Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Mahmoud Abbas of the PLO quits
I wonder who we'll get in his place. Somebody more radical, for sure. And somebody Obama won't be able to figure out, even more for sure.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Health Care Passes House 220-215
Louisiana Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao was the sole Republican vote in favor[*], 39 Democrats voted against (not sure who they are, but thank you all!), and YES it does have a public option.
[*] Edited to add: I just learned that Cao was vote #219 in favor, immediately after the bill had passed. Had his vote been necessary to passage, would he have cast it the same way? I hate this bizarre face-saving voting. It would be better if all votes were revealed simultaneously, and none of the Congresscritters knew whether their individual votes were actually necessary for passage.
Edited again to add: I wonder if this crap can make it through the Senate? Most likely its present form cannot get 60 votes. But will they pass something, ANYthing, in order to get to House-Senate reconciliation, at which point they only need 51 votes, which I'm pretty certain they have?
Edited a third time (hey, at least it has the side benefit of pushing Maddow down the page and out of sight)... Here's a good summary of the bill's provisions as outlined by Insurance Journal...
INSURANCE MARKET CHANGES
* Creates an insurance market exchange where individuals and small businesses would purchase coverage. Sets minimum benefit packages that may be offered through the exchange.
* Creates a new government health insurance plan that would be sold through the exchange.
* Provides for the creation of nonprofit healthcare cooperatives that would sell coverage through the exchange.
* Bars insurers from excluding people for pre-existing conditions and from charging more based on medical history.
* Creates a temporary national high-risk pool program to provide medical coverage to the uninsured, including those with pre-existing conditions who have been denied coverage. The program would operate until the exchange becomes available.
* Permits young people to remain on their parents' health insurance policy up to the age of 27.
* Provides for consumer rebates if premiums far exceed the cost of covering their medical expenses.
* Sets up a process under which insurers would have to justify premium increases.
* Eliminates lifetime limits on coverage.
* Provides for states to enter compacts to allow for the sale of insurance across state lines.
COVERAGE MANDATES AND PENALTIES
* Individuals are required to obtain healthcare coverage. Those who do not would face a 2.5% tax penalty.
* Most employers are required to provide coverage to their workers and pay for at least 72.5% of the premium for individual full-time workers, 65% for family coverage.
* Small firms with up to $500,000 in annual payroll are exempt.
* Firms with annual payrolls between $500,000 and $750,000 that do not provide coverage would pay fees on a sliding scale of 2%, 4% and 6% of wages; firms with payrolls of $750,000 and above would pay 8% in fees.
* Tax credits available to help small firms afford coverage.
FINANCING
* Imposes a surtax of 5.4% on individuals earning more than $500,000 a year and couples making more than $1 million.
* Imposes a 2.5% excise tax on medical devices.
* Raises $6.1 billion over 10 years by repealing rules liberalizing the way multinational companies allocate interest expenses.
* Limits tax breaks for foreign multinational companies incorporated in tax havens that may be using offshore structures to evade US taxes.
* Closes a loophole that lets paper companies claim a valuable tax credit for making biofuel that is already a byproduct of paper production. This provision raises $24 billion over 10 years.
* Would write into law IRS rules denying tax breaks on business transactions that lack an economic purpose and are undertaken only to create a tax write-off. Fines of 20% to 40% would be imposed for violating the rules.
MEDICARE AND MEDICAID
* Expands Medicaid eligibility so that anyone with an income up to 150% of the poverty level would qualify for the government healthcare program for the poor.
* Seeks to reduce hospital readmissions and to base payments on quality of care rather than on the number of services and treatments.
* Reduces payments to insurers providing Medicare services through the Medicare Advantage program to bring them more in line with the costs of the traditional Medicare program for the elderly.
* Gradually reduces the gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage. The so-called "doughnut hole'' begins to close starting in 2010, with the coverage gap eliminated by 2019.
* Would allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices under its prescription drug program.
[*] Edited to add: I just learned that Cao was vote #219 in favor, immediately after the bill had passed. Had his vote been necessary to passage, would he have cast it the same way? I hate this bizarre face-saving voting. It would be better if all votes were revealed simultaneously, and none of the Congresscritters knew whether their individual votes were actually necessary for passage.
Edited again to add: I wonder if this crap can make it through the Senate? Most likely its present form cannot get 60 votes. But will they pass something, ANYthing, in order to get to House-Senate reconciliation, at which point they only need 51 votes, which I'm pretty certain they have?
Edited a third time (hey, at least it has the side benefit of pushing Maddow down the page and out of sight)... Here's a good summary of the bill's provisions as outlined by Insurance Journal...
INSURANCE MARKET CHANGES
* Creates an insurance market exchange where individuals and small businesses would purchase coverage. Sets minimum benefit packages that may be offered through the exchange.
* Creates a new government health insurance plan that would be sold through the exchange.
* Provides for the creation of nonprofit healthcare cooperatives that would sell coverage through the exchange.
* Bars insurers from excluding people for pre-existing conditions and from charging more based on medical history.
* Creates a temporary national high-risk pool program to provide medical coverage to the uninsured, including those with pre-existing conditions who have been denied coverage. The program would operate until the exchange becomes available.
* Permits young people to remain on their parents' health insurance policy up to the age of 27.
* Provides for consumer rebates if premiums far exceed the cost of covering their medical expenses.
* Sets up a process under which insurers would have to justify premium increases.
* Eliminates lifetime limits on coverage.
* Provides for states to enter compacts to allow for the sale of insurance across state lines.
COVERAGE MANDATES AND PENALTIES
* Individuals are required to obtain healthcare coverage. Those who do not would face a 2.5% tax penalty.
* Most employers are required to provide coverage to their workers and pay for at least 72.5% of the premium for individual full-time workers, 65% for family coverage.
* Small firms with up to $500,000 in annual payroll are exempt.
* Firms with annual payrolls between $500,000 and $750,000 that do not provide coverage would pay fees on a sliding scale of 2%, 4% and 6% of wages; firms with payrolls of $750,000 and above would pay 8% in fees.
* Tax credits available to help small firms afford coverage.
FINANCING
* Imposes a surtax of 5.4% on individuals earning more than $500,000 a year and couples making more than $1 million.
* Imposes a 2.5% excise tax on medical devices.
* Raises $6.1 billion over 10 years by repealing rules liberalizing the way multinational companies allocate interest expenses.
* Limits tax breaks for foreign multinational companies incorporated in tax havens that may be using offshore structures to evade US taxes.
* Closes a loophole that lets paper companies claim a valuable tax credit for making biofuel that is already a byproduct of paper production. This provision raises $24 billion over 10 years.
* Would write into law IRS rules denying tax breaks on business transactions that lack an economic purpose and are undertaken only to create a tax write-off. Fines of 20% to 40% would be imposed for violating the rules.
MEDICARE AND MEDICAID
* Expands Medicaid eligibility so that anyone with an income up to 150% of the poverty level would qualify for the government healthcare program for the poor.
* Seeks to reduce hospital readmissions and to base payments on quality of care rather than on the number of services and treatments.
* Reduces payments to insurers providing Medicare services through the Medicare Advantage program to bring them more in line with the costs of the traditional Medicare program for the elderly.
* Gradually reduces the gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage. The so-called "doughnut hole'' begins to close starting in 2010, with the coverage gap eliminated by 2019.
* Would allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices under its prescription drug program.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Amuzing: Rachel Maddow "Constitution doesn't have a Preamble."
Fast forward to around 2:07 for hilarity!
John Boehner (R-OH): This is my copy of the Constitution. And I'm gonna stand here with our Founding Fathers who wrote in the Preamble, "We hold these truths to be self-evident"
Maddow: Constitution doesn't have a Preamble. Not. Nope. Stop it. That would be the Declaration of Independence.
UnknownVariable: ROFLin'
John Boehner (R-OH): This is my copy of the Constitution. And I'm gonna stand here with our Founding Fathers who wrote in the Preamble, "We hold these truths to be self-evident"
Maddow: Constitution doesn't have a Preamble. Not. Nope. Stop it. That would be the Declaration of Independence.
UnknownVariable: ROFLin'
This is going to get buried in the news cycle.
