to figure out why people think government is too invasive.

While I pity the fool who actually made it to page 2,045 of the Senate's recently released health care bill, i commend them for pointing out that the bill calls for an excise tax on elective cosmetic surgery.  "Tucked away in Section 9017 on page 2,045 of the 2,074-page Senate health care reform bill is a 5 percent excise tax on elective cosmetic medical procedures...The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the new tax could generate $5.8 billion over the next decade. "  And this attempt to save $6 billion comes from the same people who are trying to slip an additional $215 billion over the same period through Congress by detaching a section from the main healthcare bill and passing it separately.

Tax policy guru Roberton Williams is quoted as saying, "They need money wherever they can find it and this seems like a good place -- unnecessary surgery.  These things are done by choice, not out of medical necessity. Why not tax them?"

Now I don't want to come across as a Johnny Drama whining about a 5% increase on my calf implants, because I find elective cosmetic surgery pointless and vain.  But I think Williams misses the point.  It's not that those surgeries are unnecessary (because they certainly are), but that an attempt to tax something like cosmetic surgery is no more than an effort to legislate morals.  Put simply, the government is telling its citizens what it condones and what it will "punish" via excise taxes. 

In an economy like this, where consumer confidence is extremely low, Congress should be passing legislation that encourages consumer spending, even if it's on things most of us find totally pointless.  And if the government is really looking to save a few billion over the course of the decade, it could do something about the Murtha airport. 

Either way I have a problem with the government passing judgment on different types of spending, because if I want to waste my money on something like Stattracker for my Yahoo Fantasy League, that's my own foolish decision. 

to see the problem isn't the Democrats' "message."

In conjunction with my previous post about independents' dissatisfaction with the Democrats, I noted that political pundits have been debating whether the election results were based on local or national issues, and whether Democrats need to recalibrate their "message,"

But it doesn't take a wonk to realize the problem has nothing to do with the Democrats' message because the Democrats aren't following their own script.

to realize why independents are "bolting" from the Democrats

After New Jersey and Virginia elected Republicans for governors a few weeks ago, the Administration and Democrats tried to spin those races as being determined by local issues, not national party issues.  Although Obama did campaign for Corzine and said Corzine was "one of the best partners I have in the White House," and that they "work together" (on what exactly I could only imagine), it's more likely that local issues decided New Jersey and Virginia was more of a litmus test for national politics.

Maybe that helped Democrats rationalize the political atmosphere a few weeks ago, but now Democrat officials are starting to get alarmed about independents bolting from them.  The Politico article goes on to quote officials in several states theorizing the reasons behind it, with some citing a faltering economy, some citing spending, and some simply burying their head in the sand and refusing to see a real problem.

But it doesn't take a wonk to understand the public's underlying problems with the Democrats right now.