Democrats: Let's Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment

In today's White House press conference, Press Secretary Jay Carney explained the president's opposition to a Balanced Budget Amendment:

The President believes that we do not need to amend the Constitution to cut the deficit. We need to get beyond politics as usual, and find bipartisan common ground.

A balanced budget amendment has, today and has always been, about ducking responsibility rather than taking our challenges head on. This is not -- we don’t need -- I mean, the Constitution should not be used to simply abdicate responsibility. What we need to do here is not complicated. It does not require a constitutional amendment and the ratification by preponderance of states here. It requires people rolling up their sleeves -- the leaders, the representatives of the people in the Congress and the President, the Vice President and others here -- and working out a compromise to achieve a goal that we all share, which is significant deficit reduction, a plan that gets our fiscal house in order that deals with our long-term debt.

It is something we can do. And in some ways, while these are hard issues, it is something we can do easily if people accept the principle that we have to compromise to do it. So, no, we do not support the balanced budget amendments.

Which places the president even further to the left than Harry Reid. This afternoon, the National Republican Senatorial Committee distributed the following quotations from Senate Democrats:

SEN. SHERROD BROWN (D-OH): “Before I ask for your vote, I owe it to you to tell you where I stand. I’m for… a balanced budget amendment.” (Rep. Brown, “Where I Stand,” YouTube, 11/1/06)

· BROWN: “I stood up to a President of my own party . . . In support of the balanced budget amendment, in restoring fiscal sanity to our government.” (Ohio Senate Debate, City Club Of Cleveland, 10/27/06)

SEN. DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): “I crossed the line to help balance the budget, as one of the Democrats that broke with my party.” (Michigan Senate Debate, 10/22/00)

SEN. MARK BEGICH (D-AK): “It’s time to stop playing political brinksmanship with the budget and do what every Alaskan is doing - balance the budget.” (Sen. Begich, “Begich Statement On 2011 Budget Vote,” Press Release, 4/15/11)

SEN. BILL NELSON (D-FL): “Over the years, I have supported a balanced budget amendment…” (Sen. Bill Nelson, Congressional Record, S.1920, 3/29/11)

· “Senator Nelson has been a long-time supporter of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, going back to his service in the 1980s, and will continue to reach across the political divide...” (“Support For Balanced Budget Amendment,” Columbia County Observer, 3/8/11)

SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D-WV): “[T]he balanced budget amendment's very, very important to me and to every governor, to every state, to every household, especially in West Virginia. And if they can do it, they think we can do it also.” (U.S. Senate, Budget Committee, Hearing, 1/27/11)

SEN. BEN NELSON (D-NE): “I voted yes and support a balanced budget amendment that allows for flexibility in times of war and for natural disasters.” (Sen. Nelson, Press Statement, 3/4/11)

SEN. MARK UDALL (D-CO): “I've long gone by the saying, if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. By restoring healthy and responsible spending through a reasonable Balanced Budget Amendment, we can begin filling in that hole.” (Sen. Udall, “Udall Co-Sponsors Balanced Budget Amendment,” Press Release, 2/1/11)

SEN. MICHAEL BENNET (D-CO): “U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet broke his hesitation on endorsing the balanced-budget amendment last week… pledging support for the idea.” (“Bennet Balancing His Approach To Budget,” Denver Post (CO), 3/6/11)

SEN. CLAIRE McCASKILL (D-MO): “I think they should. …It would be great if that discipline were in place. Clearly it’s a goal we’ve got to work toward…” “…responding to a question of why the federal government can’t have a balanced budget amendment…” SEN. CLAIRE McCASKILL (D-MO): “I think they should. …It would be great if that discipline were in place. Clearly it’s a goal we’ve got to work toward…” (“McCaskill For ‘Responsible’ Balanced Budget Amendment,” PoliticMo, 6/29/11)

SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (D-NY): “New York families must continuously balance their checkbooks. Forty-nine states, including New York, require a balanced budget. An amendment to the Constitution will finally hold the federal government to the same, common sense standard.” (Rep. Gillibrand, “Nation Deserved A Balanced Budget,” The Time Union, 6/4/07)

SEN. TOM CARPER (D-DE): “As a Member of the House, when I served with Senator Santorum over there, we were great proponents of something called a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution…” (Sen. Carper, Congressional Record, S.8063-4, 7/14/04)

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): “…I believe we should have a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I am willing to go for that.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.1333, 2/12/97)

SEN. KENT CONRAD (D-ND): “I believe deeply in the need to balance the Federal budget… I would support an amendment to the Constitution.” (Sen. Conrad, Congressional Record, S.1147, 2/10/97)

SEN. HERB KOHL (D-WI): “The balanced budget amendment does, in my opinion, embody a principle simple and vital enough to deserve inclusion in the Constitution.” (Sen. Kohl, Congressional Record, S.1609, 2/26/97)

