Cruz/Roy should stop yammering about "repealing Obamacare," and shift to FIXING HEALTH CARE

"He who despises the word will be destroyed,
But he who fears the commandment will be rewarded."
Proverbs 13:13

During our Senate District convention Saturday, we heard from representatives of both Ted Cruz's and Chip Roy's campaign: We don't remember what either actually said, but the phrase "repeal Obamacare" or "fully repeal Obamacare" came up at least six times.

Unfortunately, that ship's sailed.

The Republicans had their opportunity to "repeal Obamacare."  They blew it.  At this point, anyone still prattling on about "repealing Obamacare" sounds like the worst kind of politician peddling the worst type of empty rhetoric.

Imagine, instead, a world where Ted Cruz and Chip Roy were attacking high health care costs at their root.  Imagine a world where you could say to your apolitical friends and neighbors "Ted Cruz and Chip Roy's health care proposal can lower your family/businesses health care costs by 80%!!!"  That's a world where the general public will pay attention.  Unfortunately, that's not a world Ted Cruz and Chip Roy are currently working to create.

Obviously, Obamacare sucks.  But the pre-2009 U.S. health care system left plenty to be desired.  It was still bureacratic.  It was still costly.  It still put up regulatory hurdles between consumers and providers.  While the system was less dysfunctional than it was today, it was still dysfunctional.  Imagine, instead, a world where the alleged "leading lights" of the conservative movement were proposing a FUNCTIONAL health care system.

The root causes of high health care costs are simple.  Tax preferences for 'employer-based' coverage, entitlement programs like Medicare, and various coverage mandates distort price signals.  Distorted price signals mean health care resources are allocated for political reasons, rather than consumer demand.  Within this framework, there are any number of approaches that could be taken...but the point is that all of them go far beyond "Repealing Obamacare."

Bottom Line: If you keep offering the same stale rhetoric, you shouldn't be surprised when people stop listening.  If those currently offering stale rhetoric would instead offer a plan to fix the problem in question, the public would be far more receptive.  That so-called "leading lights" of the conservative movement fail to see this reality is an unfortunate missed opportunity.

President Mitt: The Long Haul

I want to touch on an aspect of Mitt that many have missed: over time, I think President's Mitt's administration will be more open to conservative influence than any administration in recent memory.

As I said when I endorsed him, I only have two expectations for President Mitt: sign the legislation a conservative Congress sends him and be a better Commander-in-Chief.  Any other domestic policy leadership Mitt shows is a bonus.  I also think that, given his business background, Mitt might produce many Tea Party friendly outcomes for different reasons than tea partiers might name.

That's fine.

Big picture items will dominate President Mitt's first year: Economic Recovery, Entitlements, Cleaning up the mess abroad, Vladimir Putin, and Repealing Obamacare.  I'm not sure anything Congress and President Mitt produce that first year will set hearts afire, but it'll be good enough.  The 60 to 70 percent of what we want that we'll get under President Mitt is a lot better than the zero percent we'll get in an Obama second term.

Once we get into year two and three of President Mitt's administration, however, I think we could see policy take a major Tea Party shift.  The silver lining of the late Bush/Obama spending spree is that it woke up the conservative grassroots.  The conservative grassroots is more engaged than we've been in a long time.  We've learned that it's not enough to elect our candidates, we have to influence the policy-making process as well.  We're not going anywhere.

The tea party is going to grow more mature and sophisticated over the next five years.  As Sen. Mike Lee pointed out at FreePAC Dallas, it took 14 years to get from the Boston Tea Party to the Constitution.  Tea Partiers understand this is a long term fight, and we're in it to stay.

President Mitt's first year will be (a lot) better than the alternative.  It might not be great, but it'll be good enough.  From year two onward, however, a maturing Tea Party could exert tremendous influence over his administration.

Official Endorsement: Mitt Romney for President

I haven't kept secret my intention to vote for Mitt Romney; I'm officially endorsing him because there are several issues on which Mitt Romney is better than recent Republicans.

First things first, it's important to understand that Mitt will only have two responsibilities as President: sign the legislation a conservative Congress sends him, and be a better Commander-in-Chief; any other leadership President Mitt shows will be pure bonus.

I've discussed National Security, and the continuous orgy of treason that is Barack Obama's administration, at length recently.  I don't want to re-hash ground I've previously covered.  Suffice to say, I like what I've heard from Mitt so far on this topic.  While I'm not (yet) sure that Mitt understands the threat from Islamic Cultural Subversion, I trust Mitt's instincts and ability to learn over time.  Trust me, I'll be watching.

