Excuse me ma'am ? Boxer is a sorry excuse for a US Senator (but not alone in that characterization)
Boxer: Anti-Obamacare Protesters Suspiciously Well-Dressed [Mark Hemingway]
Seriously, a United States senator thinks that because the angry consituents at townhalls are presentable, it means they aren't authentic protesters. Hot Air has the video.
Krauthammer:
On the administration’s denunciation of protesters at health-care town halls:
There is a certain irony in an administration denouncing ordinary Americans who get together to express what they believe and to confront authority, when that administration is led by a man who began his career as a community organizer, whose job, as I understand it, is to take ordinary Americans, get them together to express what they believe, and express demands against the authorities.
So it's unbelievably hypocritical. And, of course, as we just heard, this only happens when you have a conservative protest. It is called a mob. If it’s a liberal protest, it is called grassroots expressing themselves.
Remember, just a year ago under the Bush administration, dissent was the highest form of patriotism. And today it is a kind of either organized anger, it's a facsimile of anger, it's unpatriotic, it's whatever.
Look, there is a genuine revolt against the idea of remaking a [health-care] system when over 80 percent of Americans have health insurance. Five of six of those are happy with their health care, and four of five are happy with their health insurance.
You have an administration arrogantly deciding it is going to tear it all up, start all over, and people are surprised that there are protests, and say that it had to be manufactured? Of course it is spontaneous. [If] people go together on a bus, that's entirely legitimate, and it ought to be encouraged.
When Did Dissent Stop Being Patriotic? [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Watching the Dems' "Enough of the Mob" ad, I can't help but think that the Left's shut-up-and-take-our-expensive-controlling-medicine strategy won't be well-received.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Details, Details ....
Those Pesky Details [Yuval Levin]
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius takes to the op-ed page of the Washington Post this morning to make the case for the Democrats’ health-care reform. The case she makes helps highlight why that effort is in such trouble.
This bit is certainly the most fun:
President Obama and I are working closely with Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate and health-care experts to make sure we get the details of health reform right. But we can't let the details distract us from the huge benefits that reform will bring.
Can’t let those “details,” like what the plan will actually consist of and what it will cost, distract us from the huge benefits. The striking thing about her case as a whole is actually the utter lack of details. It’s clear the phrase “health reform” has tested well, as she asserts that this vague concept will perform all manner of impressive feats. “Through health reform, we can give every American access to quality, affordable health insurance so that if they do get sick, they have the best chance possible of getting better without bankrupting their families,” she writes. “Reform will close the gaps in our current system.” “Health reform means unleashing America's entrepreneurs to chase their big ideas.”
But what is “health reform”? What specifically does the administration support or oppose? How in particular will any of this happen? Those are just distracting details, apparently.
Of course, we know in general what President Obama wants to see in a health-care reform, but the language of this op-ed sheds light on the peculiar situation the administration has worked itself into: sticking to generalities as the process on the Hill gets to some very detailed particulars, which the public increasingly finds disconcerting. Administration officials can't defend those details from attacks because they haven't said which of them they're for and against exactly, so it's hard not to seem like they support everything the public worries about and don't care about the worries.
Obama’s health care tour around the country in recent weeks reminds me of George W. Bush’s social-security tour exactly four years ago: an effort to get people worked up about a problem while remaining exceedingly vague about the solution and leaving the details up to Congress. The effect then was to make the public question the true seriousness of the problem, and of the president. Something like that seems to be happening now, as public confidence in our existing health-care system has actually increased in recent months, while public confidence in the Obama administration has begun to decline.
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius takes to the op-ed page of the Washington Post this morning to make the case for the Democrats’ health-care reform. The case she makes helps highlight why that effort is in such trouble.
This bit is certainly the most fun:
President Obama and I are working closely with Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate and health-care experts to make sure we get the details of health reform right. But we can't let the details distract us from the huge benefits that reform will bring.
Can’t let those “details,” like what the plan will actually consist of and what it will cost, distract us from the huge benefits. The striking thing about her case as a whole is actually the utter lack of details. It’s clear the phrase “health reform” has tested well, as she asserts that this vague concept will perform all manner of impressive feats. “Through health reform, we can give every American access to quality, affordable health insurance so that if they do get sick, they have the best chance possible of getting better without bankrupting their families,” she writes. “Reform will close the gaps in our current system.” “Health reform means unleashing America's entrepreneurs to chase their big ideas.”
