7 August 2009

Today’s Tabbloid
PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
AARP Members Not Buying
Obama Health Care Plan [Cato
at Liberty]
AUG 06, 2009 09:10P.M.
In Dallas, at least, the AARP staff found it tough going attempting to
explain to the organization’s members why the elderly would be better
off with Obama-like “reform.” These people obviously were having
trouble with the line, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help
you.” And they were quite vocal in stating their concerns. But they were
acting well within the American political tradition, which seems to be
what has spooked advocates of a government medical takeover speaking
breathlessly of “mobs”–presumably like the one in Dallas–opposing
“reform.”
(H/T to Mark Tapscott of the Washington Examiner.)
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
complying with No Child Left Behind, speed limits, or anything else that
states do to get some of their citizens’ involuntarily turned over federal
tax dollars back. Indeed, though the official first draft of the CCSSI
standards hasn’t even been released yet, states are being told that signing
onto them will greatly improve their chances of getting a piece of the U.S.
Secretary of Education’s $4.35 billion “Race to the Top” fund. Secretary
Duncan has also said that the feds would consider spending up to $350
million on a national test to go with “voluntary” national standards. And
No Child Left Behind hasn’t been reauthorized yet – what are
the chances that forces in Washington will try to link much of the
law’s funding to states signing on to national standards and tests?
In answer to that question I’d say, to be sure, the chances are pretty
good; certainly much better than allowing truly voluntary adoption of
national standards and tests.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Meet the Mob [The Club for
Growth]
AUG 06, 2009 05:46P.M.

It’s All Voluntary But the Taxes Liberals are claiming that health care protests are being run by mobs.
Well, meet the mob.
[Cato at Liberty]
AUG 06, 2009 06:24P.M.

Chester Finn, president of the national-curricular-standards-pushing FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, has a piece on Forbes.com today
saying that our colleges would do much better if our K-12 schools gave Club Launches New Healthcare
them better prepared students to work with. I have no problem with that.
I also, surprisingly, don’t have much of a problem with Finn suggesting Ad in Nevada [The Club for
that national standards, in particular those under development by the
Common Core State Standards Initiative, could help get students college Growth]
ready. That’s because he couches the assertion in numerous AUG 06, 2009 05:07P.M.
qualifications — which are most certainly called for – acknowledging that
the resulting standards could very well be garbage or evaded.
Club for Growth Launches
So what do I have a problem with? This single — but critical — sentence Second Healthcare Ad
about national standards :
Nevada TV Blitz Begins Today

They’ll be voluntary, to be sure, and not every state will

embrace them.

