It's the numbers, stupid

Have you ever been in a bad car accident? I have. About 12 years ago, my son and I were in Winona, Minnesota at a father-son hockey camp and one day as we drove from the rink, we went through an intersection with no stop lights or stop signs. I failed to see a car with two teenagers barreling toward us. The car broadsided our Jeep and spun us around. The impact was so hard, it lifted two wheels off the ground. Fortunately, we were both strapped in as were the drivers of the other car. No one was badly hurt.

But the trauma of the accident stayed with us. I was sore for a week afterword and I felt emotionally raw from the experience. My eight year old son experienced a form of post-traumatic stress disorder. It was a jarring experience even though neither of us was permanently injured.

That’s about how I feel about the passage of Obamacare. It shook me up to witness the federal government hijack one sixth of our economy, especially coming on the heels of the government’s intrusion into the banking system, the automakers, and appointing a “pay czar” to determine executive compensation. But I’ve let the intellectual violence to my psyche subside so that I can give a fair assessment of Obamacare in a coolly analytical way by looking at the numbers.

Obamacare fails both on a macro and a micro level and the micro and macro effects will interact with each other over the long haul.

On the macro level, the Democrats trotted out the CBO estimates at the last minute to try to demonstrate that the bill reduces the deficit. Upon closer scrutiny, though, the bill will ADD $562 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years according to Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the CBO office in his NY Times Op-Ed piece of March 21, 2010, The Real Arithmetic of Health Care Reform. I won’t go into the detail here, but suffice it to say that the Democrats used accounting gimmickry that would make the guys at Enron blush. Every major poll shows that the American people aren’t fooled either. By large majorities, they believe that this program will add to our already unmanageable deficit. They know reflexively that you can’t add a huge entitlement program and not have budgetary ill effects. My liberal friends are quick to attempt to use a moral argument about why this bill should have been passed. But what about the morality of stealing from our nation’s children and grandchildren and saddling them with $20 trillion in debt and its consequences? How moral is it to saddle them with paying for our current consumption, condemning them to a lower standard of living, fewer opportunities and virtual enslavement to the foreigners that buy our public debt securities?

The bill is even worse on micro level. The Obama crowd appears to be willing to ignore the effects of this program on individual doctors (or, more cynically, as I believe is creating just the effects that it desires.

Dr. Nathan Schatzman in a recent interview on Bloomberg pointed out that a family practitioner at normal overhead rates that has 60% Medicare patient load will see average pay cut from $160,000 a year to $95,000 a year. To maintain current income levels, this doctor will need to work 35% more hours. So under Obamacare, the family practitioner that worked like a dog to get into medical school, pay off his or her student loans, and who works 90 hours a week will now make about the same as a UAW worker at government-run GM. And, unlike the UAW worker, a doctor always runs the risk of being sued and having his or her assets and livelihood exposed.

This is EXACTLY the results that the Obama White House has been attempting to engineer. He wants professionals and the working class to have the same lifestyle. That is the operative ideology of this administration.

What will the longer term results of this plan be? We don’t know for sure how incentives will be distorted until this is implemented. Fundamental economics tells us that there are only limited ways to allocate scarce resources: pricing, queuing, lottery--- and under the Chicago Way, the use of clout. Fundamental economics also tells us that the cost curve doesn’t bend down when demand goes up (more people have access to health care) and supply goes down (doctors leave the system). It’s the reverse.

We don’t know exactly how this will play out, but we can see a sneak preview in two places—Massachusetts and Illinois. In Massachusetts, which has a system similar to Obamacare, costs have gone up, wait times have significantly increased, and emergency room visits have increased.

Most perniciously, we can look to Illinois for a hint as to how health care will likely be administered over the long run. Both the University of Illinois and the Chicago Public School system have been plagued by scandals in the admissions process. In both places, getting a letter or a phone call from Michael Madigan, Rod Blagojevich or other Democratic political heavies puts you in a different place in the queue. The average kid has to get in line like everyone else, but if you have clout, you have a special place in line. That’s the Chicago Way. Pay attention, it’s coming to Washington to infect our health care system.

