Scott Spiegel

For the measured consideration of the International Olympic Committee, I present 16 reasons to host the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro instead of Chicago:

(1)    President Obama wants them in Chicago.  Really badly.  More important than his wanting them in Chicago is his decision to drop everything in the middle of a recession, a health care debate, and two wars to head to Copenhagen on separate jumbo jet junkets with his wife to make a special entreaty for his home city.  Obama has taken a stronger stand on the Windy City’s candidacy than he has on, say, any particular health care provision or whether to send more troops to Afghanistan.  Even more important than Obama’s not having his priorities straight is his obvious, calculated presumption that because the world loves him so much, it would be the diplomatic equivalent of kicking us out of the UN not to award Chicago the Olympics after his in-person plea.

(2)    Billions of dollars’ worth of building contracts and infrastructure development would be required in a city (Chicago) known for construction payback schemes, money laundering, insider dealings, an overloaded transit system, and general public corruption, incompetence, inefficiency, and interruption of service.

(3)    Numerous Obama cronies own property near Washington Park, the proposed stadium site, and would profit handsomely from the games being held there.

(4)    No one actually wants to be in Chicago in the summer—or any time of the year, for that matter, except for about three hours in late spring.  Dozens of Chicago residents die heat-related deaths every summer, and they’re not even competing in decathlons.

(5)    Everyone wants to be in Rio, any time of the year.

(6)    In fact, everyone wants to visit South America, and Rio would be only the first city on the entire continent to have ever hosted the Games.

(7)    If the Olympics absolutely have to be in Chi-town, why not the Winter Olympics, a much smaller and less disruptive affair than the Summer Olympics, and one that suits the city’s climate?

(8)    Chicagoans have been clamoring since spring not to have the Olympics in their hometown.  This is the first campaign I know of in which the best case for the games to be held in one city (Rio) is being made by residents of another city (Chicago).  Following the procedures of standard Chicago thug-style machine politics, the Chicago Olympic Committee recently ordered a local Fox affiliate not to rerun a segment airing interviews with numerous Chicagoans who told reporters to “Take it to Rio!” and to hold the event “Anywhere but here!”

(9)    The website “Chicagoans for Rio 2016” posts numerous fun and horrifying facts about the travails suffered by past Olympic host cities, such as the following: (a) Montreal took 30 years to pay off its Olympics-related debts from 1976; (b) 21 out of 22 stadiums and arenas built for the Athens games just five years ago are currently unused; and (c) Barcelona actually became a slightly less cool city for having once hosted the games.

(10)    An average of 5-10 or more crimes a day are reported in Washington Park alone, including assault, battery, burglary, motor vehicle theft, robbery, and sex offenses.  Chicago was the murder capital of the country in 2008 with 510 victims.  The Chicago Police Department doesn’t even publicly report the incidence of rape, which should tell you something.

(11)    The Chicago 2016 website advertises that it would host a “Blue-Green” event, meaning the following: “low-carbon Games” with energy-efficient technology, reduced water usage, recycling of 85% of tournament materials, and “sustainability.”  As an afterthought, “showers for athletes” was added to the budget for the games.

(12)    Chicago’s city deficit stands at almost a quarter of a billion dollars.  Beijing had an estimated 26 billion dollar overrun for its 2008 games.  Athens’ was $17 billion in 2004.  London estimates a $9 billion overrun in 2012.  Yet Chicago’s 2016 website boasts that its budget includes a piddly “$450 million contingency to cover unforeseen costs.”  Quick—complete this analogy: Chicago : Olympics :: Obama : _____.  (And I swore I wasn’t going to write about health care this week!)

(13)    Each host city tries to top the previous host city in sheer spectacle, bombast, and expense.  Beijing spent $42 billion in 2008.  Hmm… are there are any stimulus funds left over for “shovel-ready” projects like building unwanted stadiums in Chicago?

(14)    Rio de Janeiro means “River of January.”  Chicago derives from a Native American word for “wild onion.”