Washington – The Club for Growth will launch a new

No, they will not be voluntary! At least, they’ll be no more voluntary than

1
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
television ad today aimed at U.S. Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid. The ad is part of the Club’s
nationwide $1.2 million campaign to highlight the
dangers of government-run healthcare and focuses
on the unsustainable fiscal policies of Congress and
the Obama Administration.
“After months of runaway federal spending,
bailouts, and record deficits, Harry Reid wants
taxpayers to swallow a $1 trillion government
takeover of the healthcare sector,” said Club
President Chris Chocola. “Instead of growing our
economy, Senator Reid has been busy growing the
government. Now he wants to stick hard-working
families and taxpayers with another bill they can’t
afford.”
The new ad (shown below) highlights the crushing
financial burden of government-run healthcare, as
well as the endless bailouts and spending sprees that
have consumed Washington, DC.
“Taxpayers bailed out Wall Street and the auto
industry. They were asked to swallow a $1 trillion
government stimulus plan, a $400 billion spending
bill, and a $3.6 trillion 2010 budget. And what do
they have to show for it? Mountains of debt,” said
Chocola. “Enough is enough.”
The Club’s ad campaign in Nevada will run
throughout the August recess.
“Our message is simple,” added Chocola. “If you
oppose government-run health care, call Harry Reid.
If you oppose higher costs, less coverage, and more
bureaucracy, call Harry Reid. If you want real
healthcare reform that begins with patient-centered,
free-market solutions and ensures more Americans
have access to quality care, call Harry Reid.”
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
The Twelve-Minute ID Card
Hack [Cato at Liberty]
AUG 06, 2009 04:16P.M.
Several people today have sent me the article in the Daily Mail (UK)
discussing the twelve-minute hack on a UK identity card. Security
consultant/hacker Adam Laurie was apparently able to rewrite the data
on the card in very short order.
This would imply that making a more secure card is an improvement.
2
7 August 2009
But more security in a national ID card almost inevitably means less
security for the individual in terms of privacy and autonomy.
We don’t want a highly secure national ID card. We want a diverse and
competitive identity and credentialing system. In such a system,
governments may serve as identity providers. But that is not necessary
and, given their powers, not desirable.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
“Gov’t Insurance Would Allow
Coverage for Abortion” [“Cato at
Liberty”]
AUG 06, 2009 04:15P.M.
So reports the Associated Press:
For years, abortion rights supporters and abortion opponents
have waged the equivalent of trench warfare over restrictions
on federal funding. Abortion opponents have largely
prevailed, instituting restrictions that bar federal funding for
abortion, except in cases of rape and incest or if the mother’s
life would be endangered….
But the health overhaul would create a stream of federal
funding not covered by the restrictions.
The new federal funds would take the form of subsidies for
low- and middle-income people buying coverage through the
health insurance exchange. Subsidies would be available for
people to buy the public plan or private coverage. Making
things more complicated, the federal subsidies would be
mixed in with contributions from individuals and employers.
Eventually, most Americans could end up getting their
coverage through the exchange.
The Democratic health care legislation as originally
introduced in the House and Senate did not mention
abortion. That rang alarm bells for abortion opponents.
Since abortion is a legal medical procedure, experts on both
sides say not mentioning it would allow health care plans in
the new insurance exchange to provide unrestricted
coverage.
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Sotomayor Confirmed,
Constitutional Debate
Continues [Cato at Liberty]
AUG 06, 2009 04:01P.M.
All Americans should take pride in seeing our first Hispanic Supreme
Court justice (not counting Benjamin Cardozo). While this moment
should have belonged to Miguel Estrada—who was denied even a vote by
an unprecedented Democratic filibuster—we should nevertheless
celebrate Sonia Sotomayor’s rise from very humble beginnings to reach
the highest court in the land. Although her selection represents the very
worst of racial politics—she is not a leading light of the judiciary and
would not have been considered had she not been a Hispanic
woman—her career achievements show that the American Dream
endures.
What makes the American Dream possible, however, is the rule of law,
which in this country is ultimately guaranteed by the Constitution. The
Constitution provides for a very specific government structure, with
checks on each branch’s powers designed to maximize liberty and
eliminate arbitrary and capricious rule. To that end, officers of the
judicial branch—judges—are to make their decisions irrespective of the
race, religion, or riches of those who come before them. And judges are
to interpret the Constitution as written text. If they set aside the text and
rule based on their own notions of fairness, then they act as unelected
legislators or, worse, extra-constitutional amenders of our founding
document.
Nominee Sotomayor knew all this, which is why the testimony she gave
at her confirmation hearings disclaimed many of her previous speeches
and writings, even going so far as to reject President Obama’s “empathy”
standard—the idea that a judge applies the law differently when a litigant
is sympathetic in some politically correct way. While she was evasive
most of the time—reason enough to vote against her—when she did say
something about judicial philosophy, it was often indistinguishable from
the words of John Roberts or Samuel Alito (as evidenced by the
frustration of left-wing commentators). And for good reason: in poll after
poll, the American people overwhelmingly support a vision of the judicial
role as one of enforcing the law as written, not of imposing their own
policy preferences or vision of justice.
Kudos from this exercise go to those Republicans whose hard questions
and thoughtful statements elevated the discussion of the Constitution
beyond mere abstractions, so Americans could better understand the
significance of ideological differences over the judicial role, or the use of
foreign law in interpreting the Constitution, or property rights, or
employment discrimination. In walking away from so many
controversial positions, Sonia Sotomayor established a new standard to
which all future nominees will at least have to pay lip service. While
confirmation was almost a foregone conclusion from the start because of
the Democrats’ strong Senate majority, the Republicans played well the
3
7 August 2009
cards they had been dealt by engaging in a serious discussion about
constitutional interpretation and jurisprudential philosophy.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Costa Rica’s Social Security
System Will Go Bankrupt in 14
Years [Cato at Liberty]
AUG 06, 2009 03:02P.M.
An independent audit—the first ever—of Costa Rica’s social security
system has found that the system will start eating up its reserves in just 6
years, and will see its finances “compromised” (read “go bust”) in only 14