Oops They Did It Again

This is my 5th or 6th serious attempt at reconciling with the Catholic Church. I was raised Catholic and attended a strict Lithuanian Catholic grade school in one of the ethnic neighborhoods in Chicago. Back then, if you wanted to get ahead in life, there were really two people that you had to curry favor with: the parish Monsignor and the local Democratic ward committeeman. One could get you a good city job someday; the other could help save your soul. That power and authority led them to act with a fair amount of imperiousness that has colored my view to this day. My natural skepticism about imperious authority led me to drift from the Church immediately upon entering high school, and drove me out of the Democratic Party.

While I have given up on rejoining the Democratic Party, I have made a number of good faith attempts to rejoin the Church over the years. Each time, however, the Church would do something to drive me back out. Once, it was the Pope imploring people in Latin America not to use birth control (like it was fine for a Mexican family to have a 10th child it cannot feed). Another time, it was when the Vatican met with that lying little minion of Saddam Hussein, Tariq Aziz. Yet another was when Cardinal Law bunkered himself in the basement in the face of the sex abuse scandals in the Boston Archdiocese, only to get “promoted” to a new job in Rome. My libertarian views are generally at odds with Church doctrine. I do not believe in the primacy of the Pope (all men are fallible; all knowledge is subject to scrutiny and revision). I do not believe that only Catholics or Christians can get into heaven. Women should be equal participants in the Church and should become priests and even Pope if she were to be so qualified. Priests should be able to marry- CEO’s and heads of state are able to devote their full time energies to their jobs while sustaining marriages, and I don’t see why priests can’t. I am also at odds with many of the Church’s views on sexual and reproductive morality. I am pro-choice. The ban on birth control puzzles me, and, indeed is in direct conflict with other important social goals—eliminating poverty and maintaining public health. Finally, the Church’s position on homosexuality is inconsistent with my beliefs. I do not believe that God cares very much who one chooses to share a life with as long as it is loving and respectful.

Recently, the Catholic Church has attempted to lure fallen members like me back into the fold with its “Catholics Come Home” campaign. It was timely as I have begun to think more seriously about it and I answered the call despite my stark differences with important Church positions. I started attending Mass regularly and even decided to observe Lent this year (so far I’ve made it through with no lattes and no alcohol).

In my mind, Catholicism has five major components to it. The first is the theology and doctrinal beliefs—that God exists, that Jesus was the son of God and all that. The second is a value system of behavior, providing guidance on how we ought to behave with one another. The third is community—being around people with similar values. Fourth, there is ritual and all the little rules and regulations like fasting, not eating meat on Fridays, etc. that we are supposed to comply with. And finally, there is acceptance of the primacy of the Pope.

It is the value system and community that most interests me. The theological aspects are also things I wrestle with. And there is something about ritual that I also believe is primal in us, and there is something comforting about the rhythm of the Church calendar and the ritual of Mass. The primacy of the Pope is something I utterly reject, however, and I will likely never be able to become a full participant in the Catholic Church. I am a believer in democracy and equality and that necessarily implies a belief that all men and women are fallible. I will never give deference or accept as final authority any human being that has arrived at his position through nondemocratic means and is unchecked by other authorities. Sorry. No can do.

I also struggle with a God that would permit the Holocaust to have occurred. My batting average with prayers being answered is also rather low. I reject the New Testament’s emphasis on poverty and have a hard time reconciling my admiration for human achievement and goodness in the creation of prosperity and human progress that comes with it. Jesus appeared to have more concern with the poor and underclass than with the people of talent and leadership that can actually relieve human suffering.

Despite my struggles and misgivings, I began to wrestle with it in a more serious way and resolved to try to overcome them. As if on cue, the sex abuse scandals in Europe re-ignited and even threaten to connect to the Pontiff himself. And today, the Pope released his pastoral letter on the subject. I read the full text and was filled with anger. The Church still doesn’t get it. In a communication like this, to read the words, “mistakes were made” makes my blood boil. He does not acknowledge that this is a worldwide problem and has cropped up in the U.S., Latin America, Europe and elsewhere. He talks about concrete initiatives to address the situation, but the most dramatic is to ask the Church faithful to pray for a year. Huh? Particularly disturbing is the sentence that reads, “Through intense prayer before the real presence of the Lord, you can make reparation for the sins of abuse that have done so much harm, at the same time imploring the grace of renewed strength and a deeper sense of mission on the part of all bishops, priests, religious and lay faithful.” YOU should make reparation? Wow. He really doesn't get it.

