And despite a hint of disapproval from Rush Limbaugh, on his radio show on Thursday, October 8, 2009, as he played a clip of the interview with the two ladies singing a song of love to our President for his generosity, stash is actually a pretty accurate term for the “urgent” dollars fleeced from other Americans or their grandchildren in the name of the President’s emergency Stimulus Bill. And in a related report, Rush even spoke approvingly of the “two entrepreneurs” outside Cobo Hall, described by news reports as scam artists, offering to sell readymade applications for $20, Rush expressing a touch of relief and pleasure knowing that the entrepreneurial spark is not dead, even in Detroit.

Apparently, there were no shovel ready jobs for the able bodied in line so they could retain their self respect and earn their checks. Nor was there likely any thought by the White House of tackling the 50% inter-city teen unemployment by lowering the minimum wage for teens and those taking their first job, creating a way for teens to work and contribute rather than take a hand out, opening up opportunities for local businesses to hire an untrained worker at a salary that better reflects the workers lack of skill, and training, and education, and preparedness to comply with the social requirements of a first job.  

Of course the whole idea of our President and the federal government playing Robin Hood was alien to the founders, Mr. Madison remarking: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

The question today is whether or not the President’s dismal loss in Copenhagen, a first round blow-out, garnering a meager 18 of 94 votes, a shellacking seldom experienced even by the hapless Mets, puts Mr. Obama in a decision box, a box limiting his options, requiring him to send 40,000 troops to Afghanistan as requested by General McChrystal, troops the General says are needed if we are to avoid losing the war, denying the President the option of either kicking the can down the road again with a half-measure decision, or walking away from Afghanistan and ordering a total withdrawal of all troops.

In fact, the International Olympic Committee shutout just about requires that he neither pull out as his left-wing base desires, nor that he follow the advice of the Vice President, Mr. Biden apparently arguing for an offshore approach with a reduced force structure, a move strikingly reminiscent of a present vote, a delaying tactic, a move that must surely be attractive to a President in love with the idea of not taking a stand, of not making an either or choice: all in or all out.  

Whether you consider the Copenhagen junket a huge loss of face, on the scale of an 8.2 earthquake, or just a minor tremor, a quivering that removes the thrill from Chris Matthews’ leg, but otherwise passes quickly, Mr. Obama cannot afford to be tagged repeatedly as a “LOSER.”

And another “LOSER” tag is on deck as the Obama administration began talking with the Iranians this past week, looking for ways to walk back their nuclear ambitions, to reset their pell-mell march towards their promised destruction of Israel and the ushering in of the 12^th imam. The smart money expects the Iranians to talk and talk until their bomb is fully operational. Since President Obama has already taken so much off the table it is, arguably, only a matter of time, unless Israel strikes, until Iran has a nuclear weapon. Mr. Obama has frequently asserted, however, that Iran would not be allowed to get a nuclear bomb, but such an eventuality is all but built into the game, and when it occurs it will be STRIKE 2 for the President: “LOSER.”

Meanwhile, a game-changing decision is needed in the Afghanistan war, and pulling all troops out of Afghanistan seems to be the President’s preferred position, but a withdrawal at this time would be a clear loss of “the real war,” unlike the diversion in Iraq as Mr. Obama called that conflict. And if the former junior Senator from Illinois rejects the request from General McChrystal for 40,000 more troops, it would be STRIKE 3 for the President: “LOSER.”

Iran and Afghanistan represent clear losses, losses potentially more existential than a failed Olympic bid, a bid where the IOC boots your city in the first round, losses possibly tagging him as a serial loser, perhaps beginning a death knell for his candidacy, ending any cooperation from blue dog democrats, a rallying cry for opponents, a demoralizing strike on Democrat efforts to recruit candidates for the next two elections cycles.