years [story in Spanish here].
Just as in the United States, Costa Rica has a government-run Ponzi
scheme called social security that sooner or later was going to become
unsustainable due to demographic changes. However, the seriousness of
the situation was hidden throughout the years by Enron-like
accountability tricks that have been exposed by the external audit. For
example, official records reported income to the system from public
enterprises that never took place. It also estimated the sustainability of
the pension fund based on unrealistic salary projections.
The consequences for Costa Rican workers are all too grave. This not
only compromises the retirement of young workers, but also of those
who are a few years from retiring. If we had only followed the example of
countries like Chile or El Salvador that privatized their social security
systems years ago….
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Media Spotlight—White House
Healthcare Hypocrisy
[Americans for Tax Reform]
AUG 06, 2009 02:56P.M.
Politico Arena: What’s your question? Grover Norquist, President of
Americans for Tax Reform: “If Barack Obama and the left are the
masters of social networking and the internet, why ...
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
A Want Ad for God [Cato at
Liberty]
AUG 06, 2009 02:54P.M.
The press is still abuzz over Tim Geithner’s behind-closed-
doors tirade against critics of the Obama administration plan to tighten
financial regulation. As Mark Calabria writes below, Geithner offered a
simple message to Fed chair Ben Bernanke, FDIC chair Sheila Bair, and
others: “[Y]ou’ve been heard, so you were ‘included,’ now shut up.”
But while Bernanke, Bair, et al. quibble over details of the Obama plan,
Geithner should be more concerned about the glaring flaw at its center:
the idea that government can conjure up a “systemic risk monitor” that
will identify and avoid future market bubbles.
Financial history reveals that one of the key ingredients for a bubble is
some belief that “everyone” (including financiers, politicians, and
regulators) is confident is true, yet the belief turns out to be wrong
(either because it was always wrong, or conditions changed in some
unforseen way). Some examples of what everyone once “knew:”
• The supply of Dutch admiral tulip bulbs was constrained though
they were in heavy demand, so the 17th-century tulip mania
was good investing.
• The supply of land in the South Seas and the Mississippi Valley was
fixed, so the 18th-century land-buying mania was good investing.
• The emergence of a nationwide U.S. marketplace in the early 20th
century was a watershed event, so the post-WWI
stock frenzy was good investing.
• The emergence of the Internet marketplace, combined with path
dependency and network effects, was another watershed event,
so buying “dotcom” stock was good investing.
• And of course, until the last few years,”everyone knew” that
investing in real estate and mortgages was “safe as houses.”
That last bullet wasn’t just the belief of “greedy investment banks,” but
also of government officials and regulators. My colleagues Peter Van
Doren and Jagadeesh Gokhale have a forthcoming paper that notes, in
part, that despite the populist rhetoric now being bandied around,
banking is heavily regulated under international rules. Those
rules assume that investment in mortgages and mortgage-backed
securities is low-risk (and indeed the rules push money toward those
investments).
The paper also quotes numerous top-tier economists who claimed the
soaring house prices of the past decade were supported by “the
fundamentals,” or that a bubble wouldn’t threaten the broader
economy. (Their paper doesn’t mention — but could — that Fannie Mae
4
7 August 2009
and Freddie Mac, along with their bureaucratic and congressional
overseers, believed those firms’ investments in riskier mortgages were
“safe as houses.”)
Everyone “knew” housing was a sound investment. It just turned out that
everyone was wrong.
Hence the problem with a “systemic risk monitor:” Such a monitor
would have to know when everyone is wrong — including financial
experts and government analysts. And the monitor would need the
power to force everyone to act contrary to their beliefs and instead obey
the monitor’s judgment — and not demand (successfully) that the
monitor be replaced because his judgment is “clearly” flawed.
It seems the Obama administration is creating a position for God. But I
doubt that God will leave his current job.
Someone might object: We wouldn’t have needed God to realize that
there was a housing bubble over the past decade. But the problem with
bubbles is that they only become apparent — and policies against them
only become politically defensible — once they collapse.
And even then they might not be recognized. Consider another asset that
experienced a dramatic price spike and collapse in the last decade: oil.
Ah, someone might argue, there wasn’t really an oil bubble; we’re just
experiencing a temporary decrease in demand. Oil is a scarce
commodity with strong price inelasticities, and its price will soar over
the long term. But the same was said of admiral tulip bulbs, and South
Seas and Mississippi Valley land, and housing in high-demand areas.
What would happen if a systemic risk monitor were to come to
Washington and immediately mandate that we abandon ”energy
sustainability” policies because they’re premised on a bubble? Would he
be right? Who would believe him? And would politicians and the
public stand behind this judgment?
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Tauzin on the $80-Billion
PhRMA-Obama Deal [Cato at
Liberty]
AUG 06, 2009 02:36P.M.
This post by my friend Ben Zycher, at NRO’s The Corner, reminds me
that we still don’t know if the drugmakers are going to be net losers or
net winners under the secretive deal that PhRMA made with President
Obama. To wit…
A week or so ago, I was at a National Journal salon dinner, which
assembled a bunch of Nearly Important People to discuss health reform.
The dinner was “on the record,” so you can imagine how frank and
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
interesting the conversation was.
So after dinner, I asked PhRMA head Billy Tauzin how much his member
companies would make in excess of their $80 billion contribution to
health care reform. Tauzin said they would make less than $80 billion.
(PhRMA is volunteering to make less money! A net contribution to
health reform! How civic-minded!)
If that’s true, I asked, then why isn’t he being replaced with a better
lobbyist? Tauzin said the reason is that this deal prevents a much worse
deal, which might allow reimportation, or apply Medicaid’s price
controls to dual eligibles in Medicare Part D, etc.
Since his member companies would be losing money on the deal, I
continued, why not release the data so we could see each company’s net
contribution? Tauzin said he can’t do that for his member companies.
Why not encourage them to do it? Can’t do that, he said. Besides, all the
data are publicly available, so anyone could crunch the numbers
themselves. Not as well as the member companies can, I observed.
“Awww, sure you could!” he smiled.
So I should just trust the head of the pharmaceutical lobby that his
members won’t be making money on this deal, I asked? All the data are
publicly available, he replied.
A reporter friend commented, “In Tauzin We Trust? Seems like a
stretch.”
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
