan, and dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists.
These are just a few of the problems we had on our hands. And foremost on our minds was the prospect of the very worst coming to pass – a 9/11 with nuclear weapons. For me, one of the defining experiences was the morning of 9/11 itself. As you might recall, I was in my office in that first hour, when radar caught sight of an airliner heading toward the White House at 500 miles an hour. That was Flight 77, the one that ended up hitting the Pentagon. With the plane still inbound, Secret Service agents came into my office and said we had to leave, now. A few moments later I found myself in a fortified White House command post somewhere down below.
There in the bunker came the reports and images that so many Americans remember from that day – word of the crash in Pennsylvania, the final phone calls from hijacked planes, the final horror for those who jumped to their death to escape burning alive. In the years since, I’ve heard occasional speculation that I’m a different man after 9/11. I wouldn’t say that. But I’ll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities.
To make certain our nation never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy, beginning with far greater homeland security to make the United States a harder target. But since wars cannot be won on the defensive, we moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks. We decided, as well, to confront the regimes that sponsored terrorists, and to go after those who provide sanctuary, funding, and weapons to enemies of the United States. We turned special attention to regimes that had the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction, and might transfer such weapons to terrorists.
We did all of these things, and with bipartisan support put all these policies in place. It has resulted in serious blows against enemy operations … the take-down of the A.Q. Khan network … and the dismantling of Libya’s nuclear program. It’s required the commitment of many thousands of troops in two theaters of war, with high points and some low points in both Iraq and Afghanistan – and at every turn,the people of our military carried the heaviest burden. Well over seven years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of this time on the defensive – and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed.
So we’re left to draw one of two conclusions – and here is the great dividing line in our current debate over national security. You can look at the facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked, and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event – coordinated, devastating, but also unique and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort. Whichever conclusion you arrive at, it will shape your entire view of the last seven years, and of the policies necessary to protect America for years to come.
The key to any strategy is accurate intelligence, and skilled professionals to get that information in time to use it. In seeking to guard this nation against the threat of catastrophic violence, our Administration gave intelligence officers the tools and lawful authority they needed to gain vital information. We didn’t invent that authority. It is drawn from Article Two of the Constitution. And it was given specificity by the Congress after 9/11, in a Joint Resolution authorizing “all necessary and appropriate force” to protect the American people.
Our government prevented attacks and saved lives through theTerrorist Surveillance Program, which let us intercept calls and track contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and persons inside the UnitedStates. The program was top secret, and for good reason, until the editors of the New York Times got it and put it on the front page. After9/11, the Times had spent months publishing the pictures and the stories of everyone killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11. Now here was that same newspaper publishing secrets in a way that could only help al-Qaeda. It impressed the Pulitzer committee, but it damn sure didn’t serve the interests of our country, or the safety of our people.
In the years after 9/11, our government also understood that the safety of the country required collecting information known only to the worst of the terrorists. And in a few cases, that information could be gained only through tough interrogations. In top secret meetings about enhanced interrogations, I made my
own beliefs clear. I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program. The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed. They were legal,essential, justified, successful, and the right thing to do. The intelligence officers who questioned the terrorists can be proud of their work and proud of the results, because they prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.
Our successors in office have their own views on all of these matters.By presidential decision, last month we saw the selective release of documents relating to enhanced interrogations. This is held up as a bold exercise in open government, honoring the public’s right to know. We’re informed, as well, that there was much agonizing over this decision.
Yet somehow, when the soul-searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth. The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question. Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release.For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.
Over on the left wing of the president’s party, there appears to be little curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists. The kind of answers they’re after would be heard before a so-called “TruthCommission.” Some are even demanding that those who recommended and approved the interrogations be prosecuted, in effect treating political disagreements as a punishable offense, and political opponents as criminals. It’s hard to imagine a worse precedent, filled with more possibilities for trouble and abuse, than to have an incoming administration criminalize the policy decisions of its predecessors.
Apart from doing a serious injustice to intelligence operators and lawyers who deserve far better for their devoted service, the danger here is a loss of focus on national security, and what it requires. I would advise the administration to think very carefully about the course ahead. All the zeal that has been directed at interrogations is utterly misplaced. And staying on that path will only lead our government further away from its duty to protect the American people.