· KOHL: “…I am committed to the concept of the balanced budget amendment.” (Sen. Kohl, Congressional Record, S.2947, 2/22/95)

SEN. MARY LANDRIEU (D-LA): “I took a position to support a Balanced Budget Amendment…” (Sen. Landrieu, Press Conference, 2/25/1997)

· “Landrieu had touted her support for the balanced budget amendment in order to win moderate votes … she would uphold her campaign promise.” (CNN’s Inside Politics, 2/28/97)

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): “The spending trends are what really motivates me, and I hope others, to accept a constitutional balanced budget amendment.” (Sen. Feinstein, Congressional Record, S.1594, 2/26/97)

SEN. TOM HARKIN (D-IA): “Mr. President, I have long supported a balanced budget amendment. I expect to do so again...” (Sen. Harkin, Congressional Record, S.2460, 2/10/95)

SEN. TIM JOHNSON (D-SD): “It is time to get our priorities straight. I've been a strong supporter of a balanced budget amendment…” (Rep. Johnson, Congressional Record, H.11213, 10/26/95)

SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-MT): “I have always supported a balanced budget. Montanans want a balanced budget. We must listen to the people and give them a balanced budget.” (Sen. Baucus, Congressional Record, S.2469, 2/10/95)

SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): “…we need to move toward a Balanced Budget Amendment.” (Rep. Durbin, Congressional Record, H.1310, 1/11/95)

One Man, Many Ideas

President Obama is a man of many ideas. Sometimes these seem to randomly join together to form a larger vision, but more often they're scattershot, coming from all points across the political spectrum to collectively present a man not of deep thinking or complexity, but of profound confusion and unwarranted faith in himself. Consider:

Obama kicked off today's presser with a boast of all he's done to boost business, specifically by studying how burdensome regulations might be reformed. Later during the Q & A, a reporter asked about the National Labor Relations Board's threats against Boeing for trying to open a non-union facility in South Carolina. Seemingly being just the sort of burdensome government interference Obama proposed reforming only minutes earlier, one might've expected him to use the opportunity to pledge to remove this roadblock and clear the way for Boeing to create these much-needed jobs; instead he extolled the virtues of government regulations, crediting them with keeping the air clean, the water pure, the food edible. And, presumably, union workers happy.

Perhaps the biggest takeaway from today's speech is Obama's strong desire to hike taxes on "corporate jet owners," whom he suggested were somehow guilty for amassing America's national debt. With aviation on the mind, Obama also relayed his opinion that the airline industry is one of America's dominant sectors and that he planned to ensure its continued success. So America's jet culture is a point of pride, or enmity? Hard to say.

Today's topic, of course, was America's ever-worsening debt crisis. Early on, Obama said we must take a "balanced" approach (not, by the way, toward budgeting, but toward mixing spending cuts with tax hikes). Yet while he was clear enough he sought to raise Americans' taxes, he was less clear regarding where he proposed cutting. He actually rattled off several spending areas he considered inviolable -- e.g., the budgets of the National Weather Service, food inspectors, medical research, scholarships, programs for seniors. Addressing congressional Republicans, Obama lectured that it's time past-time to make some "tough choices" and, presumably, jack up taxes. Tough choices for thee, not for me.

By the time all was said and done, Obama boasted of being a "tax cutting" president, while also bashing tax cuts as irresponsible and unethical, and then supporting them again when discussing business investments; he insisted the Constitution plays no role in his decision to invade Libya, while also saying his decision to unilaterally revoke the Defense of Marriage Act was motivated by his devotion to the Constitution; he claimed to avoid doing"scare tactics," while also telling senior citizens that Republicans planned to cut off anticipated benefits; he roared that he's the president of the United States and he's here "to lead," while also explaining that the debt crisis is so important he delegated the task to Vice President Biden.

In all, today made for a very confusing introspection into the inner workings of President Obama's mind. But that isn't to say there are no clear takeaways. In every instance, Obama expressed complete confidence that his ideas were perfect (even when they contradicted each other). And while he invoked certain conservative ideas -- tax cuts, spending cuts, a strong foreign policy -- he more passionately offered ideas that undermined the conservative ones. A cynic might say Obama doesn't really believe everything he says. That he marches forward a very liberal agenda, but under a banner preaching conservatism. I'd tend to agree with such a cynic.

The Tyranny of 'Universal' Health Care

No matter how chippy the Democratic presidential primary eventually becomes, at least the candidates will always be able to agree on the nation's pressing need for "universal" health coverage. Every major Democratic candidate has such a plan, the idea being that only this way will the country's "49 million" uninsured find reprieve. But government-run health insurance carries unintended consequences -- chief among them is a loss of civil liberty.