The President’s loss in Copenhagen makes it more likely he will reject any signal of failure in Afghanistan, assuring that he will send the General an additional 40,000 troops, committing him to a counter-insurgency strategy and a protracted war struggle. And so, the President will reluctantly grant the General’s call to add more troops, following LBJ into the abyss—and if he doesn’t do something quickly to fix his draconian Rules of Engagement Afghanistan could turn out worse for him than Vietnam did for LBJ.

What should President Obama say this week to a joint session of Congress about health care reform? Should he repeat another version of his previous “111 health care speeches, interviews, and press conferences in which he’s talked about health care?”Should he send Hillary to Russia to get back the “reset” button? Should he try something else?

Judging by remarks from commentators, if President Obama doesn’t try something else, his message on health care reform won’t persuade. Mark Steyn in The Omnipresent Leader criticizes President Obama: “the more he opens his mouth the more the American people recoil from his ‘reforms.’” And in Obama the Mortal, Charles Krauthammer observes the President’s decline: “The charismatic conjurer of 2008 has shed his magic.” And Peggy Noonan in Coruscating on Thin Ice declares Mr. Obama has lost the trust of the center: “But the great mass of Americans, the big center, will, I strongly suspect, not be listening. Mr. Obama has grown boring. And it's not Solid Boring, which is fine in a president and may be good. It's sort of Faux Eloquent Boring, especially on health care.” Eventually, everyone on board —even movie goers at this White House—knew the Titanic was going down. President Obama cannot afford to do more of the same—he must try something else—when he speaks to Congress.

 How could the President change course—turn the ship of state—and fundamentally reset his health care reform goals? One way is to take some basic assumptions and reverse them. In his books, Cracking Creativity and Thinkertoys, creativity expert, Michael Michalko explains that by reversing assumptions you broaden your thinking, you change perspective, you often see answers to problems that were not obvious before. 

When Alfred Sloan took over General Motors on the verge of bankruptcy, he reversed some assumptions. At that time, Michalko says the assumption was that “you had to buy a car before you drove it.” But by reversing the assumption “to mean you could buy it while driving it,” Sloan pioneered the concept of installment buying for car dealers. Michalko notes, “Many creative thinkers get their most original ideas when they challenge and reverse the obvious.”

Two of the key assumptions President Obama has been clinging to during his health care reform campaign are that reform needs to be comprehensive and that it can be paid for by taking money from Medicare.

But does health care reform need to be comprehensive? Why can’t the White House reverse the assumption? Why can’t Mr. Obama pursue a series of actions? Why can’t he achieve closure through a series of small wins, building a coalition as he goes along, gaining the confidence of the opposition, enhancing his power to persuade? Why not begin with issues like portability of insurance or an authorization permitting the purchase of medical insurance nationwide, issues where he should be able to get a majority of Republicans to join him?

Part of the “power to persuade” is as old as Aristotle; it is the ethos of the speaker. The President’s poll numbers more likely reflect that the President has lost the public trust than that the public doesn’t understand the health care plan. Health care is too important to have a two-tier discriminatory system. The elderly should be cherished as national assets, not given a “blue pill” and told to take one for the Gipper!  Reverse the assumptions: America can spend more and we can keep our promise to provide quality health care to the elderly—does anyone really believe the cash for clunkers program is a better expenditure of taxpayer funds than 5 more years for granny?

Judging by his declining approval numbers during August, a reset should certainly be considered. In fact, in a recent column, It’s Time for Obama to Change Course, blogger Jay Cost at Real Clear Politics argued that the declining poll numbers threaten the President’s “power to persuade.” And if he wants to advance new health care reforms through Congress, then he needs a course correction. His first recommendation for the President is for him to recognize that “the Cheese stands alone,” alone on the mountain top he stands, and he must act accordingly. Even if it is unpopular with those around him; the call is his alone to make. He has to take charge. He has to chart a course.

 If we just focus on this idea for now that the President has to lead even if advisors or supporters are not completely happy, then how might the President change course? What might the President do if he wanted to recapture the center? What would a fundamental shakeup look like?

