Certifiable

Lt. Columbo ambled into the America Wants to Know offices last night carrying a stack of newspaper clippings. "This is really something," he said. "Did you know that only a 'natural-born citizen' can be president of the United States?"

"Not you too," we said. "Of all the right-wing, extremist, looney-bin nonsense..."

Columbo folded back a page of newsprint. "Listen to this," he said. "'Almost since those words were written in 1787 with scant explanation, their precise meaning has been the stuff of confusion, law school review articles, whisper campaigns and civics class debates over whether only those delivered on American soil can be truly natural born.'"

"Columbo, please," we pleaded.

"I just want to read this to you," he said. "'There is certainly no precedent,' said Sarah H. Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. 'It is not a slam-dunk situation.'"

"Lieutenant..."

"Here's what former Senator Don Nickles said about it: 'There is some ambiguity because there has never been a court case on what "natural-born citizen" means.'" The detective waved off our protests and continued.

"'Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr. was once viewed as a potential successor to his father, but was seen by some as ineligible since he had been born on Campobello Island in Canada,'" he read. "And listen to this: 'Lawyers who have examined the topic say there is not just confusion about the provision itself, but uncertainty about who would have the legal standing to challenge a candidate on such grounds.'" Columbo raised his arms wide and shrugged. "Nobody knows," he said.

"Lieutenant Columbo," we said with all the patience we could muster, "Barack Obama was born in Hawaii."

"Who's talking about Barack Obama?" Columbo said. "This article is about John McCain." He put it on the desk with a grin.

Sure enough, it was a story from the New York Times dated February 28, 2008. Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone while his father, a Navy officer, was stationed there, had hired former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson to research the question of whether he was a "natural-born citizen" or not.

Mr. Olson told the Times, "I don’t have much doubt about it," but then added that he still needed to finish his research, and an Atlanta lawyer by the name of Jill Pryor, who wrote a paper on the natural-born question for the Yale Law Journal, told the Times, "It is certainly not a frivolous issue."

We apologized to the lieutenant for thinking he was investigating Barack Obama's birth certificate.

"Don't apologize," Columbo said, pulling up a chair. "I am investigating Barack Obama's birth certificate.

"He was born in Hawaii," we repeated with emphasis. "You can see the birth announcements from the newspapers on the Internet."

"I have the copies right here," the lieutenant said, unfolding two crumpled pages. "This is from the Honolulu Advertiser, Sunday, August 13, 1961, under birth announcements: 'Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., son, August 4."

"Exactly," we said.

"Exactly where," Columbo asked, "Does it say where he was born?"

We looked at the paper. "Well, it's the Honolulu paper, right? So he was born in Honolulu."

"They lived in Honolulu," Columbo said, "but the birth announcement doesn't say he was born in this hospital or that one. It just says this couple who live in Honolulu had a baby boy."

We had to admit, he had a point.

"They could have been in San Francisco or New York City or anywhere when the baby was born and still have put an announcement in their hometown paper for their friends and neighbors to see."

We looked again. "Well, none of these birth announcements say where the babies were born," we said.

"No, they don't, you're absolutely right about that," the lieutenant said.

"But there's a birth certificate with a seal on it from Hawaii," we said. "It's on the Internet."

Columbo reached into an inside pocket of his raincoat. "You mean this one?" he asked. "That's not actually a birth certificate. That's a certification that the state of Hawaii produced at the request of the Obama campaign in 2007 or 2008. It certifies that he was born in the state, but it's not actually his birth certificate."

"How do you know?" we asked.

"Because of this woman," Columbo said, searching in another pocket. "Her name is Dr. Chiyome Fukino. She's the director of Hawaii's State Department of Health. She said in October that she has personally seen the birth certificate, and that should be good enough for everybody. Then she said it again this week. " He found the piece of paper he was looking for and unfolded it on the desk.

"July 27, 2009," Columbo read, "'Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said Monday she has seen the original birth records that verify Obama was born in Hawaii, and is a "natural-born American citizen." Fukino made the announcement in hopes of ending any lingering rumors about Obama's citizenship. She issued a similar press release Oct. 31.'"

"She's seen the original birth certificate?" we asked.

"That's what she said," Columbo agreed.

"So that's that."

"Right," Columbo said, "That's that." He stood up and started to walk toward the door. Then he stopped.

"I just, if you don't mind, I just have one more question," he said, turning around. "Why can't we see it?"

"See what?" we asked.

"The original birth certificate," Columbo said. "The one Dr. Fukino said she has personally seen with her own eyes. Why can't the rest of us see it?"

"Why don't you ask her?"

"I did ask her," Columbo said. "I followed her around for ninety minutes, less commercials. She said nobody can see an original birth certificate unless they have a 'tangible interest.'"

"What does that mean?"

"It probably means you'd have to have a court order. But that brings us back to this problem," he said, picking up the New York Times clipping. "There is 'uncertainty about who would have the legal standing to challenge a candidate on such grounds.'"