With the Fort Hood massacre and the staggering unemployment news, the following will most likely not be reported on tonight's nightly news, although this probably (IMO) should be headlining it.:
Iran tested nuclear warhead design
The UN nuclear watchdog has asked Iran to explain evidence that it has experimented with highly advanced nuclear warhead designs, a British newspaper reported Friday.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) believes Iranian scientists may have tested components of the sophisticated technology, known as a "two-point implosion" device, the Guardian reported.
This technology -- whose existence is secret in the United States and Britain -- would allow for the production of smaller and simpler warheads and reduce the diameter of a warhead and make it easier to put on a missile, it said.
Unemployment rate hits 10.2% in October
Rate tops the 10% mark for the first time in 26 years
Nonfarm payrolls dropped by a seasonally adjusted 190,000 in October, bringing to total number of jobs lost in the recession to 7.3 million.
Read the full government report.
For the record, if the rate exceeds 10.8% (and it almost certainly will) we will break the record set in Nov-Dec 82 and finally have "the worst crisis since the Great Depression" about which The One has been talking for so long. He just hadn't made it clear that he was explaining what his administration would be all about.
Edited to add updated chart as requested:
Thursday, November 5, 2009
You can't make this stuff up...
At Southwest Georgia Community Action Council, director Myrtis Mulkey-Ndawula said she followed the guidelines the Obama administration provided. She said she multiplied the 508 employees by 1.84 — the percentage pay raise they received — and came up with 935 jobs saved.
Even if you are going to take HHS spokesman Luis Rosero at his word ("If I give you a raise, it is going to save a portion of your job."), how monumentally stupid (or unethical) do you have to be to get 935 jobs instead of 9 jobs when you do this multiplication?
But leaving the New Math aside for a moment, the government claims 640,000 jobs (what happened to 3 million, anyway?) after spending $215 billion. A quick division gives me $336,000 per job! Are they freaking kidding? What is wrong with these people?
What the F are this man's priorities?
He talks for almost 2 1/2 minutes before bringing up the shooting? Seriously, WTF is wrong with the man? Perhaps they just forgot to update his teleprompter for current events?
Interesting bit of non-US news...
Shabtai Kalmanovich, a former Israeli double agent who penetrated Golda Meir's government on behalf of the KGB, has been shot dead in Moscow. An unidentified gunman fired at least 20 shots into his chauffeur-driven Mercedes Benz.
CBO: Republican health plan would reduce premiums, cut deficit
From the Washington Examiner:
The Congressional Budget Office Wednesday night released its cost analysis of the Republican health care plan and found that it would reduce health care premiums and cut the deficit by $68 billion over ten years.
...
According to CBO, the GOP bill would indeed lower costs, particularly for small businesses that have trouble finding affordable health care policies for their employees. The report found rates would drop by seven to 10 percent for this group, and by five to eight percent for the individual market, where it can also be difficult to find affordable policies.
The battle for the Future of the GOP could be through Florida
Hopefully the GOP elites were taught a lesson with the Dede fiasco, but now is the time to see if the lesson was really learned. Will the RNC elite & Newt moderates support Charlie Crist in the Florida republican primary or will they stand for true conservative principles and back Marco Rubio?
The problem here is a decision of principles versus near certain victory.
Let's face it, if Rubio had decided to not run for Senate, Crist winning the senate seat would be all but assured. If Rubio pulls off an improbable primary victory, then Republican victory would not be assured.
It will be interesting to see who the Newt and GOP throws in with (if anyone).
After thought: It would be very interesting to get Sarah Palin's opinion on this. Perhaps if she publicly endorses Rubio that would force the GOP's hand and put Crist in a world of trouble.
The problem here is a decision of principles versus near certain victory.
Let's face it, if Rubio had decided to not run for Senate, Crist winning the senate seat would be all but assured. If Rubio pulls off an improbable primary victory, then Republican victory would not be assured.
It will be interesting to see who the Newt and GOP throws in with (if anyone).
After thought: It would be very interesting to get Sarah Palin's opinion on this. Perhaps if she publicly endorses Rubio that would force the GOP's hand and put Crist in a world of trouble.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Who are the Vs?
I saw the series premiere of the V remake today. So, who are the V's?
The V's talk about "Embracing change"
The V's call it "Spreading Hope"
The V's want to give us "Universal Healthcare"
The V's are being embraced by the young.
The V's get a reporter to go along with "Just be sure not to ask anything that would paint us in a negative light."
So in the remake, V's are Democrats. I think I like the original series better, where they were just trying to eat us.
The V's talk about "Embracing change"
The V's call it "Spreading Hope"
The V's want to give us "Universal Healthcare"
The V's are being embraced by the young.
The V's get a reporter to go along with "Just be sure not to ask anything that would paint us in a negative light."
So in the remake, V's are Democrats. I think I like the original series better, where they were just trying to eat us.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
GOP wins VA and NJ
Virginia: McDonnell over Deeds by 17 points
New Jersey: Christie over Corzine by 4 points
Some bad news in NY23, Scozzafava, idiot to the end, syphoned off enough votes from Hoffman to give Owens a plurality and deliver the seat to Democrats for the first time in more than a century.* Thanks a lot, Dede. And thanks to Sessions, Gingrich and the whole slew of Republicans who tripped over themselves to support her. Good job, one and all.
In other news the Dems held on to CA10, no surprise there.
* Edited to add a bit of historical trivia: Prior to being held by Republicans, this district (or its predecessors) was held by a Whig.
The Worst Bill Ever (WSJ)
All told, the House favors $572 billion in new taxes, mostly by imposing a 5.4-percentage-point "surcharge" on joint filers earning over $1 million, $500,000 for singles. This tax will raise the top marginal rate to 45% in 2011 from 39.6% when the Bush tax cuts expire—not counting state income taxes and the phase-out of certain deductions and exemptions. The burden will mostly fall on the small businesses that have organized as Subchapter S or limited liability corporations, since the truly wealthy won't have any difficulty sheltering their incomes.
This surtax could hit ever more earners because, like the alternative minimum tax, it isn't indexed for inflation. Yet it still won't be nearly enough. Even if Congress had confiscated 100% of the taxable income of people earning over $500,000 in the boom year of 2006, it would have only raised $1.3 trillion. When Democrats end up soaking the middle class, perhaps via the European-style value-added tax that Mrs. Pelosi has endorsed, they'll claim the deficits that they created made them do it.
Under another new tax, businesses would have to surrender 8% of their payroll to government if they don't offer insurance or pay at least 72.5% of their workers' premiums, which eat into wages. Such "play or pay" taxes always become "pay or pay" and will rise over time, with severe consequences for hiring, job creation and ultimately growth. While the U.S. already has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world, Democrats are on the way to creating a high structural unemployment rate, much as Europe has done by expanding its welfare states.
Meanwhile, a tax equal to 2.5% of adjusted gross income will also be imposed on some 18 million people who CBO expects still won't buy insurance in 2019. Democrats could make this penalty even higher, but that is politically unacceptable, or they could make the subsidies even higher, but that would expose the (already ludicrous) illusion that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit.
The overriding liberal ambition is to finish the work began decades ago as the Great Society of converting health care into a government responsibility. Mr. Obama's own Medicare actuaries estimate that the federal share of U.S. health dollars will quickly climb beyond 60% from 46% today. One reason Mrs. Pelosi has fought so ferociously against her own Blue Dog colleagues to include at least a scaled-back "public option" entitlement program is so that the architecture is in place for future Congresses to expand this share even further.
As Congress's balance sheet drowns in trillions of dollars in new obligations, the political system will have no choice but to start making cost-minded decisions about which treatments patients are allowed to receive. Democrats can't regulate their way out of the reality that we live in a world of finite resources and infinite wants. Once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, medical rationing is inevitable—especially for the innovative high-cost technologies and drugs that are the future of medicine.
Mr. Obama rode into office on a wave of "change," but we doubt most voters realized that the change Democrats had in mind was making health care even more expensive and rigid than the status quo. Critics will say we are exaggerating, but we believe it is no stretch to say that Mrs. Pelosi's handiwork ranks with the Smoot-Hawley tariff and FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act as among the worst bills Congress has ever seriously contemplated.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505423751140690.html
This surtax could hit ever more earners because, like the alternative minimum tax, it isn't indexed for inflation. Yet it still won't be nearly enough. Even if Congress had confiscated 100% of the taxable income of people earning over $500,000 in the boom year of 2006, it would have only raised $1.3 trillion. When Democrats end up soaking the middle class, perhaps via the European-style value-added tax that Mrs. Pelosi has endorsed, they'll claim the deficits that they created made them do it.
