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.

Holy moly. The difference is that Reagan improved the country. Obama is making it worse. That bit is barf inducing.

That is COMPLETELY misinterpreting what Krauthammer is saying.

One would have to have NEVER read a column of his or NEVER heard him give analysis on Fox News to believe that Krauthammer believes that Obama is IMPROVING the country like Reagan.

Hitler also came to do things, and did much in his first 500 days. That statement doesn't mean he did GOOD things.

And by the way, it is utterly foolish for people here to be over-confidently writing Obama's political obituary and dismissing his chances out of hand.

I agree with Krauthammer that Obama would probably prefer the Republicans to have nominal control of Congress to run against in 2012.

The MSM, Hollywood, schoolteachers, professors, and all the forces of popular culture will then have their targets to demonize and make into the enemy. Think Gingrich was slimed? or Dick Cheney? Wait until they get through with Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.

The one competent thing Obama ever does is demagogue and demonize. It is a mistake not to take that seriously and marshall all resources to fight it. Dismissing him and the forces he representes lightly will only ensure the statist future.

” Krauthammer voted for, and supported, Obama

The irony is that functioning ObamaCARE would have ended
Krauthammer’s career - if not his life.”

Irony of all ironies.

You might find this interesting.

http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2010/07/seriousness-of-governor-palin.html

Palin has been right 100% of the time when it comes to O.

It a “ I told you so” since the convention.

” Krauthammer and his RINO ilk are stealth commies; they can’t capitulate fast enough, all the while saying resistance is futile. “

Exactly, and take RINO “open borders” Barnes and feed them both to the gerbils!

His response to ObamaCare is reflexively liberal. Raise taxes. It is right there in his column. You did read the column didn’t you, before pronouncing him “brilliant” and any criticism of him to be “nonsense”?

He's not ADVOCATING high taxes, you dope - he's PREDICTING it.

Do you NEVER listen to Krauthammer? He's been saying for months that the Rats will make a big push for a VAT tax, as the politicians will come to believe that that is the only way to close the deficit. Giving cover to raise taxes is the whole point of the farcical "Deficit Commission" as Krauthammer has pointed out.

I happen to agree with Krauthammer that following the "report" of the "Deficit Commission" that after the election there will be a big push to raise taxes, and likely a push for a VAT. That does NOT mean I AGREE with having a VAT or having high taxes. And anyone who regularly reads or listens to Krauthammer knows he does not either.

“I agree with Krauthammer that Obama would probably prefer the Republicans to have nominal control of Congress to run against in 2012.”

Huh? Do you know how he’s going to look when the investigation s and the Congressional subpoenas start to fly? You are crazy if you think this will help him. The GOP congress did not help Clinton win in 1996. That is the standard liberal line to try to slime what was a conservative Congress. Krauthammer laps it up as do you.

It was Bob Dole’s ineptitude as a candidate and the second Perot Candidacy that assisted Clinton. The GOP Congress was not a factor. It could have been a factor if Gingrich and Dole ad stood fast when the Clinton shut the government down. They folded like a cheap suit. If they had stood fast, it would have taken the wind completely out of Perot’s sails.

Well, enlighten everyone then. Instead of insulting a fellow freeper how about a REAL discussion. You could, instead of hurling insults, explain why you think Krauthammer means something different than what he wrote and why past comments of his led you to that conclusion. Otherwise you’re the one who sounds like an uninformed nut.

Cindie

This won't happen because it affects Obama's constituents. They can't find a way to tax crap that they don't buy without being called 'selective'.

The only other segmented pot of money his constituents don't mainly have a stake in are 401Ks, IRAs and Stocks and Bonds holdings. THIS is where the money grab will be. BET ON IT!

I got put off by Krauthammer a while ago. For some reason, though, I read a column of his, probably was on a thread, regarding his impressions of Obama when they were face to face in some type of meeting or interview. BO and his people must have slipped Krauthammer the same mickey they gave Noonan. He was alternately awed and appalled at “the tremendous intellect of this president.”

You can take this as a fact though I will not source it for you out of consideration for the source: Obama’s IQ is 110. And Krauthammer is gullible as well as elitist.

Your opinion of him is correct. (Of course that’s just my opinion.)

“I agree with Krauthammer that Obama would probably prefer the Republicans to have nominal control of Congress to run against in 2012.”

You seem to have a serious problem with reading comprehension.

I said that OBAMA probably prefers to run against a Republican congress. And I explained why. I didn't say that I think it would be best for Obama to run against a Republican congress.

But you are a fool to be dismissing out of hand Obama's chances at reelection.

One has to wonder if you aren't a troll trying to get conservatives to feel complacent or over-confident.

“He’s not ADVOCATING high taxes, you dope - he’s PREDICTING it.”

Read the column. Then ask yourself who is the dope. He says Obama’s policies will “necessitate” huge tax increases. That is simply false. It ignores both the reality of the bill(s)’s dubious constitutionality and the power of Congress and the Executive Branch under a new President to defund and dismantle Obama’s creations.

“I happen to agree with Krauthammer that following the “report” of the “Deficit Commission” that after the election there will be a big push to raise taxes, and likely a push for a VAT.”

After the election there will be NO TAX INCREASES. Do you know what is going to happen in November? Speculating about what some Commission says is a complete waste of time, but Washington fixtures like Krauthammer do that all the time. It makes them sound so...intelligent. (Like saying Reagan’s tax cuts COST the government money when the reverse is true)

And their little acolyte drones just nod in agreement. Pathetic.

This won't happen because it affects Obama's constituents. They can't find a way to tax crap that they don't buy without being called 'selective'.

People said the same thing about ObamaCare, that "it will never happen." I remember arguing on here for months with posters who said don't worry, there is no friggin' way Obamacare will ever pass.

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.

It makes them sound so...intelligent. (Like saying Reagan’s tax cuts COST the government money when the reverse is true) And their little acolyte drones just nod in agreement. Pathetic.

Well, then, it's a very good thing that you've thrown your gigantic brain into the fray, to show us what REAL intelligence looks like.

This won't happen because it affects Obama's constituents.

I don't know, they could pass a VAT and include some sort rebate scheme for the poor. Obamacare has subsidies to help lower income people purchase insurance, and even Fair Tax proposals have plans to rebate the tax paid amount to the poor.

A rebate scheme for a VAT would make Medicare fraud and EITC fraud look like penny ante poker.

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.