Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise

Even if Congress passes legislation -- a good bet -- the finished product will fall far short of Obama's extravagant promises. It will not cover everyone. It will not control costs. It will worsen the budget outlook. It will lead to higher taxes. It will disrupt how, or whether, companies provide insurance for their workers. As the real-life (as opposed to rhetorical) consequences unfold, they will rebut Obama's claim that he has "solved" the health care problem. His reputation will suffer.

It already has. Despite Obama's eloquence and command of the airwaves, public suspicions are rising. In April, 57 percent of Americans approved of his "handling of health care" and 29 percent disapproved, reports The Washington Post-ABC News poll; in the latest survey, 44 percent approved and 53 percent disapproved. About half worried that their care would deteriorate and that health costs would rise.

These fears are well-grounded. The various health care proposals represent atrocious legislation. To be sure, they would provide insurance to 30 million or more Americans by 2019. People would enjoy more security. But even these gains must be qualified. Some of the newly insured will get healthier, but how many and by how much is unclear. The uninsured now receive 50 percent to 70 percent as much care as the insured. The administration argues that today's system has massive waste. If so, greater participation in the waste by the newly insured may not make them much better off.

The remaining uninsured may also exceed estimates. Under the Senate bill, they would total 24 million in 2019, reckons Richard Foster, chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. But a wild card is immigration. From 1999 to 2008, about 60 percent of the increase in the uninsured occurred among Hispanics. That was related to immigrants and their children (many American born). Most illegal immigrants aren't covered by Obama's proposal. If we don't curb immigration of the poor and unskilled -- people who can't afford insurance -- Obama's program will be less effective and more expensive than estimated. Hardly anyone mentions immigrants' impact, because it seems insensitive.

Meanwhile, the health care proposals would impose massive costs. Remember: The country already faces huge increases in federal spending and taxes or deficits because an aging population will receive more Social Security and Medicare. Projections made by the Congressional Budget Office in 2007 suggested federal spending might rise almost 50 percent by 2030 as a share of the economy (gross domestic product). Since that estimate, the recession and massive deficits have further bloated the national debt.

Obama's plan might add almost another $1 trillion in spending over a decade -- and more later. Even if this is fully covered, as Obama contends, by higher taxes and cuts in Medicare reimbursements, these revenues could have been used to cut the existing deficits. But the odds are that the new spending isn't fully covered, because Congress might reverse some Medicare reductions before they take effect. Projected savings seem "unrealistic," says Foster. Similarly, the legislation creates a voluntary long-term care insurance program that's supposedly paid by private premiums. Foster calls it "unsustainable," suggesting a need for big federal subsidies.

Obama's overhaul would also change how private firms insure workers. Perhaps 18 million workers could lose coverage and 16 million gain it, as companies adapt to new regulations and subsidies, estimates The Lewin Group, a consulting firm. Private insurers argue that premiums in the individual and small group markets, where many workers would end up, might rise an extra 25 percent to 50 percent over a decade. The administration and the Congressional Budget Office disagree. The dispute underlines the bills' immense uncertainties. As for cost control, even generous estimates have health spending growing faster than the economy. Changing that is the first imperative of sensible policy.

So Obama's plan amounts to this: partial coverage of the uninsured; modest improvements (possibly) in their health; sizable budgetary costs worsening a bleak outlook; significant, unpredictable changes in insurance markets; weak spending control. This is a bad bargain. Benefits are overstated, costs understated. This legislation is a monstrosity; the country would be worse for its passage. What it's become is an exercise in political symbolism: Obama's self-indulgent crusade to seize the liberal holy grail of "universal coverage." What it's not is leadership.

checkTextResizerCookie('article_body');

According to two senior GOP aides familiar with the decision, the announcement will take place this afternoon in Griffith's district in northern Alabama.

Griffith’s party switch comes on the eve of a pivotal congressional health care vote and will send a jolt through a Democratic House Caucus that has already been unnerved by the recent retirements of a handful of members who, like Griffith, hail from districts that offer prime pickup opportunities for the GOP in 2010.

The switch represents a coup for the House Republican leadership, which had been courting Griffith since he publicly criticized the Democratic leadership in the wake of raucous town halls during the summer.

Griffith, who captured the seat in a close 2008 open seat contest, will become the first Republican to hold the historically Democratic, Huntsville-based district. A radiation oncologist who founded a cancer treatment center, Griffith plans to blast the Democratic health care bill as a prime reason for his decision to switch parties—and is expected to cite his medical background as his authority on the subject.