That’s Edutainment [Cato at
Liberty]
AUG 06, 2009 02:25P.M.
I recently watched the Pacific Research Institute’s documentary “Not as
Good as You Think,” about the woes of a middle-class suburban public
school district, the myth of universally good middle class public
schools, and the Swedish alternative of private school choice.
As with all of PRI’s policy products, the viewer gleans a lot of important
information. It’s a quality piece. What’s really great about it, though, is
how entertaining it is to watch. Putting myself in the place of someone
not working in education policy, I can still imagine watching this flick
purely to follow the story it tells. It’s definitely worth a look.
5
7 August 2009
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Barney Frank Endorses
Regulatory Protectionism [Cato
at Liberty]
AUG 06, 2009 02:23P.M.
When a government increases the burden of taxes, spending, and/or
regulation, this makes it more likely that productive resources – on the
margin – will gravitate to jurisdictions with better economic policy.
Crafty politicians understand that the freedom to cross borders is a
threat to statist policies, which is why international bureaucracies
dominated by high-tax nations, such as the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, are trying to undermine tax competition
between nations by imposing fiscal protectionism. The same is true for
regulation. The Chairman of a key House committee wants to impose
regulatory protectionism to restrict the ability of Americans to patronize
banks and other financial services companies based in jurisdictions with
more laissez-faire policies. The Financial Times has the unsavory details:
Barney Frank, chairman of the House financial services committee, said
he was concerned the new U.S. push to regulate banks and brokers more
rigorously could put it at a competitive disadvantage if other countries
did not follow suit. As a result, he would like to ban U.S. banks from
doing business with countries not subject to similarly tough standards on
everything from leverage limits and capital requirements to rules on
transparency and clearing of derivatives. “Once we have rules . . . we will
say to anybody who wants to be an outlier, ‘you forfeit your right to
participate in the American system’,” Mr Frank told the Financial Times.
“We will instruct the [Securities and Exchange Commission] and
Treasury and the Fed to deny access to the American financial system to
any country that holds itself out as a haven to escape our financial
regulation.” …“It is absolutely the wrong approach,” said a top industry
lawyer, who did not want to be identified criticising Mr Frank. “The
assumption is that everybody has to do business in the U.S. and we can
set global standards. That is absolute nonsense. There are alternatives,
including Hong Kong,” the lawyer added. …Tim Ryan, president of the
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, said that U.S.
regulations should not be imposed on other countries. …Mr Frank’s
interest in banning groups from non-co-operating countries stems in
part from the U.S. experience after it adopted the Sarbanes-Oxley
corporate accountability law. Many overseas companies opted to list
outside the U.S. rather than comply with Sarbox requirements.
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Debating the Future of Shool
Choice [Cato at Liberty]
AUG 06, 2009 02:09P.M.
I have blogged repeatedly of my concern that charter schools are likely to
succumb to the same heavy burden of rules and regulations that beset
traditional public schools. And that, in doing so, they will expand rather
than contract the existing state monopoly – first assimilating
independent private schools into their fold, and then homogenizing them
as the regulatory burden mounts.
This does not appear to be one of the concerns that will be represented at
a forthcoming Fordham Foundation event on charter schools and the
future of school choice. Instead, Fordham staff and their guests will
discuss whether the current administration’s desire to expand the
number of charter schools has doomed the voucher movement to
irrelevancy.
It’s an interesting enough topic by itself, and suitably provocative, but it
also excludes from consideration a far larger segment of the private
school choice policy spectrum: education tax credits. Perhaps to their
occasional advantage, tax credits seem to garner far less attention among
education technocrats than do vouchers. Yet scholarship donation and
personal use credits are benefitting more than 5 times as many students
as vouchers, though the benefit is generally smaller. Credit programs are
growing faster than vouchers, on average, and seem to enjoy more bi-
partisan support — certainly when it comes to programs not limited to
special-needs students.
I’m sure the upcoming Fordham event will be interesting, almost as
much for what it will omit as what it will include.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Children, Turn in Your Parents
[Cato at Liberty]
AUG 06, 2009 01:59P.M.
That was my response to a comment from talk radio host Brian Wilson,
about 14 minutes into this podcast, on the White House’s Snitch Project.
Of course, the conversation leading up to that is well worth 14 minutes.
6
7 August 2009
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Protest in Connecticut [The
Club for Growth]
AUG 06, 2009 01:38P.M.
From today’s Hartford Courant:
Chanting “Dump Chris Dodd” and “No national health care,”
scores of angry constituents confronted U.S. Rep. Chris
Murphy at a meet-and-greet outside the Super Stop & Shop
Wednesday afternoon.
Murphy, a Democrat who represents the 5th District,
routinely holds informal office hours at supermarkets and
strip malls, but such gatherings are generally uneventful. This
time, many of the 150 or so attendees were so boisterous that
Stop & Shop management called the police to ask that the
crowd be moved from the store’s entrance.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Using Twitter to Confront an
Anti-Semitic Attack in Chile’s
Paper of Record [Cato at
Liberty]
AUG 06, 2009 12:20P.M.
After a morning workout and attending Mass this Sunday, I read El
Mercurio (Chile’s paper of record) online. Although I seldom read
Chilean newspapers blogs (too many attacks and too much dirt), I did so
that morning because I was impressed by the indignation expressed by
my friend Luis Larraín in his Sunday blog (titled “Canallas” –
Shameless). I had named Larraín Superintendent of Social Security
when he was 25 years old. At that time I was 30 and Secretary of Labor
and Social Security.
With astonishment I discovered that a certain “Mr. Murillo”, in the
comment no 10 on the blog (which I copied immediately, and backed up
electronically), explicitly attacked another commenter, Mr. José Fregoso
Edelstein, by saying that his prev ious comment was due to the fact that
he is from a “bad race” because he is Jewish.
I immediately logged in to Twitter and posted a ‘tweet’ demanding El
Mercurio delete the blog comment, because it is a terrible insult directed
at a group of people that have suffered indescribable horrors, not only in
the 20th Century, but throughout history. I would have done the same
thing if the insult was directed at Palestinians, Lebanese, Croatians, or
any other racial/religious/national group.
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com 7 August 2009