Will I stay in the Church? I want to keep trying but I honestly don’t know. The leaders in the Catholic Church and the leaders of the Democratic Party have a great deal in common. They are utterly disconnected from ordinary people and they have very twisted and perverse notions of victimhood. Somehow William F. Buckley had an easier time reconciling his belief system with the Catholic Church than I do.

The Wilting West

Freedom remains under assault. In the past few weeks, President Obama has had his health care summit, which turned out surprisingly well for the Republicans. Obama was unable to paint them in a corner as “the Party of No.” Lamar Alexander provided a well-reasoned and statesmanlike rebuttal and Congressman Paul Ryan exposed the bill’s untenable financing, demonstrating that Obama’s assertions that it will not add one dime to the deficit is patently untrue. Undeterred by poll numbers that show that Americans overwhelmingly do not want this bill, Obama and the Democrats will try to ram it through using reconciliation. Obama clearly wants to cover the uninsured at any cost, and we will end up paying those costs if he is successful. While the election of Scott Brown was clearly helpful, the probability of passing this attempt to take over 17% of our economy are still in the 40-45% range, I believe.
But another little reported assault on freedom is going on in the West. Geert Wilders, a Dutch legislator, is being tried in the Netherlands for criticizing Islam. Wilders did a provocative short film entitled “Fitna” (http://www.themoviefitna.com/). The film asserts that Islam contains elements which are inherently aggressive and violent and that is what we are seeing played out in Europe and around the world. Last year, Wilders was denied entry into Great Britain because of his stance.
I recommend that you watch the movie (caution: it contains explicit violence) and decide for yourself. I believe that Wilders overstates his case, but that it is entirely appropriate to ask the question. But that is not the real issue here. The real issue is freedom of speech. Two years ago, several newspapers and bookstores (including Borders) refused to carry the pictures of the political cartoon that depicted Muhammed with a bomb in his turban. We in the West took the cowardly and disgusting step of voluntarily self-censoring. Now the Netherlands is taking it a step further and actually putting one of their parliamentarians on trial for blasphemy. Even if you believe that Wilders is an extreme wingnut, we in the West typically don't prosecute you for being a kook. If that were the case, Dennis Kucinich, Glenn Beck, Rev. Wright, Tom Cruise and about half the czars that inhabit this administration would be sweating.
How are these two items related? In the U.S. we proposing, for the first time in our history, criminalizing the failure to purchase a good or service (health care). In the Netherlands, the Dutch are criminalizing blasphemy. These two developments are an overt assault on our economic freedom and free speech and must be resisted.

Priorities, Priorities

Now that health care reform has been deferred for a bit and the State of the Union address has been given, the Obama Administration can get to work on some vital issues perplexing our nation. There is one issue that President Obama has decided that stands out which demands immediate and concrete actions. Clearly coordinated interrogation procedures for apprehended terrorists? More comprehensive and internationally coordinated financial institution reform? Coordinated international response to the Iranian nuclear threat following the December 31, 2009 deadline? K-12 education reform? Well, actually, no. But there is one issue that is of vital national importance that the Justice Department is really focused on—the NCAA football championship system. Yes, the Obama Justice Department has decided to invest limited time and resources into investigating whether the NCAA is violating anti-trust rules by the way it has set up its Bowl Championship Series (BCS). Obama was particularly annoyed because this year, Boise State and TCU were undefeated and did not have an opportunity to compete for the championship.
Assistant Attorney General Ronald Welch says the issue “raises important questions affecting millions of fans, colleges and universities, players and other interested parties. Importantly and in addition, the Administration also is exploring other options that might be available to address concerns with the college football post-season.” [Actual true quote] President Obama is said to favor an eight game playoff format.
Fortunately, we at Common Sense have been able to get behind the scenes and get a sneak peak at the Obama Administration’s plans for college football and we were given unique access to some to the key players and decision makers. While still evolving, we were able to garner a look at what college football might look like in the future and were told what some of the key elements of the new structure might be.
White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs indicated that the overall structure will contain elements of some of the best ideas that have been developed since coming into office, and said that “we plan to approach the crisis in NCAA football in a manner that is consistent with the basic philosophy of this Administration. The President believes that workable ideas developed in other areas and departments are readily translatable into this realm. We will borrower the best ideas from the Defense Department, the Treasury, and so forth and will use concepts developed in tried and true legislation, like the Community Reinvestment Act to promote the notions of fairness, justice and equity in this arena that is so important to so many.”