"This is very confusing," we said. "Are you saying that nobody has the right to ask for proof that the president of the United States was born in this country?"

"That's the way it's shaping up," Columbo said. "Of course, Hawaii would give President Obama his own birth certificate, if he asked for it. He could get it and make it public."

"Well, that would certainly put a stop to all the lawsuits and rumors and questions," we said. "Why doesn't he just do that?"

Columbo was unfolding another clipping. "There were reports," he said, "that Hawaii had destroyed all the paper records when they computerized everything back in 2001."

"Oh," we said. "So that's it. The paper records are all gone."

"No, actually they're not," Columbo said. "This is from Wednesday's L.A. Times, the Calendar section, page D10 -- my wife loves the Calendar section -- 'Hawaii Health Department officials told the Los Angeles Times last week that old birth records have not been destroyed.'"

We looked at the lieutenant.

He looked at us.

"The L.A. Times?" we asked.

"The L.A. Times," he said.

"But they're not a right-wing extremist looney-bin."

"No," he said. "They're damn near as good as I am."



Copyright 2009

Editor's note: You might be interested in the earlier post, "Tabloid update: 'Where Obama was really born!'"

.

Bad at math

Mike Allen of Politico reported Saturday night, at 11:40 p.m., that "White House officials are embracing a plan to tax 'gold-plated, Cadillac' insurance policies."

According to "a top administration official," putting a tax on top of the price of the most expensive health insurance plans "is one of the ways to ensure that there's a lid on health-care costs."

The official told Politico, "The president believes this is an intriguing idea."

This is just more evidence that no one in Washington is getting enough sleep.

Let's think this through, together.

If we have a health care crisis, it's not caused by the people who buy top-quality policies that pay doctors and hospitals for the care they receive.

It's caused by the people who don't pay doctors and hospitals for the care they receive.

Taxing high-quality insurance out of existence means doctors and hospitals will lose the revenue from full-price customers that has been helping them stay in business, as low-quality insurance and government insurance grind down their reimbursements to a level that sometimes falls below the cost of providing the care.

The people who pay their insurance and medical bills are not the cause of the problem, they're the solution to the problem.

Doesn't it make more sense to increase tax breaks for buying insurance?

This is something that Senator Ted Kennedy has blocked more than once, denouncing it as a ploy to benefit the "healthy and wealthy."

But the solution to the high cost of health insurance is to bring more people into the fold who pay their insurance bills and don't need much in the way of health care -- the healthy and 'wealthy.' If companies want to attract employees by offering superior benefits, why should the government make it prohibitively expensive for the companies or the employees? What is the point of that?

If the point is to raise money in order to subsidize health care for people who can't pay for it, remember that these policies already subsidize care for people who can't pay for it, by compensating doctors and hospitals at high rates that result from cost-shifting. High taxes on the policies will mean fewer companies will offer them, which will mean less revenue for doctors and hospitals and less tax revenue.

Even if you believe that wealth in America is something that should be punished, naked self-interest should force everyone to recognize that this is a colossally wrong-headed idea. It can make sense only to people who believe it is more important to bring the rich down than to lift the poor up.


Copyright 2009

.

Yes we can and no we won't

Last week, Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius appeared on The Daily Show and told host Jon Stewart that Americans need to swear off junk food and learn to love lettuce sandwiches.

In a related story, Surgeon General nominee Regina Benjamin was denounced and cruelly attacked by commentators for being overweight.

Now, ask yourself: why is it anybody's business how much anybody weighs?

The answer is: When you ask people to pay for everybody else's health care, they believe everybody's weight is their business. If the government taxes some people to pay for other people's health care, it soon will be engaged in non-stop carping at anyone who smokes, drinks, eats fried food, or sits on a couch instead of marching on a treadmill.

It's inevitable.

This is just one small example of why health care reform as envisioned by the Obama administration will never become law in America. Health care reform is a perfect little laboratory experiment in collectivism.

Over and over again we hear about how much "we" spend on health care in America and how "our" outcomes compare to other countries. President Obama envisions panels of experts in Washington making decisions about the most effective treatments. Then the government can tell doctors and hospitals it won't reimburse them for "less effective" treatments, thereby saving "us" billions of dollars.

But health care isn't a collective good. It's not like Pentagon spending.

When you get sick, the issue isn't how much "we" spend on "our" outcomes. The issue is what you need for your best outcome. The only question is who's going to pay for it, and who's going to be in the position to say, "That's too expensive and it's not worth it in this case."

The best person to make that decision is the patient. When insurance companies say "no," politicians go around the country declaring that we have a health care crisis and people are being denied treatment.

President Obama proposes panels of experts who will review digitized medical records to improve quality and efficiency. He says costs will be controlled by adjusting "incentives," which is government-speak for refusing to reimburse doctors and hospitals for some treatments that government experts believe, after a statistical analysis of "outcomes" and a thorough review by White House officials, to be less effective or not worth the money.

Would you stand still for some government bean-counter's guidelines blocking the treatment your doctor recommends for you or a family member?