In today's D.C. Examiner, I have a piece exploring how national health coverage necessarily entails a loss of personal freedom. After comparisons to what Mayor Bloomberg has done here in New York City, the piece concludes:

Universal coverage invites Congress to legislate approved lifestyles. And this while a recent Gallup poll finds that Americans now “express less trust in the federal government than at any point in the past decade, and trust in many federal government institutions is now lower than it was during the Watergate era.” Don’t like the decisions politicians are making for you? Have fun lobbying both houses of Congress to relinquish their new power.

The last few years have demonstrated that rare is the place politicians are unwilling to tread in the name of public health. Delegating greater responsibility to the government is a bad bargain that will inevitably lead not to better care, but to increased coercion.

Here's the whole thing.

'Where's the Beef?'

Kevin Hassett says Barack Obama is looking a lot like Gary Hart:

Back in the 1984 presidential campaign, Hart challenged Walter Mondale, the heavy favorite for the Democratic Party nomination, by billing himself as the candidate of ``new ideas.'' Hart was gaining momentum, winning a number of state primaries, including Florida. He began to fold, however, after Mondale famously challenged his ``new ideas'' with the immortal line: ``Where's the beef?'' ...

The Hart story suggests an important lesson for those seeking office. It is a bad idea to bill oneself as the candidate with new ideas. If the ideas are truly innovative strategies to solve our nation's problems, then things might work out. But if the ideas are weak or rehashed, the candidate is in trouble.

To paraphrase a Robert George quip, Obama's ideas are about as "fresh" as a 1976 copy of Mother Jones.

The Nuances of Racial Politics

As by now everyone well knows, Joe Biden simultaneously launched and crashed his presidential campaign last Wednesday when an article in The New York Observer quoted the loquacious senator thusly: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American [Barack Obama] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy ... I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

The real controversy seemed to stem from his use of the words "clean" and "articulate" -- both words being pejorative as they supposedly imply such traits as unnatural for blacks. (Indeed, President Bush received the same criticism for the same PC faux pas.)

Perhaps the strangest thing about this whole episode is the choice of alleged misdeeds. It was only a month earlier, after all, when Biden offered up this interesting performance while stumping at a South Carolina Rotary Club:

The senator then pounced on a member’s announcement that the club would hold its annual Christmas party at the state Department of Archives and History where members could view the original copy of the state’s Articles of Secession.

Biden asked, “Where else could I go to a Rotary Club where (for a) Christmas party the highlight is looking at the Articles?”

Biden was on a roll.

Delaware, he noted, was a “slave state that fought beside the North. That’s only because we couldn’t figure out how to get to the South. There were a couple of states in the way.”

Waxing nostalgic for slavery, or calling someone "clean" and "articulate." That it's the latter that's garnered all the finger wagging says something about contemporary racial politics. What, exactly, I'm not quite sure.

Barack's Liberalism Problem

Larry Kudlow says the hype surrounding Barack Obama will dampen once Americans get a sense of his liberalism:

Behind the Obama story is a very liberal left voting record. Here are some key votes and positions from Obama:

· Voted against extending the Bush tax cuts on capital gains and dividends.

· Voted against permanently repealing the Death Tax. (Called the cuts a "Paris Hilton" tax break for "billionaire heirs and heiresses")

· Voted against CAFTA.

· Voted YES on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25.

· Opposed the lifting of $0.54 per gallon tariff on cheaper Brazillian ethanol. Said, "ethanol imports are neither necessary nor a practical response to current gasoline prices."

· Voted against the bankruptcy abuse bill.

· Opposes privatizing Social Security

· Voted against drilling in ANWR.

· Voted against confirmation of Sam Alito AND John Roberts as chief justice.

· Voted against extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision.

· Opposed any bans on partial birth abortions.

Is this the liberal left direction Dems really want to go in 2008?

Sure, they took Congress this year by sounding like Republicans on the campaign trail. But Obama would be a rather big u-turn from that centrist strategy.

Outside Obama's objections to Sam Alito, John Roberts, and bans on partial-birth abortions, this is pretty much run-of-the-mill liberalism.

Jill Staneck describes a bigger problem for Obama's pitch to mainstream America:

As a nurse at an Illinois hospital in 1999, I discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms. I discovered
infanticide.

Legislation was presented on the federal level and in various states called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.

BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote. Even Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed a mother's right to "choose" stopped at her baby's delivery.

The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme. President Bush signed BAIPA into law in 2002.

But in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left.

I testified in 2001 and 2002 before a committee of which Obama was a member.

Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women's rights or abortionists' rights. Obama's clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed.

In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics.

(As chair of that same committee, Obama once abruptly ended a hearing early, right before Scott and Janet Willis, the parents of six children killed as a result of Illinois' drivers licenses for bribes scandal, were to testify in favor of Choose Life license plate legislation. I was there for that one, too. The Willises had traveled three hours. Reporters filled the room. Obama stalled. He later killed the bill when no one was around.)

UPDATE: The New York Post's Ian Bishop has more.