While the timing of his announcement was unexpected, Griffith’s party switch will not come as a surprise to those familiar with his voting record, which is one of the most conservative among Democrats.

He has bucked the Democratic leadership on nearly all of its major domestic initiatives, including the stimulus package, health care legislation, the cap-and trade energy bill and financial regulatory reform.

He was one of only 11 House Democrats to vote against the stimulus.

“Look at his voting record – he’s had substantial differences philosophically with the Democratic agenda here in Congress,” said an Alabama ally who is familiar with Griffith’s decision. “It’s something that’s been discussed for the last several months… talking to people in his family. And it genuinely is a reflection of where he feels. It’s his own personal conviction.”

The Obama administration’s decision to scrap plans to build a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe further frustrated Griffith, according to GOP sources, because his district contains the base for Boeing’s ground-based missile defense research.

Ironically, a National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman called Griffith a “woefully ineffective advocate for Tennessee Valley jobs” after the decision was announced in September.

Signs of Griffith’s dissatisfaction with his party began to surface publicly during the summer recess, when he received an earful of criticism from constituents.

In August — one month after Republicans picked up his former state legislative seat in a special election — Griffith told a local newspaper that he wouldn't vote for Nancy Pelosi to remain as House Speaker because she's too divisive. He joked that if she didn’t like it, he’d provide her with a gift certificate to a mental health center.

He added that if the Democratic leadership wouldn't commit to working in a more bipartisan manner, "perhaps we should look at altering that."

Later that month, he was booed at a town hall forum, even though he said he was against his leadership’s version of health care reform.

“If I'm agreeing with you, don't fight me," Griffith said to a heckler, according to the Huntsville Times. "I'm on your team."

After the November off-year elections, he told POLITICO that he wanted to be called an independent Blue Dog and not a Democrat. He said the point of the elections was clear: “I should be nervous.”

Democratic pollster John Anzalone, an Alabama native, said that Griffith would have faced a difficult re-election, and undoubtedly was worried about his prospects in a conservative district.

“This is never a pleasant thing… you never can really figure out the motivation. Usually, it’s political opportunism. Parker Griffith can win as a Democrat, but it’s easier to win as a Republican,” said Anzalone. “When you run as a Southern Democrat, you run because you have a certain principle of being with the party of the people. You know what you’re getting into, there’s no surprise on the legislative side. It’s a political calculation.”

Several Republicans have already stepped forward to challenge Griffith, and it’s not clear whether they’ll drop their bids in light of his party switch. Madison County Commissioner Mo Brooks has already raised more than $100,000 for the campaign, while Navy veteran Les Phillip also is running.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee will now have to scramble to find a candidate to run against Griffith before Alabama’s April 2 filing deadline.

Though it has never elected a Republican to Congress, Griffith’s seat has a long conservative tradition and has backed Democrats who have a brand independent from the national party. As a result of the district’s Democratic heritage, Democrats still hold the majority of state legislative seats within the 5th Congressional District’s boundaries.

The district, however, is trending Republican: A wave of new residents is moving into the Huntsville suburbs, where the area’s burgeoning aerospace and defense industries have created a miniboom. And those voters, with fewer ties to the area’s past politics, have been reliably Republican at the national level.

The district gave John McCain a resounding 61 percent of the vote last year — a tick above the 60 percent President George W. Bush won in 2004.

Even so, last year Griffith managed a narrow win against the strong drag at the top of the ticket in one of the nastiest House races in the nation. He defeated Republican Wayne Parker 51 percent to 48 percent, despite heavy GOP spending against him.

The National Republican Congressional Committee poured in $514,000 to air ads attacking Griffith, including one that suggested he was soft on Islamic terrorism.

And the committee raised questions about whether Griffith engaged in medical malpractice when it released decades-old documentation accusing his cancer center of underdosing patients with radiation so that he could collect more money.

Griffith is the first House Democrat to switch parties since Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.) changed parties in 2004. The most recent member of Congress to switch parties is Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), who announced his decision in April.

Griffith’s predecessor, former nine-term Rep. Bud Cramer, had been frequently mentioned as a possible party-switcher — and also as a possible appointee in the Bush administration — but he retired from Congress as a Democrat.

Griffith now has $619,000 in the bank to run as a Republican, a total boosted by contributions from several of the Democratic Party’s more liberal leaders. The political action committee of House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer donated $10,000 to Griffith’s reelection this year, and even Pelosi chipped in $4,000 — prior to Griffith's August remarks.