Here are just some of the ideas being floated in Washington to address the NCAA BCS crisis:

· 7% Excise Tax on big school revenues of ranked teams. This is an obvious and easy step for the Obama Administration. Big football schools like Ohio State, Michigan and USC earn big dollars from gate receipts, broadcasting, and paraphernalia. “We think everyone will be better off if we spread it around,” President Obama asserted. Smaller schools like Akron, Illinois State and Montana would have access to this pool of funds to upgrade their programs so that they may eventually be able to compete with national powerhouses. Another measure being considered is a “public option” for small private colleges whose fundraising efforts have fallen short to enable them to tap into tax dollars to enhance their programs.

· 75% surcharge on the amount of coaches salaries that exceed the average faculty salary. “What’s good for the fat cat bankers is good for the fat cat coaches,” Eric Holder said. President Obama took it a step further and said, “There is something wrong with a system in which a guy with a clipboard and a whistle makes forty times as much as a classics scholar and we mean to address that imbalance.”

· Required recruitment of women and gays. A Justice Department spokesperson said, “College football for too long has blatantly excluded certain categories of people. It has an unjustified view of itself as being a “manly” sport and while we cannot dictate who colleges actually offer scholarships to, we can ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity.” Therefore, colleges will be required to set aside time and money for the recruitment of women and gays and document those efforts. “Our experience with CRA has shown that this small administrative burden placed on schools will ensure open access to all,” said Barney Frank, “We can no longer tolerate an oppressive system that excludes individuals by gender or sexual orientation.” While no actual quotas will be imposed at this time, schools will need to demonstrate actual efforts at gender and sexual orientation diversity.

· Eliminate “spread” offense (a open, passing oriented offense) for schools with 4 or more wide receivers with 4.4 speed or better. “It is simply patently unfair for schools with superior speed to use the spread offense to dominate slower schools,” President Obama said, “It is offensive to basic notions of justice. Look, speed is really primarily a function of the proportion of fast twitch muscle fibers an athlete has. Why should we permit a system to exist that allows the use of an accident of birth to dominate others?”

· Each and every penalty will be subject to video review. “There have been just too many cases over the years in which players have been unfairly punished without an adequate review process,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. Holder is said to also be considering requiring each team to retain its own defense counsel, who will also have access to the video review booth and will be empowered to discuss the matter with the head referee. One anonymous player opined, “I’ve been stigmatized by so many incorrect “illegal use of hands” calls that girls won’t even go out with me anymore.” Holder added, “The right of appeal is fundamental in our society. We give terrorists Miranda warnings and defense counsel. Our young men on the field should be entitled to nothing less.”

· Allow players to unionize and bargain. Nancy Pelosi is said to be supportive of this notion. “Look, these kids are, in fact paid athletes. There is no reason they shouldn’t have the same benefits as other union workers.” Eric Holder chimed in, “I would go even further. These young men are required to work for hours in the hot sun in August. Coaches are constantly yelling at them, berating them and asking them to do things that may be beyond their capabilities. It is certainly reasonable to think that they should have a voice in their activities. These union rules could include such things as mandatory breaks and work rules. For instance they would only be required to block a certain number of times per game and not be required to switch positions. Union rules might require that offensive linemen run with the ball or even catch one occasionally instead of toiling away in obscurity. The possibilities are endless.