One suggestion, by Cost, would be for the President to adopt some of his campaign rhetoric. Following up on that suggestion, the President argued as a candidate that sacrifices—yes, sacrifices—would be asked of everyone. Why not reverse the current assumption that Congress, the unions, and trial lawyers are off limits in the health care debate?

Why not begin by asking the political class to lead by example—a time honored tradition in our military—by announcing that there will not be a two-tiered system? That any reform will apply equally to Congress and the President—and if Congress likes its current health care system and wants to keep it, then they must pass similar coverage for all Medicare recipients. 

The unions were among the President’s biggest supporters. If they won’t sacrifice to help him, why should anyone else agree to inferior care or less care than they currently receive? If our private health spending is “too high because our tax rules lead to the wrong kind of insurance,” the President should urge Congress to close the current health-insurance exclusion even if the unions “are particularly vehement in their opposition to any reduction in the tax subsidy.”

Trial lawyers were big supporters of the President. But needless medical procedures ordered merely to inoculate physicians from litigation are a large part of our health care costs. Why can’t punitive damages, designed to punish a plaintiff for misconduct, be awarded to a government owned trust fund to pay for Medicaid rather than being distributed as a windfall to a plaintiff? Congress could set a 20% compensations rate for lawyers pursuing punitive damages in egregious cases, recognizing their contribution to the public interest.

A fundamental shake-up that shows real leadership might help the President gain the confidence of voters, restoring his credibility and “power to persuade,” garnering him a second chance to see health care reform succeed.

When left-wing activists attended Bush functions they shrewdly waited their time before beginning their planned performance: getting attention, throwing the speaker off track, interrupting the speaker merely for the purpose of creating chaos.

But consider the Town Hall protesters; they don’t behave as the Code Pink or anti-war groups did at Bush functions. The Town Hall participants are responding to something that was said by their government representative. The Town Hall meetings are interactive. If Kathleen Sebelius or Senator Arlen Specter say something stupid, disingenuous, or untrue, the crowd shows its disapproval. If a member of the audience says something to Congressman Brian Bard that others agree with, the crowd shows its approval. These are not rent-a-crowd protesters merely acting out just to disrupt. They are citizens who made time to attend. They are voters who feel strongly about the subject. They are constituents who are insisting they be part of the dialog. And the large majority of them were not sent by anybody. They see $9 trillion in debt over the next ten years. They hear arguments for a health care plan that don’t make sense. And they want to understand, and they want to be assured that Congress and the White House won’t make it worse.

Instead of hiding from the folks by retreating to telephone conferences, or cancelling public appearances one day and then slipping in an unscheduled union supported choreographed event the next day, or disparaging constituents, representatives should hold more Town Halls. They should engage in more interactive participation with voters, and they should forget busing in the rent a crowd to artificially “balance” an event.

Representatives have to realize those attending have concerns, concerns felt deeply. And as a member of Congress they do not have much trust in their portfolio with voters; in fact, they rank lower than the neighborhood used car salesman. Politicians should recognize the Town Halls for what they are—the current Town Halls are more like the opposition in the British Parliament responding to a speaker: loud, sometimes raucous, and sincerely serious. The “ruling class” needs to talk to the people in their district, and present their case, and persuade them of their position, if they can.

Democrats should not cavalierly dismiss the Town Hall participants unless they want to be voted out of office because they have lost touch with the pulse of America.

Thank you for your email regarding your work on Health Care Reform. I have a few thoughts, comments, and questions for you.

1.      I hope your Health Care Reform Bill extends the same medical coverage to our veterans that it does to members of Congress. After all, despite the attacks you sustain from the press corps, our troops overseas are dying or returning with real injuries.  I am sure you would agree that it would be unconscionable for any Congressman to vote for coverage for himself and then to vote to treat veterans differently.

2.      a. In “The Deep Pockets Mirage,” a WA Post editorial dated July 15, 2009, the Post dismissed a tax on the wealthy to fund health care reform as an improbable solution.