The trend is not the Democrats’ friend. At least not in 2010. The party of the sitting president almost always suffers losses in midterm congressional elections. To that time-tested dynamic now add voter angst about high unemployment, big deficits and controversial legislation. Expect Senate majority leader Harry Reid to lose his effective 60-seat supermajority and Nancy Pelosi to hand the House back to the Republicans. Here’s why 2010 is looking like 1994 all over again:

1. Virginia and New Jersey. Big GOP wins in the gubernatorial races not only highlighted discontent with incumbents by recession-weary voters, they also greatly helped Republicans with candidate recruiting for 2010.

2. History. More big political change isn’t predicated on America rekindling its love for the Grand Old Party. A recent poll had the Republicans finishing a distant third in popularity behind a fictional Tea Party and the actual Democratic Party. Yet American politics has a regular ebb and flow. In 13 of the past 15 midterm elections going back to 1950, the party in control of the White House has lost an average of 22 seats in the House. In 10 of the past 15 midterms the party running the Senate has lost an average of three seats.

3. Mean Reversion. Democrats have a wide field to defend after huge victories in 2006 and 2008. Particularly in the House, there are lots of Democrats in places with a proven willingness to vote Republican. Currently 47 of them are in districts won by both John McCain in 2008 and George W. Bush in 2004. And voters in those districts may be especially unhappy with a Democratic legislative agenda that causes many Americans mixed feelings.

4. Obama-Reid-Pelosi Agenda. A RealClearPolitics aggregation of polling data shows Americans disapprove of healthcare reform by a 51-38 margin. And only a little more than a third think the $787 billion stimulus plan has done much good, according to pollster Rasmussen. There’s also plenty of worry among the electorate that Washington spending is creating a dangerous level of government debt.

5. Rep. Parker Griffith. Griffith, elected in 2008, could be an electoral harbinger. His district, Alabama’s 5th, gave 60 percent of its votes to Bush in 2004, and 61 percent to McCain. He just switched from Democrat to Republican, saying he couldn’t belong to a party that favors healthcare reform that massively expands the role of government. Even though Griffith voted against the stimulus, cap-and-trade and healthcare plans, he clearly felt that guilt-by-party-association threatened his re-election.

6. Unemployment. Underlying voter unease with Capitol Hill is deep concern about unemployment. And that leads to a simple equation: Joblessness drives presidential approval ratings, and it’s those ratings that drive midterm congressional results. Despite a landslide win in 1980, for instance, unemployment approaching 11 percent drove Ronald Reagan’s approval ratings down to the low 40s in November 1982 when Republicans lost 26 House seats. (And only five narrow GOP victories by fewer than 50,000 votes kept the Senate even.)

As unemployment has risen this year, Obama’s approval has steadily eroded to around 50 percent currently. The White House says it doesn’t expect employment growth until the spring. And if even the economy begins to create jobs, the actual unemployment rate could still rise as the long-term unemployed begin to actively seek jobs again and thus start being counted by the Labor Department. It would take a year of 4 percent growth generating 200,000 to 250,000 jobs a month to bring the rate down to 9 percent. And even that would be twice as high as what Americans have been used to during the past two decades.

7. Discontent with Democrats. At the same time, the generic congressional ballot has shifted from a high single-digit Democratic lead to a low single-digit Republican lead as independents veer back to the GOP. What’s more, a recent poll by the liberal Daily Kos blog found just 56 percent of Democrats definitely or probably voting in 2010 vs. 81 percent of Republicans. Note that a new Rasmussen poll has Sen. Ben “60th Vote” Nelson, who won reelection in 2006 with 64 percent of the vote, down 61-30 in a hypothetical 2012 matchup vs. Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman. Dems in both chambers will surely take note of those numbers. Indeed, the prospect of a terrible 2010 environment has already pushed some veteran Democratic legislators in competitive districts into retirement such as John Tanner of Tennessee and Brian Baird of Washington.

8. Economic Damage. Even if the unemployment rate falls a full percentage point next year, it may not help Democrats much. Americans only slowly regain their economic confidence after a deep recession. When Democrats lost the House and Senate in 1994, the economy had been growing steadily since the nasty 1990-91 downturn and unemployment had fallen sharply, though not fully to its pre-recession levels. Yet 72 percent of Americans at the time still thought the economy was “fair” or “poor,” according to Gallup.