· Rescue Plans and Bailouts. How this would work exactly is still subject to some debate but the model might be GM. If a team were to lose, say 5 or 6 games in a row, then the government would take over operations. “We wouldn’t want a losing streak to pull all of college football down,” Tim Geithner asserted, “These downward spirals can be difficult to control. Just look at what happened to Charlie Weis at Notre Dame. Notre Dame’s demise put strains on the economics of the entire system.” Treasury would be empowered to replace whole coaching staffs and players as necessary to shore up the system.

· And in a related move, President Obama named science advisor and proponent of legal rights for animals John Holdren as “mascot and logo czar” for the NCAA. Mr. Holdren will be convening a task force comprised largely of PETA and National Wildlife Foundation nominees to determine whether the sensitivities of animals have been offended by using team names such as “Cougars,” “Hawks,” and “Buffalos” (in addition to determining what a “Hokie” actually is) and to investigate whether these species actually may have trademark claims against the NCAA. “In addition to this new frontier, we still have cleanup work to do on the ethnic front,” Holdren said, “It is still outrageous that Irish Americans have to be confronted with that overtly offensive caricature of Notre Dame stereotyping them as pugilists. Most of my Irish American friends are peaceable lads, really, especially after a mug or two of ale,” he noted.

“The fact that Texas was in the BCS is the clearest indication of the neglect of the Bush Administration and the basic unfairness that the Republicans allowed to continue. Taken together, these proposals will ensure that NCAA football addresses some of the egregious inequities and prejudices that have been an unfortunate part of the system since its inception. We believe that these measures will ensure that the game of college football is open for all to enjoy and participate in and that the system is balanced,” President Obama stated, “We need to ensure that we have a fair and open system that is not just for and about the elite athletes and elite colleges and universities.”

Kudos to Ted

I received a couple of emails from liberal friends of mine complaining that my blog had gotten more radically conservative lately. I reminded them that Einstein taught us that motion was relative and that it was the Obama administration that had moved hard left. I have remained still in more or less the same spot I have always been. Although the State of the Union Address gave me plenty of ammunition, I will refrain from commenting on it with two exceptions. First, Obama’s public scolding of the Supreme Court was completely out of line and unpresidential. Second, I almost coughed up my wine when he mentioned transparency and eschewed lobbyists. I can only assume by that comment that he was completely disconnected from the health care bill’s progress over the past 90 days. Last week, Obama merely reaffirmed and activist big spending federal government, with only a token bone or two for the private sector. With liberals carping about my conservative radicalism, that’s all I will say on the State of the Union.

While all eyes were focused this week on Massachusetts and the State of the Union, however, another battle is being waged in California with some unlikely allies. David Boies and Ted Olson, who eight years ago argued on opposite sides of Bush v. Gore, an important case that changed history have today joined forces and are at the front lines of arguing against Proposition 8, which disallows gay marriage in California. Olson has solid Republican credentials, a Federalist Society member and, in addition to arguing for George W. Bush in 2000, was selected by Bush to succeed Alberto Gonzales as attorney general until fierce Democratic opposition force him to withdraw. Olson, I believe is on the side of liberty, and in this case, I am on Olson’s side. While I believe that the family is the fundamental unit of American society, I believe that families are more flexible than just the nuclear family. Individuals marry for a variety of reasons: love, companionship, procreation, and child rearing. As a practical matter, there are economic aspects to it as well. And yes, people still get married in America to preserve there immigration status. I see no reason that long term unions shouldn’t be formally recognized by our society. More and more, we are learning that homosexuality isn’t a “choice” or a “lifestyle”—people are what they are. Moreover, gays are better educated and earn more, on average, than heterosexuals. Our republic cannot be harmed by people that freely enter into long term stable relationships, and I see no real reason why children can’t be successfully reared in that environment. I see no harm in permitting gays to have their long term relationships recognized. There are also some practical reasons in taking a position advocating for gay marriage. First, through the “marriage penalty” the tax code currently favors gays and they should be subject to the same effective tax rates as heterosexuals. Second, my wife is a divorce attorney and it would open up a whole new market for her services. Finally, when I raised this issue with a friend of mine (and Obama supporter), he said, “Why shouldn’t they be free to be as miserable as the rest of us heteros?”