One person who by all accounts objected to the release of the interrogation memos was the Director of Central Intelligence, LeonPanetta. He was joined in that view by at least four of his predecessors. I assume they felt this way because they understand the importance of protecting intelligence sources, methods, and personnel. But now that this once top-secret information is out for all to see – including the enemy – let me draw your attention to some points that are routinely overlooked.
It is a fact that only detainees of the highest intelligence value were ever subjected to enhanced interrogation. You’ve heard endlessly about waterboarding. It happened to three terrorists. One of them was Khalid Sheikh Muhammed – the mastermind of 9/11, who has also boasted about beheading Daniel Pearl.
We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country. We didn’tknow about al-Qaeda’s plans, but Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and a few others did know. And with many thousands of innocent lives potentially in the balance, we didn’t think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all.
Maybe you’ve heard that when we captured KSM, he said he would talk as soon as he got to New York City and saw his lawyer. But like many critics of interrogations, he clearly misunderstood the business at hand. American personnel were not there to commence an elaborate legal proceeding, but to extract information from him before al-Qaeda could strike again and kill more of our people.
In public discussion of these matters, there has been a strange and sometimes willful attempt to conflate what happened at Abu Ghraib prison with the top secret program of enhanced interrogations. At Abu Ghraib, a few sadistic prison guards abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulations, and simple decency. For the harm they did, to Iraqi prisoners and to America’s cause, they deserved and received Army justice. And it takes a deeply unfair cast of mind to equate the disgraces of Abu Ghraib with the lawful, skillful,and entirely honorable work of CIA personnel trained to deal with a few malevolent men.
Even before the interrogation program began, and throughout its operation, it was closely reviewed to ensure that every method used was in full compliance with the Constitution, statutes, and treaty obligations. On numerous occasions, leading members of Congress,including the current speaker of the House, were briefed on the program and on the methods.
Yet for all these exacting efforts to do a hard and necessary job and to do it right, we hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative. In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists.
I might add that people who consistently distort the truth in this way are in no position to lecture anyone about “values.” Intelligence officers of the United States were not trying to rough up some terrorists simply to avenge the dead of 9/11. We know the difference in this country between justice and vengeance. Intelligence officers were not trying to get terrorists to confess to past killings; they were trying to prevent future killings. From the beginning of the program,there was only one focused and all-important purpose. We sought,and we in fact obtained, specific information on terrorist plans.
Those are the basic facts on enhanced interrogations. And to call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved American lives, and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims. What’s more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation methods in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness, and would make the American people less safe.
The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism. They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum.If liberals are unhappy about some decisions, and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may seem to them that the President is on the path of sensible compromise. But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States.
Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy. When just a single clue that goes unlearned … one lead that goes unpursued … can bring on catastrophe – it’s no time for splitting differences. There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance.
Behind the overwrought reaction to enhanced interrogations is a broader misconception about the threats that still face our country.You can sense the problem in the emergence of euphemisms that strive to put an imaginary distance between the American people and the terrorist enemy. Apparently using the term “war” where terrorists are concerned is starting to feel a bit dated. So henceforth we’re advised by the administration to think of the fight against terrorists as,quote, “Overseas contingency operations.” In the event of another terrorist attack on America, the Homeland Security Department assures us it will be ready for this, quote, “man-made disaster” –never mind that the whole Department was created for the purpose of protecting Americans from terrorist attack.
And when you hear that there are no more, quote, “enemycombatants,” as there were back in the days of that scary war on terror, at first that sounds like progress. The only problem is that the phrase is gone, but the same assortment of killers and would-be mass murderers are still there. And finding some less judgmental or
more pleasant-sounding name for terrorists doesn’t change what they are – or what they would do if we let them loose.
On his second day in office, President Obama announced that he was closing the detention facility at Guantanamo. This step came with little deliberation and no plan. Now the President says some of these terrorists should be brought to American soil for trial in our court system. Others, he says, will be shipped to third countries. But so far, the United States has had little luck getting other countries to take hardened terrorists. So what happens then? Attorney GeneralHolder and others have admitted that the United States will be compelled to accept a number of the terrorists here, in the homeland,and it has even been suggested US taxpayer dollars will be used to support them. On this one, I find myself in complete agreement with many in the President’s own party. Unsure how to explain to their constituents why terrorists might soon be relocating into their states,these Democrats chose instead to strip funding for such a move out of the most recent war supplemental.
