Palin, Reagan, and Obama, according to Krauthammer

While I read Charles Krauthammer from time to time, I am not a big fan of his. In reading his column entitled "Obama's Next Act" yesterday, he pronounces Reaganism as good as dead, a victim of the first eighteen months of the Obama Administration. I rather think Krauthammer lacks standing to comment on "Reaganism" (whatever he means by that term) since he worked in Jimmy Carter's White House and tried twice to defeat Ronald Reagan both in 1980 and 1984. He was a speechwriter for Walter Mondale and I often wondered if he penned the immortal line (or was it the mortal line), "President Reagan will raise your taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did."

I have heard Krauthammer on CSPAN and elsewhere opine that Obama is among the most intelligent men ever to be President. I suspect that he held Reagan's intelligence in somewhat less regard when the Gipper was running for President and while he was governing. Oh, Krauthammer did coin the term "Reagan Doctrine" and he came to favor the muscular foreign policy which Reagan pursued with remarkable (and virtually bloodless) success. This does not, however, entitle Krauthammer's views on domestic policy to any great weight, given his antagonism to "Reaganism" in the past.

Now, to his column. He begins by pronouncing ObamaCare both "historic" and "irrevocable", a definitive and everlasting change to one sixth of the American economy. Not only does he ignore the blatant unconstitutionality of the individual mandate requiring every citizen to purchase a private product (which is being challenged in the courts at this very moment), he completely ignores the mechanisms through which this program can be immediately defunded and neutered in 2011 when the GOP takes back the Congress. In 2013, the GOP will almost certainly have more than 60 senate seats and a filibuster will not be able to stop the outright repeal. This monstrosity has more than a few problems. But Krauthammer pronounces it final, res judicata, a fait accompli. It reminded me that Krauthammer was carrying water for ObamaCare in an August 21, 2009 column in the Washington Post when, in response to Sarah Palin's "Death Panel" torpedo aimed at the rationing schemes in the very heart of ObamaCare, Krauthammer told her to sit down and shut up:

"We might start by asking Sarah Palin to leave the room. I've got nothing against her. She's a remarkable political talent. But there are no "death panels" in the Democratic health-care bills, and to say that there are is to debase the debate."

Palin has subsequently been proven right (Does the recess appointment of Donald Berwick to the CMS leave any doubt?) and Krauthammer has been proven wrong, but I have heard no apology from him. He is just as wrong about the permanency of ObamaCare and the end of Reaganism.

Krauthammer goes on to pronounce the Financial Regulatory bill as a now permanent fixture that is unrepealable. Again, the "brilliant" Krauthammer ignores not only the constitutional problems with such a bill, but the political ones associated with them. For example, among other things, the Bill purports to delegate the authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to bail out any financial institutions at his discretion without the necessity to go back to Congress to appropriate the funds. This is a blatant unconstitutional delegation of Article I legislative authority to the Executive, which is certain to be challenged and likely to be stricken by the Courts. As the quid pro quo for the massive regulation of the financial industry will imperil not just the constitutionality of the rest of the bill but its political viability as well, that is: Since the financial industry will not be able to access bailout funds (the carrot) without going back to Congress, it will oppose the regulatory burdens (the stick) that go along with it. The Regulatory Bill thus has both constitutional and political infirmities which threaten its long term viability. It should be easy to repeal in 2013.

Finally, Krauthammer sees the $1 trillion dollar stimulus as a "structural alteration of the U.S. Budget", whatever that means. Congress can decline to appropriate the funds, and a new GOP President can impound (that is, refuse to spend) whatever cannot be repealed outright.

Krauthammer really demonstrates his ignorance (and his Mondale/Obama domestic ideology) with the following sentence:

"Just as President Ronald Reagan cut taxes to starve the federal government and prevent massive growth in spending, Obama's wild spending -- and quarantining health-care costs from providing possible relief -- will necessitate huge tax increases."