Under another new tax, businesses would have to surrender 8% of their payroll to government if they don't offer insurance or pay at least 72.5% of their workers' premiums, which eat into wages. Such "play or pay" taxes always become "pay or pay" and will rise over time, with severe consequences for hiring, job creation and ultimately growth. While the U.S. already has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world, Democrats are on the way to creating a high structural unemployment rate, much as Europe has done by expanding its welfare states.
Meanwhile, a tax equal to 2.5% of adjusted gross income will also be imposed on some 18 million people who CBO expects still won't buy insurance in 2019. Democrats could make this penalty even higher, but that is politically unacceptable, or they could make the subsidies even higher, but that would expose the (already ludicrous) illusion that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit.
The overriding liberal ambition is to finish the work began decades ago as the Great Society of converting health care into a government responsibility. Mr. Obama's own Medicare actuaries estimate that the federal share of U.S. health dollars will quickly climb beyond 60% from 46% today. One reason Mrs. Pelosi has fought so ferociously against her own Blue Dog colleagues to include at least a scaled-back "public option" entitlement program is so that the architecture is in place for future Congresses to expand this share even further.
As Congress's balance sheet drowns in trillions of dollars in new obligations, the political system will have no choice but to start making cost-minded decisions about which treatments patients are allowed to receive. Democrats can't regulate their way out of the reality that we live in a world of finite resources and infinite wants. Once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, medical rationing is inevitable—especially for the innovative high-cost technologies and drugs that are the future of medicine.
Mr. Obama rode into office on a wave of "change," but we doubt most voters realized that the change Democrats had in mind was making health care even more expensive and rigid than the status quo. Critics will say we are exaggerating, but we believe it is no stretch to say that Mrs. Pelosi's handiwork ranks with the Smoot-Hawley tariff and FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act as among the worst bills Congress has ever seriously contemplated.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505423751140690.html
Three Crucial Elections Happening Today
New Jersey Governor
The latest Rasmussen Reports survey shows Christie with 46% of the vote, Corzine with 43%, and independent candidate Daggett with 8%. Those numbers are unchanged from the previous poll. The last four polls have shown Christie with a very slight advantage ranging from two to four percentage points each time. Christie now leads by eight points among men while Corzine is up by two among women. Christie leads by seven points among those who are certain they will show up and vote. Corzine does better among voters who might not make it to the polls.
Virginia Governor
The latest Rasmussen Reports survey shows that Republican Robert F. McDonnell has now opened a 13-point lead over Democrat R. Creigh Deeds, 54% to 41%.
NY-23 House Seat
Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman has pulled into a 17-point lead over Democrat Bill Owens, according to a new survey by Public Policy Polling. That lead is in a three-way contest that includes the newly-withdrawn Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava, which has Hoffman at 51%, with Owens at 34% and Scozzafava at 13%. In the two-way race, Hoffman leads Owens by 16 points, 54-38.
The latest Rasmussen Reports survey shows Christie with 46% of the vote, Corzine with 43%, and independent candidate Daggett with 8%. Those numbers are unchanged from the previous poll. The last four polls have shown Christie with a very slight advantage ranging from two to four percentage points each time. Christie now leads by eight points among men while Corzine is up by two among women. Christie leads by seven points among those who are certain they will show up and vote. Corzine does better among voters who might not make it to the polls.
Virginia Governor
The latest Rasmussen Reports survey shows that Republican Robert F. McDonnell has now opened a 13-point lead over Democrat R. Creigh Deeds, 54% to 41%.
NY-23 House Seat
Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman has pulled into a 17-point lead over Democrat Bill Owens, according to a new survey by Public Policy Polling. That lead is in a three-way contest that includes the newly-withdrawn Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava, which has Hoffman at 51%, with Owens at 34% and Scozzafava at 13%. In the two-way race, Hoffman leads Owens by 16 points, 54-38.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Krugman gets p3wned on Canadian Health Care
Krugman asks how many Canadians are in the audience, then asks how many of them think they have a terrible healthcare system. Almost all raised their hands.
Note: This is fairly old video, from the 9/16/2008 debate on healthcare at Rockefeller Plaza in NYC.
"That is not a serious question."
CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”
Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”
Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question." “You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”
Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”
Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question." “You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/55971
Florida's Public Option
After Hurricane Andrew hit Florida in 1992 some Floridians were having difficulty purchasing homeowners’ insurance. (The reason: rates are regulated, and at the regulated rates some properties are too great a risk.) So, the state government formed Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, which is owned and operated by the State of Florida.
As originally envisioned, Citizens would charge rates above those charged by private insurers, to make Citizens the insurer of last resort. Nevertheless, Citizens found plenty of customers.
After two bad hurricane seasons in 2004 and 2005 property insurance rates in Florida rose, and in his campaign for the office, current Governor Charlie Crist promised voters that if elected he would see that their property insurance bills “dropped like a rock.”
One tactic he used was to change Citizens’ rate structure so it was competitive with private insurers. His idea, like President Obama’s idea with health insurance, is that with a public option, private insurers would have to keep their rates in line or risk losing customers to the government insurer.
Today about 30% of homeowners’ policies are written by Citizens, which is the largest property insurer in the state. It’s about to get bigger too. The largest private insurer, State Farm, had a rate request rejected last year, and now is pulling out of the state altogether (for homeowner insurance; they’ll still insure your car).
Everybody in Florida knows Citizens is a fiscal time bomb. Already, every Florida insurance policy (on homes, boats, cars, etc.) pays a surcharge that goes to Citizens, but Citizens still doesn’t have sufficient reserves to weather a major hurricane. When one comes, Florida taxpayers will be on the hook for the bill.
The legislature knows this, and actually passed a bill last year that would have done a great deal to solve the problem by partially deregulating rates private insurers could charge. State Farm would have stayed in Florida had that bill taken effect, but it was vetoed by the Governor. The public option is displacing private insurance.
In Florida, the public option has meant a substantial socialization of insurance, subsidization of the public option by those who take a private option, and the creation of a fiscally-unsound public insurance company despite the subsidy.
As originally envisioned, Citizens would charge rates above those charged by private insurers, to make Citizens the insurer of last resort. Nevertheless, Citizens found plenty of customers.
After two bad hurricane seasons in 2004 and 2005 property insurance rates in Florida rose, and in his campaign for the office, current Governor Charlie Crist promised voters that if elected he would see that their property insurance bills “dropped like a rock.”
One tactic he used was to change Citizens’ rate structure so it was competitive with private insurers. His idea, like President Obama’s idea with health insurance, is that with a public option, private insurers would have to keep their rates in line or risk losing customers to the government insurer.
Today about 30% of homeowners’ policies are written by Citizens, which is the largest property insurer in the state. It’s about to get bigger too. The largest private insurer, State Farm, had a rate request rejected last year, and now is pulling out of the state altogether (for homeowner insurance; they’ll still insure your car).
Everybody in Florida knows Citizens is a fiscal time bomb. Already, every Florida insurance policy (on homes, boats, cars, etc.) pays a surcharge that goes to Citizens, but Citizens still doesn’t have sufficient reserves to weather a major hurricane. When one comes, Florida taxpayers will be on the hook for the bill.
The legislature knows this, and actually passed a bill last year that would have done a great deal to solve the problem by partially deregulating rates private insurers could charge. State Farm would have stayed in Florida had that bill taken effect, but it was vetoed by the Governor. The public option is displacing private insurance.
In Florida, the public option has meant a substantial socialization of insurance, subsidization of the public option by those who take a private option, and the creation of a fiscally-unsound public insurance company despite the subsidy.
[No link available right now. Will post one when I get it.]
Sunday, November 1, 2009
TARP out $2.3B with CIT bankruptcy
CIT files for bankruptcy protection this afternoon after rescues fail
CIT's bankruptcy will likely mean that the Treasury Department loses the $2.3 billion it invested in the company - the biggest loss from TARP so far.
CIT's bankruptcy will likely mean that the Treasury Department loses the $2.3 billion it invested in the company - the biggest loss from TARP so far.