On several other issues, however, Mitt has taken positions that are substantially better than anything proposed by recent Republican candidates or Presidents.  Consider the following:

• Energy -- This was one of Mitt's strongest areas last night.  In addition to supporting the Keystone Pipeline and expanded development in Alaska, Mitt wants to return permitting authority to the States. This is a huge shift from Dubya who, at best, reigned in a modest amount of Federal red tape.  In addition, despite the public perception of Dubya as an Oilman, he was actually a big green energy proponent.  Mitt, by contrast, has indicated a willingness to reign in these corrupt boondoggles.

• Entitlements -- Mitt put Paul Ryan on the ticket; need I say more?!?  Paul Ryan's proposal doesn't go far enough, but it's a huge shift in the right direction.  Paul Ryan's proposal will prevent a sovereign debt crisis; for now, that's good enough.

• Sound Money -- Mitt's view's on the Federal Reserve were the hidden bombshell of that (otherwise boring) 47% video.  Given those remarks, his support for auditing the Fed, and his pledge to not re-appoint Ben Bernanke, Mitt clearly intends to reign in the worst abuses.  I suspect, however, that Mitt is open to deeper structural reforms.  Paul Ryan has also been very critical of Bernanke.

• Spending -- Mitt Romney has released the most detailed plan to cut Federal Spending since Ronald Reagan, if not Calvin Coolidge.  Much like his endorsement of Paul Ryan's budget before putting him on the ticket, Mitt's proposal shows his understanding that spending reduction is a key component of economic revival.  Again, Mitt's proposal might not go far enough, but it's a major step in the right direction.

• Tenth Amendment -- Last night, Mitt discussed the role of states as 'laboratories of democracy."  Mitt has endorsed block granting Medicaid to the states.  Romneycare, for all its flaws, is a policy Mitt defends on Tenth Amendment grounds.  As discussed above, Mitt's energy policy is based on empowering states.  Who knows, maybe Mitt will even champion Uproot and Overhaul.

I harbor no illusions about Mitt Romney.  I don't think his election will be some magic elixir.  I think the real action is, and will remain, in Congress.  I do, however, think Mitt will sign the legislation a conservative Congress sends him, and I think he will be a much better Commander-in-Chief.  In addition, several of Mitt's policy proposals are dramatically superior to anything we've seen in at least 30 (if not 90) years.  For those reasons, Cahnman's Musings unapologetically and unconditionally endorses Mitt Romney for President of the United States.

A Republican Party in Transition

I want you to think back to Wednesday, November 5, 2008; the day after Barack Obama's election.

Today, the Republican VP nominee is publicly identified with entitlement reform.  Audit the Fed is part of the party platform.  The Republican Party's central economic message is opportunity via entrepreneurship.

If I had offered you this situation in November 2008, would you have taken it?!?  Heck, if I had offered you a Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan ticket in November 2008, would you have taken that?!?  I certainly would.

This convention, and the entire campaign, is taking place at a weird moment in the history of the Republican Party.  The Tea Party has created a new political reality, but the institutional Republican party has yet to fully adjust.  While the Republican Party isn't maximizing this opportunity, it's light years ahead of where it was in 2008; that's good enough.

The institutional Republican party, even now, doesn't understand Barack Obama.  They don't understand the Fabian Socialists.  They don't understand the Frankfurt School.  They don't understand Saul Alinsky.  They don't understand Frank Marshall Davis.  They don't understand the long term objectives of the Weather Underground.  They don't understand third-world anti-Colonial thinking.  That's unfortunate, because if the institutional Republican party understood the a fore mentioned aspects of twentieth century progressivism, they could illustrate how the economic, geopolitical, and moral devastation Barack Obama has wrought has been deliberate.

That being said, consider how far we've come.  If the Republicans win, we'll get meaningful entitlement reform, tax reform, and constraints on the Federal Reserve.  This will alter the trajectory of federal spending, grow our economy, and prevent our central bank from printing money willy-nilly.  Four years ago, a Republican President "abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system."  We've already come VERY far; heading into November, it's good enough.

In his speech at FreePAC last month, Sen. Mike Lee pointed out that it took fifteen years to get from the Boston Tea Party to ratification of the Constitution.  This is a long-term fight.  It will continue past this convention, and past this election.  We still have A LOT of work ahead, but compared to November 2008, we've already covered A LOT of ground.