Wrong, Charles. Reagan's tax cuts INCREASED revenue to the federal government. A lot. The problem was not a paucity of revenue in the federal treasury but a Congress too willing and eager to spend it all, and then some. I am surprised you don't know such basic economics. But, then you did work for Walter Mondale who as the Gipper once observed "never met a tax he didn't like... or hike." I am not surprised that, as a devotee of "Coach Tax Hike" which is what we Reaganites (the real kind...not the ersatz, freshly minted versions) used to call your old boss, your first recourse has been, and will always be, tax increases.

The solution is not a tax increase. It is tax cuts, massive, permanent tax cuts. It is not a return to pre-Obama Care. It is a massive pushback of government involvement in the healthcare market. This involves a further privatization of the health care system, especially minimization and eventual elimination of government distortions in the marketplace which drive up health care costs, chiefly the third party payer problem. And it is massive spending cuts and defunding of all Obama's handiwork. It wasn't tax hikes in 1980. It is not tax hikes in 2012. Sorry, Charlie.

In a word, Krauthammer's gloomy column should demoralize no one. Amazingly, he sees the massive GOP gains in the House and the Senate as a silver lining for Obama that will help him in much the same way the GOP takeover in 1994 helped Clinton. The problem with that analogy is that Clinton's overreach with HillaryCare and overspending failed in 1993-4, so the economy recovered enough for him to win. Clinton did not win BECAUSE of the GOP Congress. He was aided by the worst GOP candidate in a long line of bad ones, the ancient Bob Dole and further aided by the Perot candidacy which siphoned off 10% of the vote. Obama will have to face Sarah Palin, the lady whom Krauthammer told to "leave the room" for "debasing" the health care debate. 2012 will not be analogous to 1996, but much closer to 1980. If Sarah Palin looks like Bob Dole to you, Charles, you really need to have your contacts cleaned.

Krauthammer closes his column with another obtuse and insulting comparison of Obama to Reagan:

"Obama is down, but it's very early in the play. Like Reagan, he came here to do things. And he's done much in his first 500 days. What he has left to do he knows must await his next 500 days -- those that come after reelection.

The real prize is 2012. Obama sees far, farther than even his own partisans. Republicans underestimate him at their peril."

Krauthammer, a statist at heart, sees Obama's "accomplishments" as a political positive, even though they are toxic and wildly unpopular: "He got something done", even though it is the consensus of the American people that what he did was bad for the country and all its citizens. Reagan too accomplished things in his first term, notably the tax cuts of 1981 which were very popular and which had reinvigorated the severely ailing economy, which Reagan inherited, by late 1983.

Don't underestimate Obama. (Seriously, is this possible?) And don't overestimate Krauthammer. He was wrong about the death panels, wrong about Reagan, wrong about tax cuts, wrong about Palin and he is dead wrong about Obama. With a record like that, maybe he is the one who should leave the room.

You should be a columnist somewhere. You write good stuff that I do not see anyone else saying.

Truman won election to the Presidency by running against the Republican Congress in a very dramatic upset. This is where I think the political class thinking comes from with ‘Republican Congress good for Obama’. For Truman’s election, the nation was doing very well. People who accurately predicted Truman winning over Dewey were those who said, “The country is doing well. People do not tend to vote out the guy when the economy is going well.” Truman running against the Republican Congress meant nothing.

Both Clinton and Obama won election by pinning or manufacturing a ‘bad economy’ on Bush (either Bush). This is why the MSM kept trying to say the 5% unemployment rate during the Bush years around 2004 were a ‘recession’ because they know the way to political power is for the incumbent to be seen as causing economic harm.

The political class is forgetting that Obama did not get elected on the campaign promise of socialism. Obama promised tax cuts and to ‘cut the budget deficit’. On an issue by issue basis, the American people are hostile to Obama’s proposals.

And each year, the New Media is stronger with the Old Media being weaker.