With Republicans like this, who needs Democrats?
Republican Dede Scozzafava endorsed her former Democratic opponent in the race for an upstate New York congressional seat, shaking up the contest for the second day in a row after exiting the race yesterday.
To think, that just this morning I was reading an article where Rep. Sessions (TX) and Newt Gingrich had been defending Scozzafava to the bitter end. Republicans really need to stop supporting RINOs.
Reason #73 Not to Live in DPR California
Withholding goes up 10% as Sacramento borrows from taxpayers. Technically, it's not an income tax increase: You'll get the money back eventually. Starting today, cash-strapped California will dig deeper into the pocketbooks of wage earners - holding back 10% more than it already does in state income taxes just as the biggest shopping season of the year kicks into gear. Technically, it's not a tax increase. Think of it as a forced, interest-free loan: You'll be repaid any extra withholding in April. Those who would receive a refund anyway will receive a larger one, and those who owe taxes will owe less.
So, what happens in the first quarter of next year? Holy accounting gimmicks, Batman!
[Thanks to MPC for the link.]
Saturday, October 31, 2009
National Review (10/19 Issue)
Kevin Williamson explains why all the pop economics blaming greed for the financial crisis is a load of crap. "Shouting 'greed' dows about as much to explain the financial crisis as shouting 'Beelzebub' or 'Mister Snuffleupagus'." Interestingly, one of the folks he takes aim at is Sheila Bair of the FDIC.
In the very next article, John Berlau explains why Bair is in WAY over her head (I've never seen a clearer example of the Peter Principle at work). Bair seems not to understand who investors are when disparaging her. It's amazing that she's posing as a populist while she protects six or seven figure bank accounts even beyond the expanded $250K limit while forcing less wealthy Americans to take huge hits to their income investments and pensions.
Stephen Spruiell describes in graphic detail the failures of socialized medicine in Vermont, Maine and Massachussetts and warns how this will play out on a national scale if Obama, Pelosi, Reid & Co get their way.
Ramesh Ponnuru outlines Romney's chances in 2012. One thing he points out with which I wholeheartedly agree is that Romney is foolish to keep defending Massachussetts' RomneyCare (whose failures are well documented in the Spruiell article). He needs to cut that out, particularly leading into an election year where ObamaCare will be a central issue whether it passes or not.
Rob Long gives us a humorous article on the typology of tyrants, but ends it on a very serious note. "Maybe the most important question then isn't what kind of dictator each one is, but what kind of leader sits in the White House to deal with them. Not so funny now, are they?"
John Bolton presents the four possible outcomes for the Iran situation, and even the best of them (Israel takes out enough of Iran's nuclear capability to slow them down) is a hideous possibility thanks to the mishandling of the situation by Obama (and to be fair, Bush before him).
In the very next article, John Berlau explains why Bair is in WAY over her head (I've never seen a clearer example of the Peter Principle at work). Bair seems not to understand who investors are when disparaging her. It's amazing that she's posing as a populist while she protects six or seven figure bank accounts even beyond the expanded $250K limit while forcing less wealthy Americans to take huge hits to their income investments and pensions.
Stephen Spruiell describes in graphic detail the failures of socialized medicine in Vermont, Maine and Massachussetts and warns how this will play out on a national scale if Obama, Pelosi, Reid & Co get their way.
Ramesh Ponnuru outlines Romney's chances in 2012. One thing he points out with which I wholeheartedly agree is that Romney is foolish to keep defending Massachussetts' RomneyCare (whose failures are well documented in the Spruiell article). He needs to cut that out, particularly leading into an election year where ObamaCare will be a central issue whether it passes or not.
Rob Long gives us a humorous article on the typology of tyrants, but ends it on a very serious note. "Maybe the most important question then isn't what kind of dictator each one is, but what kind of leader sits in the White House to deal with them. Not so funny now, are they?"
John Bolton presents the four possible outcomes for the Iran situation, and even the best of them (Israel takes out enough of Iran's nuclear capability to slow them down) is a hideous possibility thanks to the mishandling of the situation by Obama (and to be fair, Bush before him).
Friday, October 30, 2009
Weekly Standard (10/12 & 10/19 Issues)
Decline Is a Choice
The New Liberalism and the end of American ascendancy.
Charles Krauthammer
One idea from this article is particularly worthy of quoting here...
The New Liberalism and the end of American ascendancy.
Charles Krauthammer
One idea from this article is particularly worthy of quoting here...
Domestic policy, of course, is not designed to curb our power abroad. But what it lacks in intent, it makes up in effect. Decline will be an unintended, but powerful, side effect of the New Liberalism's ambition of moving America from its traditional dynamic individualism to the more equitable but static model of European social democracy. This is not the place to debate the intrinsic merits of the social democratic versus the Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism. There's much to be said for the decency and relative equity of social democracy. But it comes at a cost: diminished social mobility, higher unemployment, less innovation, less dynamism and creative destruction, less overall economic growth.The Republican Revival
This affects the ability to project power. Growth provides the sinews of dominance-the ability to maintain a large military establishment capable of projecting power to all corners of the earth. The Europeans, rich and developed, have almost no such capacity. They made the choice long ago to devote their resources to a vast welfare state. Their expenditures on defense are minimal, as are their consequent military capacities. They rely on the US Navy for open seas and on the US Air Force for airlift. It's the US Marines who go ashore, not just in battle, but for such global social services as tsunami relief. The United States can do all of this because we spend infinitely more on defense-more than the next nine countries combined.
Those are the conditions today. But they are not static or permanent. They require constant renewal. The express agenda of the New Liberalism is a vast expansion of social services-massive intervention and expenditures in energy, health care, and education-that will necessarily, as in Europe, take away from defense spending. This shift in resources is not hypothetical. It has already begun. At a time when hundreds of billions of dollars are being lavished on stimulus and other appropriations in an endless array of domestic programs, the defense budget is practically frozen. Almost every other department is expanding, and the Defense Department is singled out for making "hard choices"-forced to look everywhere for cuts, to abandon highly advanced weapons systems, to choose between readiness and research, between today's urgencies and tomorrow's looming threats.
The leading indicators all point to major gains in the 2010 midterm elections.
Fred Barnes
A Vain President, or a Weak One?
Fred Barnes
A Vain President, or a Weak One?
Americans don't like pushovers-especially pushover presidents.
Fred Barnes
Don't Go Wobbly on Afghanistan
President Obama was right in March.
Frederick Kagan & Kimberly Kagan
(A follow-up on an earlier article that was also posted on this blog.)
Détente and the Bunker
How to oppose a president's disastrous foreign policy.
Elliott Abrams
Abandoning the Most Vulnerable
Britain moves closer to legalizing assisted suicide.
Wesley Smith
I have always been vaguely against assisted suicide, but it was not a high-priority policy item for me. Reading this article - which outlines the possibilities for abuse as in the UK's Purdy case - has strengthened my resolve against this hideous practice.
The New Tammany Hall
Public sector unions have become a labor aristocracy-and they are bankrupting states and municipalities.
Fred Siegel & Dan DiSalvo
Labour's Last Gasp
Gordon Brown still wants to tax-and-spend.
Irwin Stelzer
Cameron's Turn at Bat
Hope and change, Tory style.
Irwin Stelzer
I find it very hard to get excited about a "Conservative" revival in the UK when one of their main platform planks is increasing spending on the NHS socialized medical system.
Another article by Irwin Stelzer that did not make it into print is worth reading:
Americans should be hoping that the Chinese will be kinder to us than we were to the Brits after World War II. Readers of a certain age will remember, and the few younger ones who study history will have learned, what creditor Uncle Sam did to debtor John Bull when Britain sent John Maynard Keynes to Washington to negotiate to borrow the odd billion from us. Britain had spent blood and treasure to beat the Nazis and was hoping or a gift of $3 billion, a credit line of $5 billion, and other generosities. As Robert Skidelsky points out in his magnificent biography of Keynes, "The Americans had never accepted that they owed Britain a moral debt" for its disproportionately large sacrifices. Instead, President Truman, advised by communist spies such as Harry Dexter White, insisted on terms so onerous that Britain was, in some views, permanently expelled from the first rank of economic powers for decades, until Margaret Thatcher decided that her government's job was definitely not merely to manage decline.