But what is “health reform”? What specifically does the administration support or oppose? How in particular will any of this happen? Those are just distracting details, apparently.
Of course, we know in general what President Obama wants to see in a health-care reform, but the language of this op-ed sheds light on the peculiar situation the administration has worked itself into: sticking to generalities as the process on the Hill gets to some very detailed particulars, which the public increasingly finds disconcerting. Administration officials can't defend those details from attacks because they haven't said which of them they're for and against exactly, so it's hard not to seem like they support everything the public worries about and don't care about the worries.
Obama’s health care tour around the country in recent weeks reminds me of George W. Bush’s social-security tour exactly four years ago: an effort to get people worked up about a problem while remaining exceedingly vague about the solution and leaving the details up to Congress. The effect then was to make the public question the true seriousness of the problem, and of the president. Something like that seems to be happening now, as public confidence in our existing health-care system has actually increased in recent months, while public confidence in the Obama administration has begun to decline.
Cash for Clunkers ... "Lunatic Economics"
Krauthammer:
Well, it is very popular. It's an artificial stimulus drawing from the future [demand] into the present. I don't think it will have any real effect in the long run other than the temporary stimulus.
But at bottom, it's bizarre economics. We're paying people — what we're forgetting is that all of these cars, tens of thousands of clunkers, are going to be turned into scrap. And the question is why? America is going to be destroying tens of thousands of perfectly usable cars, destroying essentially American assets.
A parody of Keynesian economics is to say that you pay half the population to dig holes and the other half to fill them in. This is worse, because we're paying people with the bribe of cash to destroy huge numbers of assets. Why not put them on tankers, ship them into the third world, and get the cash for cars and parts?
So what you are doing is destroying a whole set of assets and replacing them. That's going to be stimulative for a week or two or three, but in the end, it's lunatic economics.
One Loud Clunk [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
AP:
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is refusing to release government records on its "cash for clunkers" rebate program that would substantiate — or undercut — claims of its success.
President Barack Obama wants $2 billion more to boost car sales, days after the first $1 billion was made available. Obama has promised greater transparency, but Transportation Department officials say they don't have time to turn over sales data provided by car dealers.
The limited information shows most buyers are not picking Ford, Chrysler or General Motors vehicles, and six of the top 10 vehicles purchased are Honda, Toyota and Hyundai. The Associated Press has sought release of the data since last week. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Sunday the government would release it.
Clunky Clunkers [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Via Stossel:
Another unintended consequence of the Cash for Clunkers program is that poor people who can’t afford new cars – or expensive used cars — will be crushed along with all those clunkers. If you can only afford $500 - $1,000 for a car, you’ll find many of these vehicles are now unavailable. They have been sent to the junk yard thanks to this program.
Clunker Data [Rich Lowry]
The White House hasn't released the official data yet, but here's a list that Jalopnik published yesterday of the ten most popular traded-in vehicles and purchased vehicles:
The Ten Most Traded-In Vehicles (vehicle's EPA mileage)
1. 1998 Ford Explorer (14-17 mpg)
2. 1997 Ford Explorer (14-18 mpg)
3. 1996 Ford Explorer (14-18 mpg)
4. 1999 Ford Explorer (14-18 mpg)
5. Jeep Grand Cherokee
6. Jeep Cherokee
7. 1995 Ford Explorer (15-18 mpg)
8. 1994 Ford Explorer (15-18 mpg)
9. 1997 Ford Windstar (18 mpg)
10. 1999 Dodge Caravan (16-18 mpg)
The Ten Most Purchased Vehicles (vehicle's EPA mileage)
1. Ford Focus (27-28 mpg)
2. Honda Civic (24-42 mpg)
3. Toyota Corolla (25-30 mpg)
4. Toyota Prius (46 mpg)
5. Ford Escape (20-32 mpg)
6. Toyota Camry (23-34 mpg)
7. Dodge Caliber (22-27 mpg)
8. Hyundai Elantra (26-28 mpg)
9. Honda Fit (29-31 mpg)
10. Chevy Cobalt (25-30 mpg
Gaming the Clunker System
Clunker Cash and Me [Benjamin Zycher]
Let’s face it: After 17 years and 232,522 miles of faithful service, my Jeep’s best days were long past. Time for some new wheels — but money’s a bit tight these days, for me as for so many others.But, as good fortune would have it, not for the federal government: They’re willing to pay me $4,500 — $4,500! — to turn that clunker in for a new car satisfying the combined demands of political correctitude and the auto-dealer lobby. Alas, the rules specify that the big, powerful, safe truck that I want does not qualify.