The administration has found that it’s easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo. But it’s tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America’s national security. Keep in mind that these are hardened terrorists picked up overseas since 9/11. The ones that were considered low-risk were released a long time ago. And among these, we learned yesterday, many were treated too leniently, because 1 in 7 cut a straight path back to their prior line of work and have conducted murderous attacks in the Middle East. I think the President will find,upon reflection, that to bring the worst of the worst terrorists inside the United States would be cause for great danger and regret in the years to come.
In the category of euphemism, the prize winning entry would be a recent editorial in a familiar newspaper that referred to terrorists we’ve captured as, quote, “abducted.” Here we have ruthless enemies of this country, stopped in their tracks by brave operatives in the service of America, and a major editorial page makes them sound like they were kidnap victims, picked up at random on their way to the movies.
It’s one thing to adopt the euphemisms that suggest we’re no longer engaged in a war. These are just words, and in the end it’s the policies that matter most. You don’t want to call them enemy combatants? Fine. Call them what you want – just don’t bring them into the United States. Tired of calling it a war? Use any term you prefer. Just remember it is a serious step to begin unraveling some of the very policies that have kept our people safe since 9/11.
Another term out there that slipped into the discussion is the notion that American interrogation practices were a “recruitment tool” for the enemy. On this theory, by the tough questioning of killers, we have supposedly fallen short of our own values. This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar fashion, it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It’s another version of that same old refrain from the Left, “We brought it on ourselves.”
It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so. Nor are terrorists or those who see them as victims exactly the best judges of America’s moral standards, one way or the other.
Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them.
As a practical matter, too, terrorists may lack much, but they have never lacked for grievances against the United States. Our belief in freedom of speech and religion … our belief in equal rights for women… our support for Israel … our cultural and political influence in the world – these are the true sources of resentment, all mixed in with the lies and conspiracy theories of the radical clerics. These recruitment
tools were in vigorous use throughout the 1990s, and they were sufficient to motivate the 19 recruits who boarded those planes onSeptember 11th, 2001.
The United States of America was a good country before 9/11, just as we are today. List all the things that make us a force for good in the world – for liberty, for human rights, for the rational, peaceful resolution of differences – and what you end up with is a list of the reasons why the terrorists hate America. If fine speech-making appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field. And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don’t stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for – our unity gone, our resolve shaken,our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.
What is equally certain is this: The broad-based strategy set in motion by President Bush obviously had nothing to do with causing the events of 9/11. But the serious way we dealt with terrorists from then on, and all the intelligence we gathered in that time, had everything to do with preventing another 9/11 on our watch. The enhanced interrogations of high-value detainees and the terrorist surveillance program have without question made our country safer. Every senior official who has been briefed on these classified matters knows of specific attacks that were in the planning stages and were stopped by the programs we put in place.
This might explain why President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate. What value remains to that authority is debatable, given that the enemy now knows exactly what interrogation methods to train against, and which ones not to worry about. Yet having reserved for himself the authority to order enhanced interrogation after an emergency, you would think that President Obama would be less disdainful of what his predecessor authorized after 9/11. It’s almost gone unnoticed that the president has retained the power to order the same methods in the same circumstances. When they talk about interrogations, he and his administration speak as if they have resolved some great moral dilemma in how to extract critical information from terrorists. Instead they have put the decision off,while assigning a presumption of moral superiority to any decision they make in the future.
Releasing the interrogation memos was flatly contrary to the national security interest of the United States. The harm done only begins with top secret information now in the hands of the terrorists, who have just received a lengthy insert for their training manual. Across the world, governments that have helped us capture terrorists will fear that sensitive joint operations will be compromised. And at the CIA,operatives are left to wonder if they can depend on the White House or Congress to back them up when the going gets tough. Why should any agency employee take on a difficult assignment when,even though they act lawfully and in good faith, years down the road the press and Congress will treat everything they do with suspicion,outright hostility, and second-guessing? Some members of Congress are notorious for demanding they be briefed into the most sensitive intelligence programs. They support them in private, and then head for the hills at the first sign of controversy.