Fred Barnes
Don't Go Wobbly on Afghanistan
President Obama was right in March.
Frederick Kagan & Kimberly Kagan
(A follow-up on an earlier article that was also posted on this blog.)
Détente and the Bunker
How to oppose a president's disastrous foreign policy.
Elliott Abrams
Abandoning the Most Vulnerable
Britain moves closer to legalizing assisted suicide.
Wesley Smith
I have always been vaguely against assisted suicide, but it was not a high-priority policy item for me. Reading this article - which outlines the possibilities for abuse as in the UK's Purdy case - has strengthened my resolve against this hideous practice.
The New Tammany Hall
Public sector unions have become a labor aristocracy-and they are bankrupting states and municipalities.
Fred Siegel & Dan DiSalvo
Labour's Last Gasp
Gordon Brown still wants to tax-and-spend.
Irwin Stelzer
Cameron's Turn at Bat
Hope and change, Tory style.
Irwin Stelzer
I find it very hard to get excited about a "Conservative" revival in the UK when one of their main platform planks is increasing spending on the NHS socialized medical system.
Another article by Irwin Stelzer that did not make it into print is worth reading:
Americans should be hoping that the Chinese will be kinder to us than we were to the Brits after World War II. Readers of a certain age will remember, and the few younger ones who study history will have learned, what creditor Uncle Sam did to debtor John Bull when Britain sent John Maynard Keynes to Washington to negotiate to borrow the odd billion from us. Britain had spent blood and treasure to beat the Nazis and was hoping or a gift of $3 billion, a credit line of $5 billion, and other generosities. As Robert Skidelsky points out in his magnificent biography of Keynes, "The Americans had never accepted that they owed Britain a moral debt" for its disproportionately large sacrifices. Instead, President Truman, advised by communist spies such as Harry Dexter White, insisted on terms so onerous that Britain was, in some views, permanently expelled from the first rank of economic powers for decades, until Margaret Thatcher decided that her government's job was definitely not merely to manage decline.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
More Funny Business at GM
Mr. Gump and some 21,000 other salaried workers and retirees are furious that their roughly 46,000 union co-workers at Delphi have had their benefits restored and they have not. “They’ve been relatively well taken care of,” he said. “But I’m being thrown out with yesterday’s trash.” The PBGC, which insures pension plans, caps the amount of benefits it will pay, using a formula based on age and the type of benefits an employee earned. But in a side arrangement, GM is agreeing to pay special supplements, called top-ups, so that Delphi’s union retirees get everything they were promised. The automaker is drawing the money from its own pension fund[*], according to a person familiar with the arrangement. The GM pension fund is being weakened to help the Delphi union members.
[*] Under normal conditions, using pension money for the benefit of anybody other than the plan's participants is ILLEGAL. But, hey, Obama & Co say it's ok.
[*] Under normal conditions, using pension money for the benefit of anybody other than the plan's participants is ILLEGAL. But, hey, Obama & Co say it's ok.
The House Nationalized Healthcare Bill is 1,990 pages long!
Something tells me that a staffer added 6 pages of filler to this to avoid addtional embarrassment. ;)
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Why on earth does it require six years of college education for this?
The other day I was at my local CVS to pick up a prescription. When I got to the Pharmacy section I see a line 13 deep (I counted). I see three Pharmacists behind the counter intently looking at computer screens and walking back and forth as they attempt to fill prescriptions.
After 30 minutes of waiting I had only advanced 5 spots in line. The line now has about 20-25 people and is snaking through the store aisles What on earth could cause such slow service? As a casual observer, I admit I am most likely ignorant about they terribly exciting and adventure filled world of pharmacology. So maybe someone with a clue can fill in the gaps and explain what I'm missing/wrong with the following:
1) Pharmacist receives prescription from client.
2) Pharmacist checks to see if prescription is valid and enters prescription into CVS computer prescription system.
I am assuming that the computer prescription system automatically does the following things automatically: a) Verifies that the dosage prescribed is within normally acceptable prescribed range b) Cross checks against other currently issued prescriptions for that client to ensure that the prescribed drug does not cause a negative reaction when used in conjunction with other drugs the client is currently on. c) Verifies the doctor's FDA # (if applicable)
3) Pharmacist finds and fills the prescription.
Based on these possibly false assumptions, I wonder in this modern tech savvy world, why on earth does it require six years of college education to become a pharmacist? I'd imagine that a computer does most of the actual "thinking" these days. I'd imagine that being a hair stylist requires more knowledge than a pharmacist.
Also, if my possibly false assumptions are true, why on earth is the wait so long? I didn't see anyone wanting a consultation with the pharmacist; they appeared to just want to get their prescriptions and get out of there. What is causing these delays? What could possibly cause a delay of this nature?
For the record, I left after approximately 90 minutes of waiting.
/RANT
After 30 minutes of waiting I had only advanced 5 spots in line. The line now has about 20-25 people and is snaking through the store aisles What on earth could cause such slow service? As a casual observer, I admit I am most likely ignorant about they terribly exciting and adventure filled world of pharmacology. So maybe someone with a clue can fill in the gaps and explain what I'm missing/wrong with the following:
1) Pharmacist receives prescription from client.
2) Pharmacist checks to see if prescription is valid and enters prescription into CVS computer prescription system.
I am assuming that the computer prescription system automatically does the following things automatically: a) Verifies that the dosage prescribed is within normally acceptable prescribed range b) Cross checks against other currently issued prescriptions for that client to ensure that the prescribed drug does not cause a negative reaction when used in conjunction with other drugs the client is currently on. c) Verifies the doctor's FDA # (if applicable)
3) Pharmacist finds and fills the prescription.
Based on these possibly false assumptions, I wonder in this modern tech savvy world, why on earth does it require six years of college education to become a pharmacist? I'd imagine that a computer does most of the actual "thinking" these days. I'd imagine that being a hair stylist requires more knowledge than a pharmacist.
Also, if my possibly false assumptions are true, why on earth is the wait so long? I didn't see anyone wanting a consultation with the pharmacist; they appeared to just want to get their prescriptions and get out of there. What is causing these delays? What could possibly cause a delay of this nature?
For the record, I left after approximately 90 minutes of waiting.
/RANT
Obama continues to waffle; more troops die.
While Obama continues to "thoughtfully consider" General Stanley McChrystal's desparate plea for more troops, and catches a few more rounds of golf, more troops are dying in Afghanistan.
KABUL, Oct 27 (Reuters) - Eight U.S. troops were killed in southern Afghanistan on Tuesday ahead of a run-off presidential election, the NATO-led alliance said, in the deadliest month for U.S. forces since the start of the war eight years ago.
The mounting violence comes as U.S. President Barack Obama is weighing whether to send more soldiers to Afghanistan to fight a Taliban insurgency that is at its fiercest since 2001.
Friday, October 23, 2009
WTF is wrong with Obama?
The Obama administration tried to make "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the White House pool except Fox News. But the Washington bureau chiefs consulted and decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included. The administration relented, making Feinberg available for all five pool members.
He clearly has the attitude of a tinpot dictator. Thank God for us he's not as smart as Chavez or Castro.
At least the guys at Fox News seem to be having some fun with this...
Time for Obama to Quit Attacking Fox News and Grow Up
He clearly has the attitude of a tinpot dictator. Thank God for us he's not as smart as Chavez or Castro.
At least the guys at Fox News seem to be having some fun with this...
Time for Obama to Quit Attacking Fox News and Grow Up
Thursday, October 22, 2009
From the Department of Big Freakin' Surprises
IRS doled out $622 million to ineligible filers
About 19,350 taxpayers claimed $139 million worth of tax credits for homes they had not yet purchased, about 70,000 taxpayers claimed more than $479 million in credits despite evidence they were not first-time home buyers, and almost 600 people claimed about $4 million worth of the credit who were not yet 18 years old.
About 19,350 taxpayers claimed $139 million worth of tax credits for homes they had not yet purchased, about 70,000 taxpayers claimed more than $479 million in credits despite evidence they were not first-time home buyers, and almost 600 people claimed about $4 million worth of the credit who were not yet 18 years old.