And so I asked the question on the minds of millions of my fellow concerned citizens: How can I get my snout into this trough? Easy: I buy a small car qualifying for the $4,500, and keep it for a few months until the cash-for-clunkers boondoggle has run its course. At that point, the supply of used cars will have shrunk and their prices driven up; I will sell the almost-new small car for what I paid for it ($12,629 last Saturday) or more, at worst having driven it for free, and then buy the truck I covet.
I am deeply ashamed of myself, having worked the system while the poor get shafted by higher prices for the used cars they demand and by higher prices for the used parts needed to repair them. (Under the rules, the clunker engines have to be destroyed, the real-life Beltway version of the old joke about the fate of dairy farming under socialism: The government takes the milk and shoots the cows.) This is hardly the first time — nor will it be the last — that modern environmentalism has harmed those less fortunate.As for me, I remain ashamed, but not sufficiently so to have forgone the $4,500. And, to be blunt, I am hardly the only sinner in this congregation. When the federal government starts writing checks so as to implement half-baked ideas in pursuit of yet another cause for do-gooderism, gaming the system is the system, an eternal truth relevant to the ongoing debates over health care, taxes, and much else.— Benjamin Zycher is a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute.
Well, it is very popular. It's an artificial stimulus drawing from the future [demand] into the present. I don't think it will have any real effect in the long run other than the temporary stimulus.
But at bottom, it's bizarre economics. We're paying people — what we're forgetting is that all of these cars, tens of thousands of clunkers, are going to be turned into scrap. And the question is why? America is going to be destroying tens of thousands of perfectly usable cars, destroying essentially American assets.
A parody of Keynesian economics is to say that you pay half the population to dig holes and the other half to fill them in. This is worse, because we're paying people with the bribe of cash to destroy huge numbers of assets. Why not put them on tankers, ship them into the third world, and get the cash for cars and parts?
So what you are doing is destroying a whole set of assets and replacing them. That's going to be stimulative for a week or two or three, but in the end, it's lunatic economics.
One Loud Clunk [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
AP:
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is refusing to release government records on its "cash for clunkers" rebate program that would substantiate — or undercut — claims of its success.
President Barack Obama wants $2 billion more to boost car sales, days after the first $1 billion was made available. Obama has promised greater transparency, but Transportation Department officials say they don't have time to turn over sales data provided by car dealers.
The limited information shows most buyers are not picking Ford, Chrysler or General Motors vehicles, and six of the top 10 vehicles purchased are Honda, Toyota and Hyundai. The Associated Press has sought release of the data since last week. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Sunday the government would release it.
Clunky Clunkers [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Via Stossel:
Another unintended consequence of the Cash for Clunkers program is that poor people who can’t afford new cars – or expensive used cars — will be crushed along with all those clunkers. If you can only afford $500 - $1,000 for a car, you’ll find many of these vehicles are now unavailable. They have been sent to the junk yard thanks to this program.