[T]here is no case to be made for the House Democratic majority’s proposal to fund health-care legislation through an ad hoc income tax surcharge for top-earning households. . . . There is simply no way to close the gap by taxing a handful of high earners. . . . Pretending that “the rich” alone can fund government, let alone the kind of activist government that the president and Congress envision, is bad policy any way you look at it. 

b. Apparently your bill also doesn’t cover the cost of medical care for un-documented aliens, a cost expected to be significant. Where will the money come from to pay for your reform bill let alone the additional expense for the undocumented? Before passing any health care reform, shouldn’t you know—especially in light of CBO testimony—the total cost for comprehensive reform? 

3.      Please remember that medical care delayed, rationed, or below even minimum standards of health sanitation is care denied. According to a recent report, for example, in Quebec province there is a two to three year wait merely to be assigned a family doctor. Nor is rationed care a viable option. Rationed care that delays treatment until the patient dies is a cruel hoax. Also, high rates of hospital induced infections (as reported throughout Canada) are terrifying. Health Care Reform will be a failure, a dark and dismal failure, if it means Canadian style delays, rationed care, or rampant cases of hospital-induced infections.

4.      Furthermore, where will our doctors come from in the future, since Government run programs historically discourage prospective applicants from entering the field? With government run health care, would you ever consider encouraging a young college graduate to pursue a career in medicine knowing he must spend seven years or more completing medical school, an internship, and a residency only to face a government controlled compensation commission? As noted by the Houston Chronicle, Medicare and Medicaid present less than an encouraging model:

A study last year in the Houston Chronicle found that "only 58 percent of Texas physicians are taking new Medicare cases, and only 38 percent of primary care physicians are doing so." In addition, the study found, "[across] the country, only 600,000 of 1.5 million total physicians are currently willing to treat Medicare patients." If doctors are already reluctant to participate in existing government run plans like Medicare and Medicaid, adding an additional public plan could discourage them even further.

Where are the incentives in your bill to attract young students into the medical profession?

5.      Our friends all agree—we pray your focus is on quality of care, meaning timely and effective treatment, and not access to care, meaning big government commissions restricting care based on artificial tables relating to age, cost, or other bureaucratic vagaries.

Thank you for your service.

The proposed legislation is unnecessary since state and federal criminal law statutes currently protect all persons from physical harm. In a capital case for murder, for example, the death penalty (or a life sentence) is authorized. What further punishment greater than the death penalty can be adjudged by virtue of passing hate crimes legislation? What purpose is served?

Furthermore, anecdotal evidence of the consequences of hate crime legislation in England and Canada raises serious concerns, reflecting consequences of such legislation that should be a red flag to all Americans. A great danger with a ‘hate crimes’ bill is the harmful and debilitating effect it has had in foreign jurisdictions: limiting speech, curtailing debate, ushering in speech codes. Hate legislation has a chilling effect on debate. It puts a sword in the hands of litigious groups to stop speech. In Canada, for example, an author of a book review was recently forced to defend his written work before a Human Rights Commission when he merely reported on the content in a bestselling book.

Unfortunately, Senate Bill 909 increases the risk of taking our country in a dangerous direction. Even if you see some intangible benefit in such legislation, however remote, consider the danger that regulating speech and thought poses to a democratic society, a society that values free speech and respects and honors open debate in the public square.

We are feeling—almost on a daily basis–the impact of rising energy and food prices (Fortune writes: The next great crisis: America's debt). Can you tell us when fuel will no longer be needed, or how long until research does a work around for drilling oil, since Iran can have nuclear energy but we cannot? How do you know there is another viable option in the short term, meaning within 20 to 30 years?

We look at the exploding federal debt: lower tax revenues; spending for the stimulus bill and GSEs; spending on other programs increasing around 12%, adding $222 billion to the budget (Exploding Debt Threatens America); and the demand by the financial markets for greater yields to finance our debt (US long-term interest rates hit high) and we are less than confident about the future.