For posterity
Ran across this, and wanted it recorded for future reference, as I'm sure BHO et al will continue to back away from their ridiculous "stimulus" claims heading in the midterm elections.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/romer-and-bernstein-on-stimulus/
Updated: A fellow actuary added the data points for the actual unemployment rate.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/romer-and-bernstein-on-stimulus/
Updated: A fellow actuary added the data points for the actual unemployment rate.
Pay Czar Acted Alone To Cut Executive Pay
Obama's 'compensation czar' did not seek presidential approval with plan ordering companies getting the most TARP money to slash CEO compensation.
Source: FoxNews
Source: FoxNews
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Really a shame, but not at all unexpected
Senate, House leaders move toward health care public option
With signs that moderate Democrats are becoming more receptive to a government-managed health care plan, a group of senators headed by Majority Leader Harry Reid is working on a plan to revive the so-called public option after two versions of it were voted down by the Senate Finance Committee. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she is close to having 218 votes lined up in support of a public-option plan linked to Medicare payment rates. (The Washington Post, Reuters, USA TODAY, The New York Times)
With signs that moderate Democrats are becoming more receptive to a government-managed health care plan, a group of senators headed by Majority Leader Harry Reid is working on a plan to revive the so-called public option after two versions of it were voted down by the Senate Finance Committee. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she is close to having 218 votes lined up in support of a public-option plan linked to Medicare payment rates. (The Washington Post, Reuters, USA TODAY, The New York Times)
Really a shame, but not at all unexpected
Volcker's advice on fixing US banks is ignored at the White House
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker was an early supporter of Barack Obama's presidential campaign and was named head of the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. But that hasn't been enough to get White House support for the tough reforms that Volcker wants enacted to fix what's wrong with the nation's banks. (The New York Times)
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker was an early supporter of Barack Obama's presidential campaign and was named head of the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. But that hasn't been enough to get White House support for the tough reforms that Volcker wants enacted to fix what's wrong with the nation's banks. (The New York Times)
From the Department of the Bleeding Obvious
TARP has increased moral hazard in markets
Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for TARP, says the rescue plan has increased moral hazard in the financial markets. TARP injected capital into financial institutions at the center of the crisis and clearly influenced market behavior, he said. Barofsky said the program may have helped the financial system avoid collapsing, but it will likely reinforce the belief that the government will intervene to prevent banks and other systemically important firms from failing. (Reuters)
Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for TARP, says the rescue plan has increased moral hazard in the financial markets. TARP injected capital into financial institutions at the center of the crisis and clearly influenced market behavior, he said. Barofsky said the program may have helped the financial system avoid collapsing, but it will likely reinforce the belief that the government will intervene to prevent banks and other systemically important firms from failing. (Reuters)
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
National Review (10/5 Issue)
At What Cost To Freedom? Obama's individual mandate is a bad idea. In his address to Congress, Obama made clear that he and his allies know how to spend your health-care money better than you do. [...] The choice between freedom and responsibility, as Obama and his congressional allies protray it, is a false choice. We can and should have both. (Robert Moffit)
Also, Mark Steyn had an entertaining and enlightening article (aren't they always?) titled "Right Turn on Main Street" which is not available online. I'll quote a couple of passages...
Also, Mark Steyn had an entertaining and enlightening article (aren't they always?) titled "Right Turn on Main Street" which is not available online. I'll quote a couple of passages...
The signs display an accurate understanding of the principles of the Obama era: Let the failures fail! Stop spending my future! Grandma is not shovel ready! Just as important, the demonstrators understand the essentials more clearly than many of the thin-tankers and Sunday pundits and other insiders hung up on the fine print. "Death panels" took off because it clarified the health care stakes in ways none of the other oppositional lingo quite managed.
[...]
It's disturbing to me that conservative "thinkers" don't seem to grasp this and deride those who do as boorish and unlettered. You can't win this argument by getting caught in the weeds. The intellectual heft at the tea party protests consists of the animating principles of the American idea, trade freedom for security and you will have neither. That so many conservative sophisticates regard this as either hopelessly provincial or beyond the bounds of political viability testifies to the real intellectual bankruptcy out there.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Weekly Standard (10/5 Issue)
The Obama Show
Time to change the channel.
Matthew Continetti
Time to change the channel.
Matthew Continetti
Passive-Aggressive at the U.N.
Obama boldly proclaims a new meekness.
Andrew Ferguson
Obama boldly proclaims a new meekness.
Andrew Ferguson
Medicare's New Critics
Why is the Obama administration trashing a health program that works?
Fred Barnes
Why is the Obama administration trashing a health program that works?
Fred Barnes
(By the way, Barnes is talking about Medicare Advantage, the one free market aspect of an otherwise abysmal program.)
Obama's Iran Formula
Speak timidly and don't carry a stick.
Stephen F. Hayes
Speak timidly and don't carry a stick.
Stephen F. Hayes
How Not to Defeat al Qaeda
To win in Afghanistan requires troops on the ground.
Frederick Kagan & Kimberly Kagan
To win in Afghanistan requires troops on the ground.
Frederick Kagan & Kimberly Kagan
The Trouble with Obama
He only seemed to be all things to all people.
Noemie Emery
He only seemed to be all things to all people.
Noemie Emery
Sarkozy Sees Obama As Incredibly Naive & Grossly Egotistical (updated)
From the Gateway Pundit:
Edited by ALD to add:
I just had to bump this story when I saw this piece by Charles Krauthammer, which provides the background for Sarkozy's statement.
And that's the way it is. We have a president who is such a complete putz that France has to reprimand us for appeasement.
Jack Kelly from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette told Greta Van Susteren that Sarkozy is furious with President Obama over his Iran speech and his misguided global disarmament obsession.Gateway Pundit also has a video of Jack Kelly on the Fox News Channel.
French President Sarkozy thinks President Obama is incredibly naive and grossly egotistical. Sarkozy is worried about the Western world with such a flawed president leading America.
Edited by ALD to add:
I just had to bump this story when I saw this piece by Charles Krauthammer, which provides the background for Sarkozy's statement.
Unknown to the world, Obama had in his pocket explosive revelations about an illegal uranium enrichment facility that the Iranians had been hiding near Qom. The French and the British were urging him to use this most dramatic of settings to stun the world with the revelation and to call for immediate action. Obama refused. Not only did he say nothing about it, but, reports Le Monde, Sarkozy was forced to scrap the Qom section of his speech. Obama held the news until a day later - in Pittsburgh. I've got nothing against Pittsburgh, but a stacked-with-world-leaders Security Council chamber it is not.
Why forgo the opportunity? Because Obama wanted the Security Council meeting to be about his own dream of a nuclear-free world. The president, reports The New York Times citing "White House officials," did not want to "dilute" his disarmament resolution "by diverting to Iran." Diversion? It's the most serious security issue in the world. A diversion from what? From a worthless U.N. disarmament resolution? Yes. And from Obama's star turn as planetary visionary: "The administration told the French," reports The Wall Street Journal, "that it didn't want to 'spoil the image of success' for Mr. Obama's debut at the U.N."
Image? Success? Sarkozy could hardly contain himself. At the council table, with Obama at the chair, he reminded Obama that "we live in a real world, not a virtual world." He explained: "President Obama has even said, 'I dream of a world without (nuclear weapons).' Yet before our very eyes, two countries are currently doing the exact opposite." Sarkozy's unspoken words? "And yet, sacre bleu, he's sitting on Qom!" At the time, we had no idea what Sarkozy was fuming about. Now we do.
And that's the way it is. We have a president who is such a complete putz that France has to reprimand us for appeasement.
Friday, October 16, 2009
First hard stimulus data finds 30,000 jobs saved or created
The Hill:
Let's see where this leads. I guarantee you that the left will claim that this is proof the the stimulus is working and the right will claim it's proof it's failing.
The first direct stimulus reports showed that stimulus contracts saved or created just 30,083 jobs, prompting more Republican criticism of the $787 billion package.
...
According to the White House recovery office's rough calculations, the 30,083 jobs number projects out to a total of 1.2 million jobs saved or created by the stimulus through September.
Let's see where this leads. I guarantee you that the left will claim that this is proof the the stimulus is working and the right will claim it's proof it's failing.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Human Events (10/5 Issue)
Hypocrisy and Medicare Advantage by Newt Gingrich
In one breath, the Times claimed the effect of Medicare Advantage cuts will be "modest" Then, literally on the next line, contradicts itself
The President’s Troubling Trend on the World Stage by Rep. Mike Pence
If America won’t defend freedom, who will?