(15)    Chicagoans for Rio pits the two leading contender cities head-to-head in a number of categories, and the winner is clear every time: nicknames (The Marvelous City vs. The Second City), beaches (Copacabana, Ipanema vs. 63rd St., Calumet), histories (capital of the Portuguese empire vs. rail yard), statues (Christ standing vs. Lincoln sitting), signature events (naked people dancing vs. chubby people eating).

And most damningly:

(16)    Michelle Obama said in her Copenhagen speech this week that holding the Olympics in Chicago might inspire another child there to become the next… Barack Obama.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090929/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul

“Just 41% of voters nationwide now favor the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s down two points from a week ago and the lowest level of support yet measured.

“The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% are opposed to the plan…

“For the first time ever, a slight plurality of voters now express doubt that the legislation will become law this year. Forty-six percent (46%) say passage is likely while 47% say it is not. Those figures include 18% who say passage is Very Likely and 15% who say it is Not at All Likely. Sixty percent (60%) are less certain…

“Currently 75% of Democrats favor the plan. Seventy-nine percent (79%) of Republicans are opposed, as are 72% of the unaffiliated.”

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

“With its swanky wine bar and jazz pianist, the 701 Restaurant is one of those downtown spots where lobbyists woo clients and couples pursue romance. But it was a political courtship — President Obama’s quest for a health care overhaul — that brought the White House budget director, Peter R. Orszag, and Senator Susan Collins of Maine together for a recent dinner there…

“The courtship of Ms. Collins offers a glimpse into what White House officials say is an increasingly aggressive campaign to line up votes for a health care bill…

“[A] main goal of the administration has been to prevent any Democrat from publicly declaring opposition to the measure…

“When Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, the Connecticut independent, said on a Sunday morning talk show that health legislation should be delayed until the economy improves, his chief of staff got a telephone call from a worried-sounding Louisa Terrell, the White House legislative liaison assigned to monitor his office.

“‘She said, “Does he want to speak to Sebelius, does he want Peter Orszag?”‘ the senator said…

“At least one White House official, Ms. DeParle, has gone so far as to make a house call. When Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, expressed misgivings about how expanding Medicaid would affect California’s budget, Ms. DeParle gathered some charts and dropped in on a Saturday. They spent nearly three hours talking over coffee in Ms. Feinstein’s den…”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/health/policy/27obama.html?ref=todayspaper

“Republicans sought to strip out a requirement for policies to provide specified benefits such as preventive and surgical care and mental health services in policies sold to consumers who receive federal subsidies to make the cost more affordable.

“‘This will substantially increase the cost (of insurance) when combined with other features’ of the legislation, said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz..

“Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told Kyl that about 60 percent of insurance companies selling to individuals do not cover maternity care.

“‘I don’t need maternity care, so including it in my insurance policy gives me something I don’t need and costs me more,’ Kyl said.

“‘But your mom probably did,’ Stabenow responded.

“‘But I don’t,’ said Kyl.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2009/Sep/25/house_democrats_considering_insurance_tax.html

“Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.

“Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty…”

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Ensign_receives_handwritten_confirmation_.html?showall

“‘Using the budget reconciliation process to pass health reform and climate change legislation…would violate the intent and spirit of the budget process, and do serious injury to the constitutional role of the Senate.’

“These are not the words of a Republican or a conservative activist.

“This is a warning issued on April 2 of this year from the former Democratic Majority Leader in the Senate, Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.)…

“[Byrd] has unique authority on reconciliation. Not only is he the author of a remarkable history of the Senate (four volumes published between 1989 and 1995), he was, as he wrote, ‘one of the authors of the reconciliation process,’ which was created in 1985.

“Here is what he said about using reconciliation to pass things like health care reform: ‘I can tell you that the ironclad parliamentary procedures it authorizes were never intended for this purpose. Reconciliation was intended to adjust revenue and spending levels in order to reduce deficits.’”

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33657

“A Massachusetts assistant attorney general has moved to dismiss a case in which the state Republican Party is trying to block the swearing-in of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy’s interim replacement…

“Republicans allege he exceeded his constitutional authority.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090925/ap_on_re_us/us_kennedy_successor_gop

http://www.heritage.org/Press/FactSheet/fs0038.cfm

In the event that the imminent failure of Democrats’ socialized medicine bill leads them to some soul-searching—perhaps listening to what their constituents have been telling them all summer, or taking GOP advice to start from scratch—it’s worth noting that House Republicans have introduced 32 health care reform bills since the spring, all languishing in the referral stage.