How Entitlement Reform will Promote Economic Growth

Last night on CNBC, Larry Kudlow called entitlement reform a distraction from economic growth; I can't find the transcript, but this tweet Kudlow sent out yesterday captures the same message:

Message to #Romney/Ryan: Don't lose the growth message.  Econ is still #1 issue.  #tcot

If Larry Kudlow believes entitlement reform is a distraction from economic growth and productive employment, then he's lost his marbles.  I can explain.

A long time ago, economists identified a phenomenon called crowding out.  Crowding out is a fancy-pants, highfalutin' term that means when Washington D.C. spends us into oblivion, there's less money left for businesses and consumers to consume and invest as they see fit.  Given that Business Investment is the primary driver of economic growth, any action that restrains Washington D.C.'s ability to crowd out business investment promotes economic growth and productive employment.

Medicare is the largest component of the Federal Budget.  It's also the fastest growing.  Left unchecked, Medicare will consume the U.S. economy.  Thus, getting Medicare on a sustainable less suicidal path is essential if we want to restrain Washington D.C.'s ability to spend us into oblivion crowd out business investment.  As Glenn Beck explains in the 2010 best-seller Broke:

As any budget expert will tell you, no honest discussion about getting the country back on a sustainable track can happen without talking about mandatory spending, of which entitlement programs are the most common form....In 2010, autopilot programs...will eat up 56 percent of our federal budget, and that does not include the interest that we pay on the money we pay on the money we have to borrow to meet those commitments (146-7)

Of course, being a blue-blooded, Wall Street, Republican Establishment type, Larry Kudlow would NEEEEEVER listen to Glenn Beck; thus, I will quote another eloquent and erudite economic analyst:

Harking back to the Founders' principles of constitutional limits to government is a very powerful message.  It's a message of freedom, especially economic freedom.  The tea partiers have delivered an extremely accurate diagnosis of what ails America right now: Government is growing too fast, too much, too expensively, and in too many places -- and in the process it is crowding out our cherished economic freedom.

That quote was from Larry Kudlow in April 2010.

Bottom Line: If you believe restoring free-market capitalism is the best path to prosperity, then putting Medicare on a less suicidal trajectory is critical to free up business investment.

Back to you Larry Kudlow.

Update: It might have been better to say that increased productivity is the primary driver of economic growth, and that business investment is the primary driver of increased productivity.

Medicare 2012: Freedom vs. Death Panels

Let's talk Medicare.  With Paul Ryan on the ticket, it's going to be a major topic.  That's fine with me.

Medicare is Broke.  It's not going broke, IT'S ALREADY THERE!!!  Medicare, as it's been understood for 50 years, isn't an option.  Left unchanged, Medicare will eventually consume our economy.  The relevant question is not whether Medicare will change, but how it will change.

In 2010, Barack Obama signed massive changes to Medicare into law as part of his health care law.  That legislation contained $700 billion in cuts to Medicare THAT ARE NOW WRITTEN INTO LAW.  To oversee these cuts, Obama's Health Care Law creates a new entity, called the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).  According to the New England Journal of Medicine:

Provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (now being referred to as the Affordable Care Act, or ACA) create an Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) to meet the need to oversee health care system costs.1 The legislation establishes specific target growth rates for Medicare and charges the IPAB with ensuring that Medicare expenditures stay within these limits. The IPAB must also make recommendations to Congress as to how to control health care costs more generally.

 Translated into English, this means 15 unelected bureaucrats will ration health care from Washington D.C. without accountability to Congress or the American People.  For the record, IPAB was what Sarah Palin was talking about when she referred to 'death panels.'  That's Obama's vision.

Patient centered Medicare reform, by contrast, puts individual Americans in charge of their own Health Care.  Instead of an unaccountable Medicare Politburo making decisions for the entire country, Washington D.C. would send the money directly to individuals.  This would leave individuals free to purchase Health Care services in whatever manner they see fit.  Over time, as traditional price signals return to the Health Care services market, costs will come down.  Paul Ryan's budget proposal is one example of patient centered Medicare reform.

Medicare, as it was understood for 50 years, went away with Obama's health care law.  It's not coming back, because WE CAN'T AFFORD IT.  The relevant question now is what will replace it.  We can either follow Obama's vision of unaccountable bureaucrats rationing care or we can pursue patient centered reforms along the lines of Paul Ryan's proposal.  On way or the other, however, we must choose, because we can't afford the old status quo.