Here's an interesting article I hadn't heard anything about in other sources:
Net 'Neutrality' is Government Theft by Ross Kaminsky
It comes as no surprise that Democrats want to regulate the internet.
This is not about content; it's about how ISPs are supposed to handle data packet transfer.
Obama Waltzing Around McChrystal's Afghan Troop Request by Jed Babbin
In one breath, the Times claimed the effect of Medicare Advantage cuts will be "modest" Then, literally on the next line, contradicts itself
The President’s Troubling Trend on the World Stage by Rep. Mike Pence
If America won’t defend freedom, who will?
Here's an interesting article I hadn't heard anything about in other sources:
Net 'Neutrality' is Government Theft by Ross Kaminsky
It comes as no surprise that Democrats want to regulate the internet.
This is not about content; it's about how ISPs are supposed to handle data packet transfer.
Obama Waltzing Around McChrystal's Afghan Troop Request by Jed Babbin
Who's he talking to?
So, on my drive in to work today I'm listening to a lecture (America and the New Global Economy) by Professor Timothy Taylor of Macalester College. OK, I wasn't really listening. I had tuned him out until I hear his tone become more urgent and his volume slightly elevated. He's saying,
"If you run huge budget deficits, you're going to get inflation! Don't do that! If you hand out huge subsidies to money-losing state-owned industries, you're going to get HUGE inflation!! DON'T DO THAT!!"
For a second I thought he was talking to Bush & Obama. It turns out he was talking about Latin America during their debt crises and hyperinflation of the last couple of decades. Too bad everybody thinks that can't happen here because they're dead wrong.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
US continues to trash contract law and property rights
The $1.7 trillion mortgage securitization market is still a mess, despite (or in part because of) the Federal Reserve's $700 billion splurge into the market. But another reason may be Treasury's decision to undermine private mortgage-backed securities contracts. BlackRock Chairman Laurence Fink went so far recently as to call this "one of the biggest issues facing American capitalism." He's worried that to protect banks from billions of dollars more in writedowns on bad second liens (a.k.a., home-equity loans), Treasury is trashing private contracts. [...] A vibrant MBS market depends on the sanctity of US contracts. If the world's investors see that Treasury is willing to reward banks at their expense, there will be fewer such investors in US securities. There will also be less capital for housing. Treasury needs to revisit its foreclosure rules to protect the US reputation of honoring contracts, and the faster the better.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
Graham stabs conservatives in the back
Sen. Graham (R-SC) announced his support for sweeping climate change legislation, disputing the "conventional wisdom" that says Congress simply cannot tackle the issue this year. He co-authored an op-ed with Sen. Kerry (D-MA) in The New York Times (where else?) calling for action on legislation.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
From the WSJ
Saturday, October 10, 2009
A truth that Capitalism obscures...
In reality when you talk about economic classes there are only two not three. You are either rich or poor. Throughout history, all over the world people were rich and lived in palaces with many servants and special privledges, or they were poor and glad they could eat/not starve, and had a roof over their head (even if it leaked during rains, and didn't keep out the cold, only keeping in the heat during the summer). Liberals are always talking about changing the system to help the poor, and that is the truth that is obscured by Capitalism. The system already does better providing for the poor than any other option. Forget the comparison to perfection and instead focus on results. Only one system has well taken care of the poor class. So much so that people have forgotten there is NO such thing as middle class. There are only the rich, the poor, and (thanks to Capitalism) the poor served fairly by the system such that if they follow a few strictures (no drugs, no kids outside of marriage, work ethic...) they won't have the traditional lifestyle of the poor. They'll get a lifestyle Kings of old would be jealous of (TV/Radio, Computers/iNet, AirConditioning, Modern Medicine and Health Care/Dentistry, and so on...).
It's a shame that Capitalism does this so well, cause liberals seem to forget with all their cries of helping the poor, something already does. The poor helped are known as the Middle Class.
otherdas
It's a shame that Capitalism does this so well, cause liberals seem to forget with all their cries of helping the poor, something already does. The poor helped are known as the Middle Class.
otherdas
Friday, October 9, 2009
Lawmakers are told FHA losses might clean out $30B reserve
A House subcommittee was warned that the FHA likely will be the next government-backed mortgage investor to run out of money. Edward Pinto predicted that the FHA's losses on mortgages it insures will exceed the agency's $30 billion in reserve. "It appears destined for a taxpayer bailout in the next 24 to 36 months," he said. (The New York Times)
From Today's WSJ
The Greatest Show on Earth
Step right up: A new entitlement that cuts the deficit!
The Dollar Adrift
A global vote of non-confidence.
Best of the Web Today: Too Good to Check
Want to cut the deficit? Just spend $829 billion!
Boom, Bust. Repeat.
Financial meltdowns typically follow real-estate bubbles, rising indebtedness and gaping deficits.
They have to be kidding
Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize?
I mean ... Oslo's obsession with giving the Peace Prize to radical far-left kooks is well documented, but don't you generally have to, you know, actually have DONE something?
Edit by a totally confused UnknownVarible:
He wins a prize for what???
What exactly has this guy done since he's been elected? What has he done to further the cause of peace?
Also the deadline for nominations was February 1, just 11 days after Obama's inauguration.
Seriously, WTF?
Double Edit by UnknownVarible
Breaking News! Obama has just won some new awards!
More!
DNC Chairman says anyone who mocks his Obama for receiving the award a Terrorist.
I mean ... Oslo's obsession with giving the Peace Prize to radical far-left kooks is well documented, but don't you generally have to, you know, actually have DONE something?
Edit by a totally confused UnknownVarible:
He wins a prize for what???
What exactly has this guy done since he's been elected? What has he done to further the cause of peace?
Also the deadline for nominations was February 1, just 11 days after Obama's inauguration.
Seriously, WTF?
Double Edit by UnknownVarible
Breaking News! Obama has just won some new awards!
More!
DNC Chairman says anyone who mocks his Obama for receiving the award a Terrorist.
"The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists - the Taliban and Hamas this morning - in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize," DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told POLITICO. "Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize - an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride - unless of course you are the Republican Party"Edited hopefully for the last time to include some WSJ commentary on the award (ALD 10/11)
The Nobel Hope Prize
An award for the end of American exceptionalism.
PEGGY NOONAN
A Wicked and Ignorant Award
A Wicked and Ignorant Award
How Barack Obama could help redeem the Norwegian Nobel Committee's grievous mistake.
JAMES TARANTO
Best of the Web Today: Most Embarrassing Moment
Best of the Web Today: Most Embarrassing Moment
The Norwegian Nobel Committee makes President Obama look ridiculous.
JOHN FUND
What Are They Smoking In Oslo?
What Are They Smoking In Oslo?
JOHN FUND ON THE TRAIL
A prize for not being George W. Bush.
A prize for not being George W. Bush.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Scientist: Carbon Dioxide Doesn't Cause Global Warming
From the US News:
A noted geologist who coauthored the New York Times bestseller Sugar Busters has turned his attention to convincing Congress that carbon dioxide emissions are good for Earth and don't cause global warming. Leighton Steward is on Capitol Hill this week armed with studies and his book Fire, Ice and Paradise in a bid to show senators working on the energy bill that the carbon dioxide cap-and-trade scheme could actually hurt the environment by reducing CO2 levels. "I'm trying to kill the whole thing," he says. "We are tilting at windmills." He is meeting with several GOP lawmakers and has plans to meet with some Democrats later this week.
Even conservative commentators can't get it right
The Washington Examiner's lead on the health care bill that made it out Baucus' committee was
A Democratic health care proposal would cost less than $900 billion but would result in 8 million people being pushed out of private insurance.
How about...
A Democratic health care proposal would cost almost $900 billion and would result in 8 million people being pushed out of private insurance.
A Democratic health care proposal would cost less than $900 billion but would result in 8 million people being pushed out of private insurance.
How about...
A Democratic health care proposal would cost almost $900 billion and would result in 8 million people being pushed out of private insurance.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Taxation is an obscene budget buster!