Or would you start calling around to see if anyone knows a congressman or a cabinet secretary who can get your treatment approved?

Do you want to live in a country like that? Where you can't get the medical care you want unless you know someone?

Health care reform would turn the political class into a powerful and protected elite that enjoys the best of everything, while everyone else is forced to accept less in the name of "fairness."

That's how it works in totalitarian countries.

And this is how you become one.


Copyright 2009

Editor's note: You might be interested in the earlier posts, "Just kill it" and "Gazing into the future."

.

The undoing of Sonia Sotomayor

Could the unemployment rate sink the Sotomayor nomination?

Senator Dianne Feinstein, of all people, said today during Senate confirmation hearings for Judge Sonia Sotomayor that calls have been coming into her offices in California, of all places, complaining that the woman nominated to be the first Hispanic justice on the U.S. Supreme Court is an activist judge.

For just a moment, clear your mind completely and think like a Californian.

The unemployment rate in this state is north of ten percent. The state has a budget deficit so large the Hubble Telescope can't see the end of it. After thirty years of loose immigration policies, California's public schools are educating millions of children who came here illegally from Mexico, or who were born to parents who came here illegally from Mexico. The state also subsidizes emergency medical care, affordable housing, child care, pre-natal care, and various other services required by millions of people who wouldn't be in the state of California at all if they or their family members hadn't broken the law to come here.

Adding insult to injury, thirty years of liberal rhetoric has demonized white males as privileged, undeserving beneficiaries of an Anglo-Saxon patriarchal society, while affirmative action policies that favor women and selected minorities are held up in the media as the morally superior way to hire and promote.

Now President Barack Obama -- who said today "we will probably continue to see unemployment tick up for several months" -- has nominated a Hispanic woman for a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, where she is likely to be the fifth vote in favor of continuing to uphold affirmative action policies.

The Senate Democrats have the votes to confirm Judge Sotomayor, and they could choose to ignore poll numbers that say 44% of U.S. voters don't want this nominee on the Supreme Court.

But a poll like that reflects an intense political force that will not dissipate in a week.

Did you know that the U.S. Constitution has never been amended to ban racial discrimination or gender discrimination?

It's true.

Laws prohibiting discrimination are secured in the Constitution by an interpretation of due process and equal protection that was pulled out of the air in 1954 when the Supreme Court decided the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education. It's the nuance of that decision, and similar decisions since, that allows affirmative action to exist. If the U.S. Constitution was amended to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race or gender, all affirmative action policies would be unconstitutional and would have to be abolished.

Judge Sotomayor's confirmation might be enough to get it done.


Copyright 2009

Editor's note: For more detail on the history of the unsuccessful effort to ban racial discrimination, read the appendix to The 37th Amendment, an essay titled "How the First Amendment Came to Protect Topless Dancing: A history of the incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment, why it's a problem, and how to fix it."

.

The Explanation

Why is the unemployment rate still going up?

Here's one explanation:

On ABC News today, Vice President Joe Biden told George Stephanopoulos, "The truth is, we and everyone else misread the economy."

Vice President Biden said the administration's prediction that unemployment would peak at 8 percent was too optimistic. "The truth is, there was a misreading of just how bad an economy we inherited." he said.

Here's another explanation:

Jerry Bowyer, chief economist at Benchmark Financial Network, wrote on CNBC.com last week that small businesses are not hiring because they are "paralyzed by regulatory uncertainty":

"If they hire someone who ends up doing poorly, will they be able to fire that person? Will they have to pay their health care bills after they've been terminated? If so, for how long? Who will pay for all these stimulus checks? If it will turn out to be small business, why would they hire instead of keeping costs low to prepare for the big tax bill? Where will the market move? Are you in the right business or are your clients in a politically disfavored industry? Are your clients in health care (being nationalized), autos (already nationalized), banking (somewhat nationalized) or any energy production process which uses carbon (pulverized)? Until you know, you don't grow, and until you grow your market, you don't grow your payroll."

You be the judge.


Copyright 2009

.

Why Sarah Palin quit

Sherlock Holmes dropped by the America Wants To Know office this afternoon. The great detective may appear disinterested in fame and glory, but we have never known him to miss a curtain call.

"You were right," we said.

"Naturally," he replied.

It was September 14, 2008, early on a Sunday morning, when Sherlock Holmes had walked into our office carrying a magnifying glass and a copy of the Sunday New York Times and solved The Case of the Governor's Husband.

"The governor's damage-control effort may well succeed," Holmes said. "By the time the details of the scandal become public, the story of her resignation will be old news. She will point to her record and blame the accusations on the enemies she made by doing what was right for the people of Alaska. She will play the victim. She will talk about the future. It will be over in a week."

"Really?" we asked. "Would you guess that she has a future in politics?"

The flicker of a smile crossed Holmes' face. "I never guess," he said.


Copyright 2009

Editor's note: You might be interested in the earlier post, "The Case of the Governor's Husband."

.