May Day 2012: How to REALLY Return Power to the People

With Occupy taking back off, we're going to hear a lot about 'power to the people' over the next few months.  While the phrase 'power to the people' has been hijacked by Marxists, when properly understood the phrase is a call to federalism and local control.

In 2012 and 2013, Americans need to demand Washington D.C. return power to the states, that the states return power to local government, and that local governments and school boards use honest accounting.

From a [Texas-centric] policy perspective, this calls for Uproot and Overhaul at the Federal Level, the Texas Budget Compact at the State Level, and Texas Comptroller Susan Combs local government transparency proposals.

Keeping money and power close to the people keeps the dollar amounts smaller and requires fewer citizens to expose corruption.  It's easier to go to your local city council or school board meeting than it is to visit Austin or Washington D.C.  You only need one to two committed citizens to monitor a school board or local government.

We need to keep government spending as close to the people as possible, instead of laundering it through Washington D.C. and Austin and receiving a smaller amount back with strings attached.  Money laundering between various levels of government creates the conditions in which financial shenanigans flourish.  Large sums of money, laundered through various levels of government, also removes accountability from those who want to push radicalism on unsuspecting youngsters.  It's easier for Marxists to consolidate power at higher levels than across thousands of local jurisdictions; which is why the progressives set things up this way in the first place.

Federalism and local control have to become MAJOR issues against which we judge candidates, especially in primaries.  It's crucial to hold power as accountable to the people as possible.  Sending power as far down the chain of command denotes humility.  Any time you face a seemingly insurmountable problem, step one is ALWAYS to break that problem down into manageable chunks.  Uproot and Overhaul, and the Texas Budget compact are essential early steps....

POTUS 2012: Data vs. Critical Theory

There's an aspect of Mitt Romney's background about which I'd forgotten; if I'd have remembered it earlier, I'd have opposed his nomination far less strenuously.  A massive opportunity exists for Mitt Romney if he can use the same skill set with Barack Obama that he used with new hires twenty years ago.

Mitt Romney's background, prior to becoming Governor of Massachusetts, was turning around failing companies and organizations.  When Mitt Romney ran for President in 2008, I read Hugh Hewitt's A Mormon in the White House.  Hewitt's second chapter, titled "Bain Washed" not "Brain Washed" details Romney's business career.  As Romney told Hewitt, his approach to solving tough problems was to:

"let people sit at the table and let them bring in different viewpoints and arguments and then support them with reviewable data that could be confirmed." (58-59)

 In contrast with Mitt Romney's data based background, Barack Obama is steeped in something called critical theory.  While critical theory is often presented as something high-falutin', at its core it's nihilstic bullcrap.  Critical theory is the tactic the left has used on numerous topics these past five years: like George W. Bush and Iraq, Health Care and the Tea Party, and the Debt Ceiling.

The short version of critical theory is that its practitioners relentlessly criticize their opponents without presenting an alternative.  Critical theory is against everything and for nothing.  The purpose of critical theory is to demoralize your opposition while disguising your intentions.  This video, from PJTV, outlines the history of critical theory:

Mitt Romney's background with data makes him uniquely suited to confront critical theory.  The weakness of critical theory comes when you demand your opponent present their alternative, backed up with data.  Romney told Hewitt his approach was:

"the approach of gathering people who represent different viewpoints and then insisting they argue but with data and analysis allows people to reach consensus and points out where self-interest is driving a particular argument rather than mutual interest." (58) Emphasis Mine

 Hewitt summarizes Romney's approach by saying that "[T]he 'Bain way' presumes a common interest in success. (58)"  It's also a unique tool to highlight Barack Obama's refusal to argue in good faith AND the media's corrupt complicity.  Consider the following examples:

• Does a corrupt trillion dollar 'stimulus' that was written years earlier, and has failed to meet its own standards, represent national or parochial interests?!?
• Does shredding 1000 years of bankruptcy law to give the Auto Companies to the Unions while lying about their performance represent national or parochial interests?!?
• Does Obama's corrupt Health Care Law represent national or parochial interests?!?
• Does special interest banking legislation that fails to address the underlying causes of the housing crisis represent national or parochial interests?!?
• Does abandoning national interests in Iraq while simultaneously launching a treasonous war in Libya without Congressional authorization and helping the Muslim Brotherhood takeover of the region represent national or parochial interests?!?
• Does creations a national clusterf**k in Afghanistan while classlessly taking credit for the actions of the Navy Seals in the bin Laden raid represent national or parochial interests?!?
• Does ignoring a growing alliance between Gog and Persia Russia and Iran, while forcing Israel to indefensible borders, represent national or parochial interests?!? :)