I was just doing some family budgeting and was shocked by the numbers I saw. While it wasn't a complete surprise, seeing the percentage of our budget eaten up by taxes just blew me away. For the nine months January-September of this year, our budget breaks down as follows:
Personal expenses: 14.19%
Food: 11.41%
Insurance: 8.30%
Utilities: 7.75%
Unreimbursed business expenses: 5.01%
Mortgage interest: 4.79%
Automobile expenses: 2.27%
Unreimbursed medical expenses: 1.45%
Taxes: 44.83%
That's right! 45 cents of every dollar spent in this household is consumed by taxes - federal income, state income, state sales, social security, medicare, real property tax, personal property tax, cable taxes, wireless taxes, ... And the true total is even higher because a portion of our dining budget and gas budget and the like is actually going to taxes I can't track separately ... And that's without even taking into account that everything that ISN'T taxes is considerably more expensive because of the taxes that those business have to pay and then pass on to me.
It's obscene, I tell you, obscene!!
Somebody Alert Al Gore! US Ski resorts are opening early.
This global warming climate change thing is really getting out of control! The earth is heating up so fast that ski resorts are opening up early due to cooler than anticipated weather!
Boasting its earliest opening day in 40 years, Loveland officials opened for skiing today. Arapahoe Basin announced it would open Friday.
47% Will Pay $0 Income Tax in 2009
Considering how much I paid in income taxes last year, either my blood should be boiling or I should find an accountant who is better at finding deductions to do my taxes.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Most people think they pay too much to Uncle Sam, but for some people it simply is not true.
In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
Some in that group will even get additional money from the government because they qualify for refundable tax breaks.
Don't Laugh, CNN Reports (James Taranto, WSJ Best of the Web)
If you don't think "Saturday Night Live" is funny anymore, try watching CNN. Those guys are hilarious. Yesterday on Wolf Blitzer's "Situation Room," the network "fact checked" an SNL skit. No joke! The transcript is here, video is here. "How much truth is behind all the laughs?" Blitzer intoned as he teased the upcoming segment. "Stand by for our reality check."
The skit, which you can view here, features one of the "SNL" guys imitating President Obama. "When you look at my record, it's very clear what I have done so far. And that is nothing," he says. "Almost one year and nothing to show for it. You don't believe me? You think I'm making it up? Take a look at this checklist." He then rehearses a series of campaign promises--closing Guantanamo, improving Afghanistan, taking over the health-care system and so on--and declares all of them undone.
CNN interviews Bill Adair of the St. Petersburg Times's PolitiFact, one of those supposedly nonpartisan fact-checking outfits, which actually published a "study" of the "SNL" skit earlier yesterday. Adair says:
I think "SNL" tended to kind of gloss over what is a--a fair amount of progress by this administration, about sending two additional brigades to Afghanistan. We rated that [as] a promise kept. On Iraq, "Saturday Night Live" said not done and, of course, that's true, they're not done. But they hadn't promised to be done by now.
Reporter Kareen Wynter adds: "As for health care, Adair says 'SNL' also got it wrong, since that legislation is still stalled in Congress." Which means it has been done? Well, whatever. "But Adair says the sketch did get some things right, like Guantanamo Bay. PolitiFact says the president has fallen short on that promise."
"Fact checking" a comedy sketch is a bizarre exercise in itself. PolitiFact does not appear to have done the same for past "SNL" sketches spoofing Republican politicians like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin. (In fact, CNN reports that Adair, in the network's words, "says the sketch won't resonate with the audience as much as" Tina Fey's Palin send-up.)
It's as if CNN and the St. Petersburg Times are trying to reinforce the impression that they are in the tank for Obama. Even Democratic operative Paul Begala, who appears on a panel after the "fact check," seems embarrassed by the exercise: "Come on. It's comedy. . . . I thought it was amusing that we actually went to people to fact-check a comedy sketch. It's comedy. It's supposed to be silly and funny."
There's another way to look at it, though: If only we'd had CNN and PolitiFact back in the 1970s, we would have known that Gerald Ford wasn't really as clumsy as Chevy Chase's portrayal of him, that Dan Aykroyd and Steve Martin weren't really two wild and crazy guys from Czechoslovakia, and that Jane Curtin is not an ignorant slut.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Pelosi says VAT is 'on the table'
Pelosi argued that the VAT would level the playing field between U.S. and foreign manufacturers, the latter of which do not have pension and healthcare costs included in the price of their goods because their governments provide those services, financed by similar taxes. "They get a tax off of that and they use that money to pay the healthcare for their own workers," Pelosi said, using the example of auto manufacturers. "So their cars coming into our country don't have a healthcare component cost.
DUH! They don't have a corporate healthcare component cost; they have a government healthcare component cost imposed by the VAT.
The Speaker also emphasized that any reworking of the tax code would not result in an increase in taxes on middle-class Americans.
Unlike the previous statement, this one isn't stupidity; it's a downright lie. However, she still has to be the dumbest Representative in the House today if she thinks the American people are stupid enough to buy this crap.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Subsidized Health Care: a view from the exam room (Linda Halderman, MD)
The following are just some of the more appalling anecdotes; I encourage you to read the entire article at the American Thinker blog.
Upon questioning Sherry I learned that four of her immediate family members had been diagnosed with breast or colon cancer before the age of 50. Alarmed, I asked why she had not had the recommended screening mammogram for more than four years. She said that she knew already that her risk for developing breast cancer was likely higher than that of most women. "But I don't have insurance," she replied. A screening mammogram could be obtained for about $90 and was discounted or free at local facilities every October for "Breast Cancer Awareness Month." She smiled when I proposed a deal: if she were to get a screening mammogram within sixty days of her treatment, I would offer a discount on what she paid me for cosmetic services. "I'll think about it," she said, then shelled out over $400 for Botox injections that took me ten minutes to administer. Five months later, when she returned for her next wrinkle treatment, she reported that she still had not obtained a mammogram.
I encountered patients who gladly paid upwards of $1000 in cash for laser hair removal treatments. The paperwork filled out during their initial consultation asked them to indicate whether or not they had health insurance. Several hair removal patients reported being covered by Medi-Cal.
A friend of mine sells private health insurance plans. He told me of the 39-year-old father of two whose family was quoted a monthly insurance premium of $250. "Are you kidding?" he said, refusing the coverage. "That's almost as much as my boat payment!"
From the office I shared with another doctor at the clinic, I had a clear view of the patient parking lot. It was not unusual for me to see clinic patients drive away in late model SUVs or cars customized in the style popular in my area.
I overheard patients and their children chatting as I wrote in their charts. Many had an excellent command of the plotlines of cable television shows aired only on premium channels. Basic cable in my area cost over $50 per month, with premium channels extra.
When serving in the Rural Health Center in my community, my colleagues and I offered free or discounted care for a large number of patients. Many were covered by Medi-Cal or one of dozens of state programs paid for by the taxpayers of California. The following items were commonly seen on patients or carried by their dependent children, who were also covered by subsidized programs:
I overheard patients and their children chatting as I wrote in their charts. Many had an excellent command of the plotlines of cable television shows aired only on premium channels. Basic cable in my area cost over $50 per month, with premium channels extra.
When serving in the Rural Health Center in my community, my colleagues and I offered free or discounted care for a large number of patients. Many were covered by Medi-Cal or one of dozens of state programs paid for by the taxpayers of California. The following items were commonly seen on patients or carried by their dependent children, who were also covered by subsidized programs:
- Cell phones and "BlackBerry" PDAs, including just-released models with a price tag of $400, plus an ongoing monthly service fee of $65-$150
- iPods and portable DVD players
- GameBoys and handheld electronic games
- Artificial fingernails requiring maintenance every two weeks at a cost of $40-$60 per salon visit
- Elaborate braided hair weaves, $300 per session plus frequent maintenance
- Custom-designed body art, including tattoos covering the entire torso, neck and arms, as well as body jewelry piercing every skin surface imaginable-and a few unimaginable ones. Custom tattoo work, particularly the "portrait-type" and "half sleeve" art popular in this area, runs from $100-$300 per hour and can require up to 20 hours of work, depending on the complexity of the design.
It's not just that they lie, it's that they're such STUPID lies...
In her speech, Michelle said she recalled sitting on her father's lap watching Carl Lewis compete in the Olympics. ... Problem is - that was when she was 20. D'oh!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