Elected representatives in Washington are expanding our debt, increasing our debt service, stressing our creditors—the laughing Chinese students responding to our Treasury Secretary were an ominous sign—as a debtor we are not trusted (Enjoy Stimulus Now, Pay Your $14,000 Share Later: Kevin Hassett)?

You are spending as if the law of economics for individuals has no relevance for a country. You are reportedly borrowing $.46 for every dollar we spend. President Obama says “we are out of money.” Taxpayers will opt to retire, stay at home with their children, cut back their hours, or not expand their business if you punish them for working. Please remember what happened when government passed a tax on luxury boats—the industry almost died, revenues declined, and the bill had to be withdrawn. 

If the financial markets dry up and lenders refuse to accept our dollars, or if our credit worthiness is downgraded (A Wake Up Call, Indeed), or if the cost of all the new programs is as inaccurate as the unemployment estimates—do you have a quick fix to turn it all around? What is the exit strategy (Exploding Debt Threatens America)? When credit markets refuse to lend, do we sell off oil rights beyond 20 miles of the West coast to China and Japan in return for necessary debt financing?

A Heritage Foundation chart in March 2009 visually captures the runaway spending-- this chart is causing us to lose sleep.

Vice President Biden says we will waste money and stimulus checks go out to grandparents dead for 35 years! How do you know government can improve health care by being more involved? Where is the evidence of government success: Katrina; TARP; the stimulus package this year?

When it comes to health care reform we ask that you please “do no harm.” How about first requiring some evidence of a program that works before changing it all and making things worse? England and Canada are not good examples of an acceptable one payer system for Americans. Reports suggest fewer people will want to practice medicine with government mandated care—just at a time when demographics mandate an increase in health providers and specialist.

Please: at a minimum require that any changes apply to all members of Congress and all government employees before adopting changes.

Sincerely,

“Work Hard. Be Nice.: How Two Inspired Teachers Created the Most Promising Schools in America” is the story of Dave Levin and Mike Feinberg—founders of the highly successful charter schools known as KIPP [Knowledge is Power Program]—two young teachers starting out in Houston with a two year commitment for Teach for America. The KIPP story is an impressive one: inner city 5^th graders, after one year in KIPP, essentially double their scores over their 4^th grade performance in reading (from 32% to 58%) and in math (from 42% to 84%).

The Levin/Feinberg story is one of inspirational dedication to their students. There are daily evening phone calls from students with homework questions. There is an uncommon effort to teach subject mastery by requiring longer class days—school days begin at 7:30AM and last to 5PM, with periodic half days on Saturday and three weeks of school each summer. There are also struggles and campaigns with supervisors and administrators to get adequate class space.

Mathews tracks their progress from beginning classroom teacher to the present day as leaders of an expanding chartered school program with a national footprint and 66 schools. During the journey they gain teaching skills in the classroom. They discover how to work with and win over parents. They master the art of cooperating with or going around school administrators. They deliver students a disciplined and challenging course of study to ensure success. They push into unchartered territory expanding the number of classes, the number of teachers, and the number of schools under the KIPP umbrella.

They are now receiving national recognition for their success. Their journey, however, would have been much more improbable, if not uneventful, if they hadn’t met Harriett Ball, Rafe Esquith, and Scott Hamilton along the way. Each of these individuals appeared at just the right time, bringing their own expertise to bear and helping our two neophytes move to the next level—in the classroom, in the education bureaucracy, in the business world.

As the KIPP schools expand, Mathews’ notes there are certain pillars that stuck: “(1) high expectations, (2) choice and commitment, (3) more time, (4) power to lead, and (5) focus on results.” He argues KIPP’s success really comes down to a desire to find what works, that is, find what helps the students perform better. It is this continuous quality improvement, this flexibility to see something is not working and make changes, he argues, that explains KIPP’s success.

Matthews does an excellent job of answering the doubters, refuting the critics, and setting out the evidence. In the process he confirms the KIPP motto: “All children will learn.”