Clunker Data [Rich Lowry]
The White House hasn't released the official data yet, but here's a list that Jalopnik published yesterday of the ten most popular traded-in vehicles and purchased vehicles:
The Ten Most Traded-In Vehicles (vehicle's EPA mileage)
1. 1998 Ford Explorer (14-17 mpg)
2. 1997 Ford Explorer (14-18 mpg)
3. 1996 Ford Explorer (14-18 mpg)
4. 1999 Ford Explorer (14-18 mpg)
5. Jeep Grand Cherokee
6. Jeep Cherokee
7. 1995 Ford Explorer (15-18 mpg)
8. 1994 Ford Explorer (15-18 mpg)
9. 1997 Ford Windstar (18 mpg)
10. 1999 Dodge Caravan (16-18 mpg)
The Ten Most Purchased Vehicles (vehicle's EPA mileage)
1. Ford Focus (27-28 mpg)
2. Honda Civic (24-42 mpg)
3. Toyota Corolla (25-30 mpg)
4. Toyota Prius (46 mpg)
5. Ford Escape (20-32 mpg)
6. Toyota Camry (23-34 mpg)
7. Dodge Caliber (22-27 mpg)
8. Hyundai Elantra (26-28 mpg)
9. Honda Fit (29-31 mpg)
10. Chevy Cobalt (25-30 mpg
Gaming the Clunker System
Clunker Cash and Me [Benjamin Zycher]
Let’s face it: After 17 years and 232,522 miles of faithful service, my Jeep’s best days were long past. Time for some new wheels — but money’s a bit tight these days, for me as for so many others.But, as good fortune would have it, not for the federal government: They’re willing to pay me $4,500 — $4,500! — to turn that clunker in for a new car satisfying the combined demands of political correctitude and the auto-dealer lobby. Alas, the rules specify that the big, powerful, safe truck that I want does not qualify.
And so I asked the question on the minds of millions of my fellow concerned citizens: How can I get my snout into this trough? Easy: I buy a small car qualifying for the $4,500, and keep it for a few months until the cash-for-clunkers boondoggle has run its course. At that point, the supply of used cars will have shrunk and their prices driven up; I will sell the almost-new small car for what I paid for it ($12,629 last Saturday) or more, at worst having driven it for free, and then buy the truck I covet.
I am deeply ashamed of myself, having worked the system while the poor get shafted by higher prices for the used cars they demand and by higher prices for the used parts needed to repair them. (Under the rules, the clunker engines have to be destroyed, the real-life Beltway version of the old joke about the fate of dairy farming under socialism: The government takes the milk and shoots the cows.) This is hardly the first time — nor will it be the last — that modern environmentalism has harmed those less fortunate.As for me, I remain ashamed, but not sufficiently so to have forgone the $4,500. And, to be blunt, I am hardly the only sinner in this congregation. When the federal government starts writing checks so as to implement half-baked ideas in pursuit of yet another cause for do-gooderism, gaming the system is the system, an eternal truth relevant to the ongoing debates over health care, taxes, and much else.— Benjamin Zycher is a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Health Care Nanny State -- an example
Lights Out [Mark Steyn]
In my weekend column, I write that government health care "redefines the relationship between the citizen and the state in a way that hands all the advantages to statists — to those who believe government has a legitimate right to regulate human affairs in every particular."
But don't worry, you'd be surprised how you get used to it.
From Britain's Daily Express:
The Children’s Secretary set out £400 million plans to put 20,000 problem families under 24-hour CCTV super-vision in their own homes.
They will be monitored to ensure that children attend school, go to bed on time and eat proper meals.
The national government is installing 24-hour cameras in your home to ensure that you eat properly and go to bed on time. And social decay in Britain (which is at least partly due to the nanny state's assumption of all adult responsibilities) is so advanced that almost everyone now thinks this perfectly normal.
By the way, dig the name of that cabinet position — the "Children's Secretary." Nice chap. Shared a plane ride with him once. Very pleasant fellow. But what an Orwellian title.
08/03 07:58 AMShare
In my weekend column, I write that government health care "redefines the relationship between the citizen and the state in a way that hands all the advantages to statists — to those who believe government has a legitimate right to regulate human affairs in every particular."
But don't worry, you'd be surprised how you get used to it.
From Britain's Daily Express:
The Children’s Secretary set out £400 million plans to put 20,000 problem families under 24-hour CCTV super-vision in their own homes.
They will be monitored to ensure that children attend school, go to bed on time and eat proper meals.
The national government is installing 24-hour cameras in your home to ensure that you eat properly and go to bed on time. And social decay in Britain (which is at least partly due to the nanny state's assumption of all adult responsibilities) is so advanced that almost everyone now thinks this perfectly normal.
By the way, dig the name of that cabinet position — the "Children's Secretary." Nice chap. Shared a plane ride with him once. Very pleasant fellow. But what an Orwellian title.
08/03 07:58 AMShare
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