People greatly overestimate Obama’s political ability. Obama wins political office by disqualifying his opponents. Obama is actually one of the weakest politicians we’ve ever seen. He’s ripe to be torn down. The only thing that can save Obama is a very poor candidate to oppose him like Romney.

“IMO, Krauthammer in one of the very best we have at expressing in meticulous, analytical, and logical detail how and why Obama and progressives are attempting to destroy this country.”

Reagan was doing that when Krauthammer was working for Mondale and Carter trying to destroy him.

Mark Levin and Rush are far superior to Krauthammer who is only sporadically reliable as far as enunciating conservative principles. Krauthammer has never been an advocate of smaller government. He is pro-abortion. He is hostile to the Second Amendment. He thinks that Obama’s handiwork is a fait accompli and that it would be a plus for Obama’s reelection if the GOP did not regain Congress in 2010. That ain’t our best.

As far as how hard the Kraut rips Obama, when was the last time he accused Obama of “debasing” the political discourse and suggested he leave the room, both of which comments he has made to Palin, among other snarky things I have heard him say about her.

The big advantage to statists of a VAT tax is that it is a stealth tax as far as most voters would be aware. It is collected from businesses in the chain of production, and not from the public at large like an income tax, and to most of the voting public it will just seem like a retail sales tax.

The social welfare states of Europe have it, and that is the model the liberals look to.

From your lips to Krauthammer's ears.

Krauthammer was among my favorites, but it was short-lived and lasted probably for less than a year. Watching and reading him, it became apparent that he is, at heart, a statist, and I think he is a statist because he is an elitist. A Republican, a self-proclaimed "conservative," notwithstanding. The enemy isn't the Democrat party. It's statism. Perhaps Kraut has been as eloquent as you in stressing the dangerous inanity of a VAT. Has he been, do you know? I stopped following him awhile ago, and catch him only by osmosis, such as this thread.

I remember many times Kraut was perceptive and smart, but more often it seems he dwelled in the suburbs of the statist, elitist camp. He regards Obama as a powerful intellect; if he is correct, either we're screwed six ways to Sunday anyway ... OR Kraut ain't as bright as some people think. I tend toward thinking it's the latter.

In my opinion, the most powerful intellect on the scene right now is Thomas Sowell. May God bless him and keep him well.

What is wrong with Charles Krauthammer? Characterizing Obama's policies of destruction as great achievements? Unless he is being sarcastic in this article, I would think he is an ideological leftist.

"The result? There just isn't enough to cut elsewhere to prevent national insolvency. That will require massive tax increases -- most likely a European-style value-added tax. Just as President Ronald Reagan cut taxes to starve the federal government and prevent massive growth in spending, Obama's wild spending -- and quarantining health-care costs from providing possible relief -- will necessitate huge tax increases.
"The next burst of ideological energy -- massive regulation of the energy economy, federalizing higher education and "comprehensive" immigration reform (i.e., amnesty) -- will require a second mandate, meaning reelection in 2012.
"That's why there's so much tension between Obama and congressional Democrats. For Obama, 2010 matters little. If Democrats lose control of one or both houses, Obama will probably have an easier time in 2012, just as Bill Clinton used Newt Gingrich and the Republicans as the foil for his 1996 reelection campaign.
"Obama is down, but it's very early in the play. Like Reagan, he came here to do things. And he's done much in his first 500 days. What he has left to do he knows must await his next 500 days -- those that come after reelection.” link

Nope, he is not simply a leftist sympathizer but an Obama sympathizer and admirer. I lost the respect I had for him, and I had no idea he could be this wrong.

Wow, that was fast! Even before I posted my post! (that'll learn me to post before finishing the thread!)

Good post, and it's nice to hear things from Kraut that make sense, and make me remember why I liked him. The VAT is why our friends from Sweden would come here and buy everything in sight and get manicures and pedicures like crazy. In Sweden, a pair of Levis was a couple hundred bucks. A manicure was about $80, if I remember right what I was told.