As political forecaster Charlie Cook has noted, what happens in the House depends a lot on there being more Democrat retirements in competitive seats. The GOP needs a 40-seat pickup. The more Dem members that stick, the less likely a changeover. If the numbers start going north of 12-15, a warning signal should sound for Democrats. (In 1994, Democrat departures created 31 open seats, 22 of which were won by the GOP.) For now, Cook sees a possible 20-30 seat pickup in the House for the GOP and four to six in the Senate. (Harry Reid, Blanche Lincoln and Chris Dodd look especially vulnerable). But Cook may be underestimating how the dreadful New Normal in the economy will create a New Normal in politics in 2010.

When the Medicare prescription drug benefit was created in 2003, one concern was that businesses that provided private drug coverage for seniors would dump them into the new taxpayer-funded plan. So Congress created a modest tax subsidy—equal to 28% of the total cost of a drug plan—to encourage employers to maintain coverage for retirees who would otherwise enroll in Medicare. On average, this subsidy will cost the government about $665 per person in 2011, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, while the same Medicare coverage would run about $1,209.

Currently, the $665 a business gains by providing benefits—and keeping one senior off Medicare—is not taxed. By instead treating the subsidy as income taxed at the 35% corporate rate, Democrats expect to raise about $5.4 billion for ObamaCare—and while that's a pittance in the scheme of a new multitrillion-dollar price tag, it's also based on a static tax analysis that is surely wrong.

The cost of offering drug benefits will rise by about $233 per retiree, making Medicare a far more attractive option for businesses. Private drug coverage is already on the decline, but Verizon, Xerox, Boeing, Metlife, Caterpillar and other companies are already warning that they may be forced to cut benefits. (Consider this another reward for the Business Roundtable's decision to promote ObamaCare.)

As more employers drop drug coverage, Congress won't be dispensing as many subsidies with the one hand that it can tax with the other, so revenue will fall. The retirees who lose private benefits will simply move onto Medicare, so public drug spending will also rise. The American Benefits Council, which represents the largest employers, estimates the tax will be a net loser for the government if just one out of four retirees is crowded out of private coverage.

That $233 may not sound like a lot, but under an accounting rule established in 1990, companies are required to report and expense their long-term retiree health liabilities on their financial statements, including actual paid claims and certain future payments. The deferred losses from the tax change thus must be immediately reflected on their balance sheets, which would take a huge bite out of reported earnings in 2010. Given the shaky economy, not to mention the political uncertainty that Washington continues to generate, is this really the best idea?

This is merely one example of how careless Democrats have been about the details as they dash to pass ObamaCare, even as they behave as if the results of their major changes to the health market will match perfectly with their perfectly unrealistic rhetoric.

"One of the things I've learned is that the Econ 101 approach to life where all that matters is the direct financial incentives or penalties is just wrong," Obama budget director Peter Orszag said in December. "Not to say that it doesn't matter, but exclusive focus on rational, perfectly optimizing behavior is just not, not where it's at."

When even the budget scorekeeper spurns economic incentives, you know pure politics is in charge. We suspect the White House will discover soon enough that everyone is a lot more rational, and a lot smarter, that it presumes.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A10

The Secret Service announced this afternoon that a third crasher made it into the White House state dinner made famous by the uninvited Tareq and Michaele Salahi.

An agency spokesman wouldn't divulge the name or even the gender of the crasher, who appears to have made his or way in completely separately from the now-infamous horse-country reality-show hopefuls -- exposing a completely separate area of weakness in the perimeter around the president.

In a statement, the Secret Service said the uninvited guest gained entree with the official Indian delegation: "The subject traveled from a local hotel, where the official Indian delegation was staying, and arrived at the dinner with the group, which was under the responsibility of the Department of State... This individual went through all required security measures along with the rest of the official delegation at the hotel, and boarded a bus/van with the delegation guests en route to the White House."

And yet, this person was not on any list authorizing his or her presence at the White House. The Secret Service said they have already made "procedural changes" to deal with the way foreign delegations are cleared.

The agency also said there's nothing "to indicate that this individual went through the receiving line or had contact with the President or first lady." The White House had not yet responded to our inquiries about whether the interloper was seated at the dinner.

The Secret Service released their statement following a report by Ronald Kessler, a journalist who blogs at Newsmax.com. Kessler reported that the agency discovered the third crasher after examining surveillance video of arriving guests -- and found one tuxedoed man who did not match any name on the guest list.

Will update more as we learn it.