Many of these lonely bills deal with just one or several aspects of health care reform, rather than offering grand, sweeping Ten-Year Plans that will change Health Care As We Know It.  Not all the bills are knockouts; a couple are downright stinkers.  But virtually all contain some good ideas, and some of them contain nothing but good ideas—which means that no Democrat will ever for a moment consider any of them.

For those desiring ammunition to counterattack the liberal slander that conservatives criticize everything on health care they hear from Democrats but have no ideas of their own, here’s a primer on the legislation prepared by our devoted GOP servants in the House:

•    Several bills are flat-out winners, including Clifford Stearns’ Health Care Tax Deduction Act, Michele Bachmann’s Health Care Freedom of Choice Act, and Rodney Alexander’s Sunset of Life Protection Act.  These laws provide for income tax deductions of health insurance premiums and prescription drugs; medical expenses; and long-term care premiums, respectively.  That’s it.  All three bills are so short they could fit on a cocktail napkin together and still have room for a list of Obama’s failed Cabinet nominations.  This is not surprising: bills covering what individuals are allowed to do for themselves require less verbiage than bills mandating what individuals are required to do for their government.

•    Marsha Blackburn’s Health Care Choices for Seniors Act and Louis Gohmert’s Patient-Controlled Healthcare Protection Act allow seniors to opt out of Medicare and receive vouchers for health savings accounts, an arrangement analogous to school vouchers (another excellent idea liberals oppose).  Edward Royce’s Flexible Health Savings Act allows individuals to carry over unused health savings account funds from year to year.

•    John Shadegg’s Health Care Choice Act eliminates restrictions on interstate governing of health insurance, the primary cause of the limited within-state competition among private insurance companies that President Obama keeps bleating about.

•    Two bills—John Gingrey’s HEALTH Act and Michael Burgess’ Medical Justice Act—enact malpractice tort reform by regulating lawsuits for health care injuries or deaths.  William Thornberry’s Medical Liability Procedural Reform Act sets up state “health care tribunals” or medical courts to adjudicate claims.

•    Several unobjectionable but minor bills extend benefits for veterans, reserve members, and their dependents.

•    A few bills would amend the State Children’s Health Insurance Program to supposedly make it more accountable; however, these bills give the costly, bloated SCHIP so much legitimacy that I’m automatically suspicious of their authors’ credibility.

•    Other bills have good intentions but will lead to more bureaucracy and regulation than they aim to prevent; for example, Thornberry’s Health Care Paperwork Reduction and Fraud Prevention Act, which proposes a “Commission on Health Care Billing Codes and Forms Simplification” to standardize billing paperwork.  No doubt the government will first need to establish a separate commission just to simplify the Commission’s name.

•    Thornberry has proposed two more bad bills (why do public officials who want to meddle in our affairs always invent so many devious ways to do it?).  One is the Partnership to Improve Seniors’ Access to Medicare Act, which subsidizes student loan repayment for doctors who accept Medicare patients; not specified in the bill is how much of our bountiful federal surplus we’ll have to dip into to cover this provision.  Another is the Patient Fairness and Indigent Care Promotion Act, which allows doctors to deduct for tax purposes any unrecouped costs from “patient bad debt”—because nothing increases accountability like providing incentives for doctors not to check beforehand whether patients can pay their bills!

Other GOP bills contain additional provisions, and many of the bills are a mixed bag; but the point is that they’re all better than HR 3200, which is putrid right down to its last period.  Considering even a few key GOP bills over the next couple of years would be a sound way to address individual components of health care reform, in a piecemeal fashion, rather than upending our economy right this minute just because Democrats insist on artificial deadlines to maximize their political gain.

In the meantime, the proper response to any liberal who claims conservatives have no ideas of their own on health care reform should be a resounding, “You lie!”