(Author's note: And I didn't even mention the border)

If Mitt Romney can force Barack Obama, and his buddies in the media, to argue with data instead of critical theory, Romney will win BIG.  The basic math is so obvious a fourth grader can understand it if it's presented with data.  Barack Obama cannot discuss his plans with data because, if he did, he's be lucky to win 30%.  Many Americans instinctively understand how terrible Barack Obama has been; if Mitt Romney can educate them about the facts while demanding that Obama and the Media argue with data, the contrast will speak for itself.

Why Barack Obama Wants Chaos

Barack Obama and the Hard Left are laying a trap for the next President.  Unless the Republican nominee recognizes and prepares for this trap, he risks walking right into it when he assumes office next January.  Barack Obama and the Hard Left are currently sowing chaos that they hope will overwhelm the first year of the next administration in order to entrench the "Fundamental Transformation" he's already got written.

To prepare for this trap, the next President must understand Barack Obama's real agenda.  Barack Obama's actions over the last year reveal a man clearly uninterested in re-election.  For example, Catholics are swing voters in traditional swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida; why would any politician interested in winning an election in those states issue a mandate that offends the deepest moral beliefs of The Catholic Church?!?  Clearly, a politician interested in those states would NEVER take such an action.  Thus, one must conclude Barack Obama is uninterested in re-election.  What, then, is Barack Obama's real agenda?!?

Barack Obama's primary agenda, at this point, is to ensure the legislative changes he has already accomplished go fully into effect.  To secure his fundamental transformation of America, Barack Obama and the Hard Left will sow chaos throughout the United States and the World in 2012.  Expect that chaos to spillover into 2013/14 and the first year of the new administration, regardless of the new President's identity.  Barack Obama and the Hard Left understand that, in American politics, major changes in policy occur almost exclusively in the first year of new Presidential administrations.  Thus, Barack Obama and the Hard Left understand that if the new President spends 2013 reacting to National and Global Chaos, this window for major policy changes can pass without unwinding Obama's previous legislative victories.

Barack Obama's allies in the #Occupy movement have clearly stated their intention to "Recreate [the chaos of 19]68" in 2012.  To understand why recreating 1968 benefits the hard left, one needs to properly understand the events of 1969.  In 1969, Richard Nixon assumed the Presidency following the Biggest Expansion of Government (prior to Obama) in American History.  Nixon's inauguration was followed shortly thereafter by Leftist Campus Takeovers, the Emergence of the Weathermen, Homosexual Attacks on the NYPD, the Manson Murders, and the Marxist-inspired 'Days of Rage.'  Against this backdrop, and a continuing War in Vietnam, conservative efforts to unwind Medicare and the War on Poverty floundered.  From the perspective of the Hard Left, which seeks to expand government and does not particularly care who holds elected office at any given time, 1969 (and Richard Nixon's entire Presidency) was an unqualified victory.

At CPAC 2011, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels said the left "need only play good defense.  The federal spending commitments now in place will bring about the leviathan state they have always sought.   The health care travesty now on the books will engulf private markets and produce a single-payer system or its equivalent, and it won?t take long to happen."  Conservatives MUST remember this fact as we move forward into 2012 and beyond.  Between Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and Automatic Defense Cuts, Barack Obama's fundamental transformation of America is already law.  During the coming chaos, whether it's in the form of #Occupy Related Violence, Drug Cartel Violence, a shooting war in the Middle East or any other source, the Federal Bureaucracy will continue business as usual.  Under current law, business as usual will entrench Barack Obama's fundamental transformation.  That's one of the reasons we should expect the coming chaos to continue (at least) into 2014 which is, NOT coincidentally, the year Obamacare goes into full effect.

Fortunately, the coming chaos is a surmountable challenge.  The key, for conservatives, is to recognize the coming chaos for what it really is and act accordingly.  That means electing to Congress committed conservatives who will enact conservative legislation NO MATTER WHAT ELSE IS HAPPENING IN THE WORLD.

The coming chaos is deliberate, and Barack Obama and the Hard Left are behind it.  Their goal is to distract and confuse the new administration in 2013 the same way the hard left did to Richard Nixon in 1969.  Forewarned is forearmed and, as long as a conservative Congress is willing to move forward no matter what, they will fail....