Tongue-in-cheek comments aside, I applaud Ted Olson’s moral courage on this issue. My father was a Chicago police officer who got on the force in the early 1960’s when African Americans were also first coming on to the force in large numbers. He often recounted his revulsion at the way in which black patrolmen were sometimes treated by some of their white colleagues. I do not see sexual orientation in a much different light. I believe it is entirely consistent with the tenets of liberty to permit gays to have their relationships recognized by our society and that it does no harm to fundamental family values. True lovers of liberty live and let live. The military currently is also undergoing its review of its “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Just as it is hard to believe that within my lifetime, there were separate drinking fountains for whites and “coloreds,” twenty five years from now, we will likewise be embarrassed that we did not accord gays full recognition of their relationships under the law and full opportunity to serve our country openly.

Great Job Brownie!

A second earthquake hit in the Western hemisphere this week. Scott Brown defeated Martha Coakley in the special election held to fill Ted Kennedy’s old seat in Massachusetts, denying the Democrats a filibuster proof Senate and throwing the drive for Obama’s centerpiece project –health care reform—into disarray. Obama apparently remains in denial and has simply asserted that he has lost touch with the American people because he focused too much on policymaking and not enough on communicating directly with the American people. Actually, it is the policies. He communicated directly to the American people on health care reform, and the more he spoke the less they liked it. The Democrats are also blaming Coakley for running a poor campaign. Again, they are misreading the smoke signals. This race had nothing to do with Coakley. It had a lot to do with halting the biggest expansion of government in a couple of generations and importation Chicago style politics to Washington. After New Jersey, Virginian, the failed attempt to get the Olympics to Chicago and the debacle in Copenhagen, and now the loss of Kennedy’s old seat, if O doesn’t take a good hard look in the mirror, he’ll be in real trouble in November. The Democrats have explanations and rationalizations—the town hall tea parties are a bunch of kooks, a bad campaign by Coakley, not enough communication by Obama. But these excuses hide a harder truth. The American people aren’t buying what you’re selling. This massive attempt to turn us into a European semi-socialist state is running into stiff headwinds. It’s not where we want to go.

Early last year, I wrote that I was strangely nostalgic for the Clinton years. That’s because Clinton really did listen. When he lost the midterms in ’94, he adjusted course and became a better president for it. In contrast, Obama thus far seems tone deaf.

A successful leader must listen to his constituents. Obama’s voters gave him the office and gave him an agenda—job growth and ending the war in Iraq. And Obama has said, “I don’t care what your agenda is, America. I have mine.”

Until he adjusts his priorities to the country’s, his administration will continue to be punished at the polls.

Real Hope and Real Audacity

Although young people turned out in droves to support Barack Obama last fall, there is one that didn’t jump on the bandwagon. She often is in the position of defending her conservative views in the face of both other students and teachers committed to bending her anti-collectivist views. Like Ann, she is appalled by the taxing and spending of the current administration and the tendency of team Obama to provide terrorists with the same protections as shoplifters. While her brother is going through his collegiate anarchy phase (which we hope will end soon), my daughter Hope has been steadfast in her beliefs that people that work hard should not have to fork half of it over to the government, that our tax dollars shouldn’t pay for abortions, and that she shouldn’t be responsible for the enormous debt our government is now incurring. Unlike most kids her age, she didn’t swoon when Obama spoke last fall. We call her “little Ann Coulter” and with her quick wit and blond hair, and her favorite line about the Obama administration is, “You know it’s bad when a 16 year old high school kid actually cares.” She understands it at a gut level, “It wouldn’t be fair if I studied really hard for a test and got a 100 when the kid next to me goofed off and got a 50 if the teacher gave 20 points of mine to the other kid so he could pass.” That is it in a nutshell. She gets it. With kids like her, there is hope for us.
___________________________________

I’m glad 2009 is in the books. As the year opened, we were reeling from the financial meltdown of 2008 and we elected the most left leaning president in my lifetime, armed with a bulletproof Congress. It was so bad, that Chief Justice John Roberts couldn’t even get the oath of office administered correctly. That was probably the Freudian slip of the century.