As far as the interrogations are concerned, all that remains an official secret is the information we gained as a result. Some of his defenders say the unseen memos are inconclusive, which only raises the question why they won’t let the American people decide that for themselves. I saw that information as vice president, and I reviewed some of it again at the National Archives last month. I’ve formally asked that it be declassified so the American people can see the intelligence we obtained, the things we learned, and the consequences for national security. And as you may have heard, last week that request was formally rejected. It’s worth recalling that ultimate power of declassification belongs to the President himself.President Obama has used his declassification power to reveal what happened in the interrogation of terrorists. Now let him use that same power to show Americans what did not happen, thanks to the good work of our intelligence officials.
I believe this information will confirm the value of interrogations – and I am not alone. President Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair, has put it this way: “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.” End quote. Admiral Blair put that conclusion in writing, only to see it mysteriously deleted in a later version released by the administration – the missing 26 words that tell an inconvenient truth. But they couldn’t change the words of GeorgeTenet, the CIA Director under Presidents Clinton and Bush, who bluntly said: “I know that this program has saved lives. I know we’ve disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than theFBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National SecurityAgency put together have been able to tell us.” End of quote.
If Americans do get the chance to learn what our country was spared,it’ll do more than clarify the urgency and the rightness of enhanced interrogations in the years after 9/11. It may help us to stay focused on dangers that have not gone away. Instead of idly debating which political opponents to prosecute and punish, our attention will return to where it belongs – on the continuing threat of terrorist violence,and on stopping the men who are planning it.
For all the partisan anger that still lingers, our administration will stand up well in history – not despite our actions after 9/11, but because of them. And when I think about all that was to come during our administration and afterward – the recriminations, the second-guessing, the charges of “hubris” – my mind always goes back to that moment.
To put things in perspective, suppose that on the evening of 9/11,President Bush and I had promised that for as long as we held office – which was to be another 2,689 days – there would never be another terrorist attack inside this country. Talk about hubris – it would have seemed a rash and irresponsible thing to say. People would have doubted that we even understood the enormity of what had just happened. Everyone had a very bad feeling about all of this, and felt certain that the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and Shanksville were only the beginning of the violence.
Of course, we made no such promise. Instead, we promised an all-out effort to protect this country. We said we would marshal all elements of our nation’s power to fight this war and to win it. We said we would never forget what had happened on 9/11, even if the day came when many others did forget. We spoke of a war that would“include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success.” We followed through on all of this, and we stayed true to our word.
To the very end of our administration, we kept al-Qaeda terrorists busy with other problems. We focused on getting their secrets,instead of sharing ours with them. And on our watch, they never hit this country again. After the most lethal and devastating terrorist attack ever, seven and a half years without a repeat is not a record to be rebuked and scorned, much less criminalized. It is a record to be continued until the danger has passed.
Along the way there were some hard calls. No decision of national security was ever made lightly, and certainly never made in haste. As in all warfare, there have been costs – none higher than the sacrifices of those killed and wounded in our country’s service. And even the most decisive victories can never take away the sorrow of losing so many of our own – all those innocent victims of 9/11, and the heroic souls who died trying to save them.
For all that we’ve lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings. And when the moral reckoning turns to the men known as high-value terrorists, I can assure you they were neither innocent nor victims. As for those who asked them questions and got answers: they did the right thing, they made our country safer,and a lot of Americans are alive today because of them.
Like so many others who serve America, they are not the kind to insist on a thank-you. But I will always be grateful to each one of them, and proud to have served with them for a time in the same cause. They, and so many others, have given honorable service to our country through all the difficulties and all the dangers. I will always admire them and wish them well. And I am confident that this nation will never take their work, their dedication, or their achievements, for granted.
Thank you very much.
The people "upend" California
In what can only be described as another amazingly orchestrated Astroturf movement, the people of California rejected attempts to raise taxes in order to pay for inflated government, despite Colin Powell’s recent assertion that people want more government in their lives. Surely Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are behind this.
The Left is convinced – to the point of hallucination – that the results of the last two national elections prove that the American people want more government and are willing to pay higher taxes to achieve it. That’s why they sneer at tax day Tea Parties, and scoff when ballot initiatives like the ones in California go down in defeat, viewing these things as outliers inconsistent with the “real” wishes of most Americans. Jennifer Steinhauer described it this way in the New York Times: “Direct democracy has once again upended California…”
Get it? The Times apparently has no problem with out-of-control government spending. No, it's direct democracy that is the problem here. In other words, THE PEOPLE are to blame.