However, I found an unexpected surprise. Instead of receiving
immediate support for an action I thought just and reasonable, several
people on Twitter attacked Jews, and me for defending them (one wrote,
“You have used your enormous prestige in Chile to become “a shield for
the Jews”). They also accused me of “encouraging censorship”,
suggesting a “media dictatorship”, etc… I replied inmediately in Twitter
to the least offensive ones. Fifteen minutes later I received a ‘tweet’ from
an editor at El Mercurio, saying that they had seen my complaint in
Twitter and that they were studying the situation. With anothet tweet I
insisted on immediate deletion of the comment. Twenty minutes later
the newspaper editors deleted the offensive comment no. 10. I want to
emphasize that the editorial mistake, even this grievous one, does not
compromise the newspaper El Mercurio as a whole, and its fast action in
regards to the issue speaks to the newspaper’s chief editor integrity. It
was an extraordinary triumph of the fast boat Twitter over the “media
carrier” in Chile, another demonstration of the liberating potential of the
wonderful new technologies being developed in the land of the free and
the brave.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Government Schooling vs.
Freedom [Cato at Liberty]
AUG 06, 2009 10:58A.M.
Yesterday, I posted a blog entry responding to an interview with
historian Diane Ravitch in which she criticized “privatization” and
asserted that “deregulation nearly destroyed our economy in the past
decade.” My response was directed at Prof. Ravitch, but touches on a
bigger issue with which all people in the education debate need to
grapple: How much should the school choice debate be centered not
around test scores or financial costs – though those are obviously very
important considerations – but on the role and structure of education in
a free society? Can we not trust free people to make their own education
decisions? If not, how can our system of education be compatible with a
nation firmly rooted in individual liberty?