That said, I trust my judgment on Kraut -- he gets things right at times and in a big-picture sense, but he is at heart an elitist. Being an elitist is one step away from being a statist. "The people" are an item to be managed, and it's only a disagreement as to how to manage them.

A populist like Palin appeals to me because I think I hear her message, as I heard Reagan's, as "the people manage themselves, the government is a servant." I don't remember ever getting that from Kraut.

Thanks. I try to read a column critically and not just accept it at face value or because it is written by someone I respect. Some of the posters around here seem to accept what a columnist says just because of who he is. I try not to do that. What got my dander up about Krauthammer is htat he selected the week of the Thirtieth Anniversary of the week when Ronald Reagan accepted the GOP nomination to pronounce Reaganism kaput, and to announce that its assasin was Barack Obama.

He went on to compare the career and skills of the two men favorably and, while careful not to endorse Obama’s policies, his admiration of Obama’s “skills” shines through.

He cautions us not to underestimate Obama. I try never to underestimate an adversary. Overconfidence is deadly. The GOP needs to retake Congress in 2010 and add to its majorities in 2012, and that will require work. To use a military analogy, overconfidence was the undoing of Robert E. Lee at Gettysburg.

But the flip side of that equation is also true. One should never overestimate one’s opponents. This can result in vacillation, delay and fear which are as deadly as overconfidence. (To use another military example, George B. McClellan was a prime example of the overestimation of one’s enemies and it was his undoing.)

I think I appraise Obama correctly. He is no genius. I don’t even think he is bright. He is ruthless and dishonest and up until the present he has had topheavy majorities in Congress when he has used and abused. It will be a different ball game in 2011 and 2012. He will be busy answering the Congressional subpoenas that are about to come flying up Pennsylvania Avenue. There will be no VAT tax and Krauthammer has wasted a lot of ink on something that Obama will never get, not before 2012 or, God forbid, in a second term. He won’t have the votes in Congress for it. Ever.

The Dems are set to lose Senate seats in 2010, 2012 and in 2014, when southern Dems Hagan, Landrieu, Warner and Pryor will likely lose their seats, as will Western Dems Johnson(SD);Udall(Colorado);Baucus(Montana) and Begich (Alaska). But then Krauthammer has never been much of a political operative. He worked for Carter and Mondale, who lost 44 and 49 states, respectively, to the man whose legacy, in the space of 18 months(according to Krauthammer), Obama has effaced.

“Nope, he is not simply a leftist sympathizer but an Obama sympathizer and admirer. I lost the respect I had for him, and I had no idea he could be this wrong.”

He is overfriendly toward, and overestimates, Obama. He tells us not to underestimate him because his plan is so deep even his advisors don’t fully comprehend it. Give me a break. Any “Corpseman” could likely figure it out. (Am I pronouncing that right? :)

Seriously, I noticed long ago that Kraut is more than a little fond of Obama but positively dismissive of Sarah Palin. That could be part elitism, part ideology. I don’t really know. It is apparent and not just to me.

Oh he is a putrid POS... never forget that... he is far more... he is also a lying deceiver. I am shocked at the FReepers that idolize this fake snake-oil salesman. If you say REAGAN’S philosopphy is dead... YOU ARE MY POLITICAL ENEMY! krauthammer is my political enemy... now and forever... and he is just one of many... not even a big fish by any standard. I’d like to put a pie in his face on the ALL Stars. I’d even pay for the honor.

LLS

“All they want to do is to remind me how much Krauthammer disagrees with Obama. So what. He proposes absolutely nothing to counteract Obama. His only conclusion is “don’t underestimate him. He’s far sighted.”

Conservatives are not going to underestimate him. We are going to defeat him. And not by accepting his usurpations as a fait accompli.”

You channeled that directly from Ronald Reagan himself. As I have said many times on FR... and I will say it again and again... **** krauthammer and all like him!

LLS

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.