[StBernard] The Vacuity of Double Triumphs

[Westley Annis]

THE CONSERVATIVE REVIEW - December 29, 2009

The Vacuity of Double Triumphs
by George Will

WASHINGTON - It was serendipitous to have almost 
simultaneous climaxes in Copenhagen and Congress. The 
former's accomplishment was indiscernible, the latter's 
was unsightly. 

It would have been unprecedented had the president not 
described the outcome of the Copenhagen climate change 
summit as "unprecedented," that being the most overworked 
word in his hardworking vocabulary of self-celebration. 
Actually, the mountain beneath the summit -- a mountain 
of manufactured hysteria, predictable cupidity, antic 
demagoguery and dubious science -- labored mightily and 
gave birth to a mouselet, a 12-paragraph document 
committing the signatories to... make a list. 

A list of the goals they have no serious intention of 
trying to meet. The document even dropped the words "as 
soon as possible" from its call for a binding agreement 
on emissions. 

The 1992 Rio climate summit begat Kyoto. It, like 
Copenhagen, which Kyoto begat, was "saved," as Copenhagen 
was, by a last-minute American intervention (Vice President 
Al Gore's) that midwifed an agreement that most signatories 
evaded for 12 years. The Clinton-Gore administration never 
submitted Kyoto's accomplishment for ratification, the 
Senate having denounced its terms 95-0. 

Copenhagen will beget Mexico City next November. Before 
then, Congress will give "the international community" 
other reasons to pout. Congress will refuse to burden the 
economy with cap-and-trade carbon-reduction requirements, 
and will spurn calls for sending billions in "climate 
reparations" to China and other countries. Representatives 
of those nations, when they did not have their hands out 
in Copenhagen grasping for America's wealth, clapped their 
hands in ovations for Hugo Chavez and other kleptocrats 
who denounced capitalism while clamoring for its fruits. 

The New York Times reported from Copenhagen that Barack 
Obama "burst into a meeting of the Chinese, Indian and 
Brazilian leaders, according to senior administration 
officials. Mr. Obama said he did not want them negotiating 
in secret." Naughty them. Those three nations will be even 
less pliable in Mexico City. 

At least the president got a health care bill through the 
Senate. But what problem does it "solve" (Obama's word)? 
Not that of the uninsured, 23 million of whom will remain 
in 2019. Not that of rising health care spending. This 
will rise faster over the next decade. 

The legislation does solve the Democrats' "problem" of 
figuring out how to worsen the dependency culture and 
the entitlement mentality that grows with it. By 2016, 
families with annual incomes of $96,000 will get sub-
sidized health insurance premiums. 

Nebraska's Ben Nelson voted for the Senate bill after 
opposing both the Medicare cuts and taxes on high-value 
insurance plans -- the heart of the bill's financing. 
Arkansas' Blanche Lincoln, Indiana's Evan Bayh and 
Virginia's Jim Webb voted against one or the other. Yet 
they support the bill. They will need mental health care 
to cure their intellectual whiplash. 

Before equating Harry Reid to Henry Clay, understand that 
buying 60 Senate votes is a process more protracted than 
difficult. Reid was buying the votes of senators whose 
understanding of the duties of representation does not 
rise above looting the nation for local benefits. And Reid 
had two advantages -- the spending, taxing and borrowing 
powers of the federal leviathan, and an almost gorgeous 
absence of scruples or principles. Principles are general 
rules, such as: Nebraska should not be exempt from burdens 
imposed on the other 49 states. 

Principles have not, however, been entirely absent: 
Nebraska's Republican governor, Dave Heineman, and 
Republican senator, Mike Johanns, have honorably denounced 
Nebraska's exemption from expanded Medicaid costs. The 
exemption was one payment for Nelson's vote to impose the 
legislation on Nebraskans, 67 percent of whom oppose it. 

Considering all the money and debasement of the rule of 
law required to purchase 60 votes, the bill the Senate 
passed might be the only bill that can get 60. The House, 
however, voted for Rep. Bart Stupak's provision preserving 
the ban on public funding of abortions. Nelson, an 
untalented negotiator, unnecessarily settled for much 
less. The House also supports a surtax on affluent 
Americans, and opposes the steep tax on some high-value 
health insurance. So to get the bill to the president's 
desk, the House, in conference with the Senate, may have 
to shrug and say: Oh, never mind. 

During this long debate, the left has almost always yielded 
ground. Still, to swallow the Senate bill, the House will 
have to swallow its pride, if it has any. The conference 
report reconciling the House and Senate bills will reveal 
whether the House is reconciled to being second fiddle in 
a one-fiddle orchestra.