What left me very worried, and the reason I wrote this comment, is That is a debate I think we desperately need to have – it is fundamental
having detected a worrisome anti-Semitic sentiment among my fellow for a free society – and I hope others will join in.
countrymen. Is this unjust anti-Semitic sentiment widespread, though
hidden, in Chile, or was this only a “black swan”? I declare myself in a
state of alert. We are building a free and good country. There should be
no place whatsoever for the language of hate and the discrimination of FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
minorities. As the great Albert Einstein said: “The world is a dangerous
place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on Protest Videos [The Club for
and do nothing.”
Growth]
AUG 06, 2009 10:14A.M.

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS The Club has a new video blog that tracks townhall protests from across
the country.
Thursday’s Daily News [The
Club for Growth]
AUG 06, 2009 12:15P.M.

THE DAILY NEWS ObamaCare: Serfs Up! - Ken Blackwell, American

Spectator Health Care Reform or Death of Constitution? - Frank Ryan,
Cent. Penn Biz ObamaCare’s Real Price Tag - Wall Street Journal
Editorial Obama May Abandon Bipartisanship - J. Rowley & L. Litvan,
Bloomberg Healthcare Debate Gets Uglier - Janet Hook, LA Times
Recess Gets Louder - Zachary Abrahamson, The Politico Special
Interests Cash in on Clunker Boondoggle - Tim Carney, DC Examiner
Our Lyin’ Eyes - IBD Editorial Lobbying is a Booming Business - David
Boaz, Cato Institute Cap-and-Trade Would Trigger a New Global Trade
War - DC Examiner Editorial Cubs 0, Reds 4 - Associated Press