I was probably one of a handful of conservatives that actually read The Audacity of Hope to see how this Obama chap really thinks about the world. After reading his election manifesto, I can only conclude that while teaching in Hyde Park, he must have actively avoided all contact with those folks in the economics department (who, by the way, earned their Nobel Prizes through demonstrated achievement).

In keeping with the theme of Audacity, here is my 2009 list of “I SIMPLY CAN’T BELIEVE THEY SAID [OR DID] THIS WITH A COMPLETELY STRAIGHT FACE.” I think you’ll agree that 2009 was a year of real audacity for both Democrats and Republicans. Here is my top 10 list of jaw-dropping comments [or actions] from our public officials this year. I have attempted to be bipartisan, but since the Dems are the party in power, they inevitably produced more opportunities.

1. “I don’t know---not having been there and not seeing all the facts… the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.” Barack Obama describing the arrest of Henry Louis Gates.

Hard to believe this is a quote from a Harvard trained lawyer, and even more astonishing when a few months later, he urges us “not to jump to conclusions” after Major Hasan commits mass murder at Fort Hood. Along with his Nobel, Obama may be in line for an Olympic medal in conclusion jumping with this one.

2. “The system worked.” Janet Napolitano after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to bring down a Northwest Airlines plane on Christmas Day.

This is technically true only if you consider alert, brave passengers to be part of the “system.”

3. Tom DeLay’s Dancing With the Stars Exhibition [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUqL3_uCD4Q]

Have you no dignity? This is what was helping to govern our country?

4. “This is why I have pledged that I will not sign a health insurance reform that adds even one dime to our deficit over the next decade. And I mean it. We have estimated that two-thirds of the cost of reform to bring health care security to every American can be paid for by reallocating money that is simply wasted in federal health care programs.” Barack Obama

Really? I stopped believing in Santa Claus over 40 years ago. Where do you even start with this whopper? He assumes that money is not fungible. The attack on waste and fraud has been attempted by Jimmy Carter, Al Gore and several others to no avail. Please don’t insult us. This is a big, expensive plan that will EXPLODE the deficit and we know it. But perhaps the most audacious part of this whole process was bribing recalcitrant members of their OWN PARTY with our money. This is taking the Chicago Way to a whole new level.

5. “The America I know and love is not one which my parents or my baby with Downs Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of ‘level of productivity in society’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.” Sarah Palin

Yes, Sarah, it would be evil. And you are correct to be wary that this is where the current proposal might eventually lead us. But this bill does not create ‘death panels’ and you are not helping the cause by hyperbolizing. Health care reform as written has plenty of evils. You don’t need to make anything up.

6. When asked about the bowling alley in the White House, Obama joked to Jay Leno that his score of 129 “was like the Special Olympics or something.”

After that crack, the left really has nothing to say about Republicans being mean-spirited or insensitive.

7. South Carolina governor Mark Sanford claiming to be hiking on the Appalachian Trial while having a tryst in Argentina and Tiger Woods claiming his wife tried to save him by bashing the window out of his SUV with a golf club.

C’mon guys. Haven’t you learned anything about career management after Bill Clinton and Eliot Spitzer?

8. Nomination of Van Jones as Green Jobs Czar.

Need anything be said about this one?

9. Obama’s decision to cave in to the Russians by deciding not to base missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic.

I thought Barack wanted to improve our image around the world. I’m not sure how throwing existing loyal friends under the bus accomplishes that.

10. And finally, the most audacious of them all--- Eric Holder’s decision to try KSM in New York in a civilian trial.

After years of excoriating the Bush Administration for helping Al Qaeda recruit because of its harsh treatment of their operatives, Holder decides that giving one of their top guys, and the guy that murdered 3,000 of our citizens a platform and a microphone just yards away from the site of his dastardly deed, along with a full complement of lawyers and full Constitutional protection. Perhaps he could go a step further and give him his own website and radio station. KSM’s reaction? He was overjoyed at the prospect of being able to explain himself. I guess this is the kind of decisionmaking you can expect from someone that blasted us as a “nation of cowards.” Someone make him watch the film “Glory”—please.

So, there you have it --- my 2009 list of Audaciousness. I can’t wait to see what they try to foist on us in 2010.