And when the players face off at center court and the ball goes up, and the game begins—it is all about enthusiasm, energy, effort. Sometimes it comes down to one play—a box out so a teammate gets a rebound; or going over a screen instead of below it; or a lazy pass that goes out of bounds because you took your mind off the game for a minute; or a rushed shot for a low percentage when odds favored a pass or two; or a careless and lazy dribble off your foot; or a missed free throw.

Winning versus losing, surviving and advancing, sometimes it all comes down to one play and that is why:

They

Count every play

Because

Every Play Counts.

What will happen to Catholic hospitals if the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), a bill to be sponsored by Senator Boxer and Congressman Nadler, passes? Many Catholics are concerned it would result in the destruction of conscience protections for medical personnel, shifting the force of government further in favor of abortion, requiring Catholic hospitals to close or accept a procedure they oppose? Following the civil rights model of civil disobedience some Catholic Bishops want to refuse to comply, while other Bishops talk about closing Catholic Hospitals. Catholic Hospitals in America employ 600,000, comprise 13 percent of the total 5,000 hospitals, and care for 1 in 6.

Could civil disobedience work? Or, would Courts find a civil remedy for the test case “victims” sent to Catholic hospitals across America by groups like NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood? Surely, these groups would be sending out “test cases,”—persons seeking abortions at Catholic hospitals, individuals who if refused the procedure would file law suits with the financial support of a group like the ACLU to finance their agenda? And if it meant exposing medical personnel to litigation, would health care workers be willing to work for a Catholic hospital engaged in civil disobedience? And if they were willing to work for a Catholic hospital engaged in civil disobedience, would health care professionals be able to get malpractice insurance? Can a Catholic Church committed to life from conception realistically remain open and participate in what it regards as an evil and pernicious operation?

Would the first African-American President really participate in legislation destroying the long honored right of conscience—a cherished tradition and principle of individual rights in the West and in the United States, a right resulting in the abolition of slavery and the benefits to minorities from the Civil Rights movement? Perhaps he would; after all, isn’t he the first Presidential candidate to argue that an infant surviving a botched partial-birth abortion procedure is “pre-viable;” and then argue that such an infant is not protected as a “person” under the Constitution. During the campaign, he even responded to a question from Rick Warren during a debate about when life begins, by answering: when life begins is: “above my pay grade.” President Obama’s argument that a living child was not a person entitled to life always struck me as rather curious and inexplicable in light of the universal condemnation throughout America today of the Plessy vs. Ferguson decision, a decision holding a slave was only three fifths of a person.

Perhaps you ask, why would President Obama sign such legislation—an act shuttering up to 13 percent of all hospitals in America, an act resulting in unemployment or relocation for up to 600,000 employees, an act disrupting and distressing one in six Americans? Why would he do this in light of the impacts upon religious faith, and hospital care, and the economy, and the right of conscience; after all, didn’t he promise to bring a new tone to American politics, to rise above the petty politics of the past, to bring Americans together, not drive them further apart?

            
Consider, however, as a Presidential candidate, Barack Obama promised to sign FOCA, a promise he made to pro-abortion groups that supported his election. Consider also, quickly after his inauguration, President Obama proudly signed an Executive Order authorizing the use of American taxpayer dollars, to fund international organizations providing abortions, an expenditure of money opposed, in a recent poll, by 62 percent of Americans.  

            
Perhaps, President Obama would say: it all depends on what you mean by “bringing together.”

David Brooks (A Moderate Manifesto) seems genuinely surprised that President Obama is doing what he promised to do—the angst is palpable. Brooks writes: 

There is evidence of a party swept up in its own revolutionary fervor — caught up in the self-flattering belief that history has called upon it to solve all problems at once.

…. We end up with an agenda that is unexceptional in its parts but that, when taken as a whole, represents a social-engineering experiment that is entirely new.

            Instead, perhaps he needs to identify those areas where he agrees with conservatives to his right, accept that politics is the art of the possible, and align himself with others. For example, there are no Republicans, of any note, moderate or conservative, that want to see the D.C. voucher program gutted, as it will be under the current proposal.