When a state government overspends by massive amounts and implements laws that are unfriendly to business and commerce, the resulting fiscal crisis is not their fault. It’s up to the people to subsidize the irresponsible spending, because government knows best. Believe me, Ms. Steinhauer is not alone in her opinion. The ballot initiative SHOULD act as a warning to politicians that the people are quickly getting fed up with tax-and-spend policies. But something tells me very few of them will comprehend that warning in the throws of their hallucinogenic power-trip. Just like with the Tea Parties last month, I’m sure the voices of California will go unheard, and nothing much will change. But this “Astroturf” movement isn’t going away. Even in the bluest of blue states, the movement is gaining ground.
So is Obama listening? Not really. When Governor Arnold attempted to save money by cutting wages on unionized state employees, Washington responded by threatening to withhold $6 billion in bailout money from the state. So now the Governor is suggesting that he will have to release inmates from prison and shorten the school year as part of his plan to save money. Washington hasn’t voiced any objection to this. Screw the kids and make the law-abiding public less safe, but don’t touch the unionized government workers. Naturally, all of this is the people’s fault.
California is the 6th most-taxed state in the union. Couple this with massive entitlement spending, business-unfriendly environmental policies, and high corporate taxes and what else can you expect but an impending fiscal crisis? Job-rich businesses aren’t going to stick around and pay high taxes while being forced to comply to irrational environmental laws when states like Nevada and Texas welcome them with open arms. And when businesses go, so do jobs and tax-revenue. But never mind all that. The people should have agreed to higher taxes to keep on the same path because, you know, it is working so well.
A major political storm is brewing. Astroturf Americans are getting angrier by the day, and this is BEFORE the high federal taxes and high inflation of Obama’s budget hits. My guess is the politicians will continue to ignore the voice of the people, the media will continue to sneer, and they will all be in for a shock when the hallucination ends.
The Left is convinced – to the point of hallucination – that the results of the last two national elections prove that the American people want more government and are willing to pay higher taxes to achieve it. That’s why they sneer at tax day Tea Parties, and scoff when ballot initiatives like the ones in California go down in defeat, viewing these things as outliers inconsistent with the “real” wishes of most Americans. Jennifer Steinhauer described it this way in the New York Times: “Direct democracy has once again upended California…”
Get it? The Times apparently has no problem with out-of-control government spending. No, it's direct democracy that is the problem here. In other words, THE PEOPLE are to blame.
When a state government overspends by massive amounts and implements laws that are unfriendly to business and commerce, the resulting fiscal crisis is not their fault. It’s up to the people to subsidize the irresponsible spending, because government knows best. Believe me, Ms. Steinhauer is not alone in her opinion. The ballot initiative SHOULD act as a warning to politicians that the people are quickly getting fed up with tax-and-spend policies. But something tells me very few of them will comprehend that warning in the throws of their hallucinogenic power-trip. Just like with the Tea Parties last month, I’m sure the voices of California will go unheard, and nothing much will change. But this “Astroturf” movement isn’t going away. Even in the bluest of blue states, the movement is gaining ground.
So is Obama listening? Not really. When Governor Arnold attempted to save money by cutting wages on unionized state employees, Washington responded by threatening to withhold $6 billion in bailout money from the state. So now the Governor is suggesting that he will have to release inmates from prison and shorten the school year as part of his plan to save money. Washington hasn’t voiced any objection to this. Screw the kids and make the law-abiding public less safe, but don’t touch the unionized government workers. Naturally, all of this is the people’s fault.
California is the 6th most-taxed state in the union. Couple this with massive entitlement spending, business-unfriendly environmental policies, and high corporate taxes and what else can you expect but an impending fiscal crisis? Job-rich businesses aren’t going to stick around and pay high taxes while being forced to comply to irrational environmental laws when states like Nevada and Texas welcome them with open arms. And when businesses go, so do jobs and tax-revenue. But never mind all that. The people should have agreed to higher taxes to keep on the same path because, you know, it is working so well.
A major political storm is brewing. Astroturf Americans are getting angrier by the day, and this is BEFORE the high federal taxes and high inflation of Obama’s budget hits. My guess is the politicians will continue to ignore the voice of the people, the media will continue to sneer, and they will all be in for a shock when the hallucination ends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
