Saturday, October 31, 2009
Obama update - still voting "present"; still blaming Bush
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: The problem is that we have a president who likes to be liked. He has seldom been in a situation where when he was confronted with a very bad choice and a worse choice.. Every time he has been in that situation, and we are seeing it now in Afghanistan, he votes present. That is what worries me.
Krauthammer Today [NRO Staff]
There are 50 or so . . . blame-Bush free passes before the gig is up. By my calculation, Obama has already burned through a good 49. Is there anything he hasn’t blamed George W. Bush for? The economy, global warming, the credit crisis, Middle East stalemate, the deficit, anti-Americanism abroad — everything but swine flu.
It’s as if Obama’s presidency hasn’t really started. He’s still taking inventory of the Bush years. Just this Monday, he referred to “long years of drift” in Afghanistan in order to, I suppose, explain away his own, well, year-long drift on Afghanistan.
This compulsion to attack his predecessor is as stale as it is unseemly. Obama was elected a year ago. He became commander in chief two months later. He then solemnly announced his own “comprehensive new strategy” for Afghanistan seven months ago. And it was not an off-the-cuff decision. “My administration has heard from our military commanders, as well as our diplomats,” the president assured us. “We’ve consulted with the Afghan and Pakistani governments, with our partners and our NATO allies, and with other donors and international organizations” and “with members of Congress.”
Obama is obviously unhappy with the path he himself chose in March. Fine. He has every right — indeed, duty — to reconsider. But what Obama is reacting to is the failure of his own strategy.
Read his whole column here.
Not So [Victor Davis Hanson]
I think Mike Potemra has unfortunately missed entirely the thrust of my post — and in somewhat unfair fashion. President Obama will find no stronger supporter of his commitment to Afghanistan than I, and I applaud law enforcement's successful efforts to break up the latest round of terrorist plotting. My point was much different, and I am surprised he didn't grasp it.
a) Almost weekly an administration official still goes abroad (cf. Secretary Clinton's latest remarks in Pakistan) blasting the prior administration for a supposedly flawed policy that somehow led to greater tensions with allies in the war against terror, or was, in fact, culpable for allowing Afghanistan to deteriorate, etc. My point was that after nine months of the tiresome references to the reset button and much-heralded outreach to radical Islam, I see not much difference in the severity of the animus shown the U.S. at home and overseas, as evidenced by acts of terrorism in Pakistan and Afghanistan;
b) at one time or another, candidate and then President Obama has derided the current anti-terrorism protocols (e.g., renditions: “shipping away prisoners in the dead of night,” military tribunals: “flawed military commission system,” preventative detention: “detaining thousands without charge or trial,” the surge of troops into Iraq: “not working,” and the Patriot Act: “shoddy and dangerous”) that he has in fact employed, and apparently to great effect on our behalf. But his prior easy criticism was unfair and may well have eroded public confidence in the efficacy of these tools.
Once again, despite the Obama team's harsh rhetoric against past counter-terrorism efforts of the United States, I see no lessening in his present tenure, as a result of such harsh criticism of what we did between 2001–9, in efforts of terrorists to kill us. The recent plotters don't care much whether Guantanamo is open or not, or whether there is rendition or whether we attribute printing to the Islamic world, or whether we tell the Pakistanis, and the Afghans, and most in the Middle East that thank God the Bush cowboy years are over, since the problem transcends both Bush and Obama.
This was no cheap shot, but a serious effort to make two points: attacking a prior administration's policy to win favor with overseas actors will not lessen the incidence of terror; nor will plots at home lessen as a result of past serial disparagement of the Patriot Act, tribunals, wiretaps, and associated mechanisms. I would have thought that point was clear.
Krauthammer Today [NRO Staff]
There are 50 or so . . . blame-Bush free passes before the gig is up. By my calculation, Obama has already burned through a good 49. Is there anything he hasn’t blamed George W. Bush for? The economy, global warming, the credit crisis, Middle East stalemate, the deficit, anti-Americanism abroad — everything but swine flu.
It’s as if Obama’s presidency hasn’t really started. He’s still taking inventory of the Bush years. Just this Monday, he referred to “long years of drift” in Afghanistan in order to, I suppose, explain away his own, well, year-long drift on Afghanistan.
This compulsion to attack his predecessor is as stale as it is unseemly. Obama was elected a year ago. He became commander in chief two months later. He then solemnly announced his own “comprehensive new strategy” for Afghanistan seven months ago. And it was not an off-the-cuff decision. “My administration has heard from our military commanders, as well as our diplomats,” the president assured us. “We’ve consulted with the Afghan and Pakistani governments, with our partners and our NATO allies, and with other donors and international organizations” and “with members of Congress.”
Obama is obviously unhappy with the path he himself chose in March. Fine. He has every right — indeed, duty — to reconsider. But what Obama is reacting to is the failure of his own strategy.
Read his whole column here.
Not So [Victor Davis Hanson]
I think Mike Potemra has unfortunately missed entirely the thrust of my post — and in somewhat unfair fashion. President Obama will find no stronger supporter of his commitment to Afghanistan than I, and I applaud law enforcement's successful efforts to break up the latest round of terrorist plotting. My point was much different, and I am surprised he didn't grasp it.
a) Almost weekly an administration official still goes abroad (cf. Secretary Clinton's latest remarks in Pakistan) blasting the prior administration for a supposedly flawed policy that somehow led to greater tensions with allies in the war against terror, or was, in fact, culpable for allowing Afghanistan to deteriorate, etc. My point was that after nine months of the tiresome references to the reset button and much-heralded outreach to radical Islam, I see not much difference in the severity of the animus shown the U.S. at home and overseas, as evidenced by acts of terrorism in Pakistan and Afghanistan;
b) at one time or another, candidate and then President Obama has derided the current anti-terrorism protocols (e.g., renditions: “shipping away prisoners in the dead of night,” military tribunals: “flawed military commission system,” preventative detention: “detaining thousands without charge or trial,” the surge of troops into Iraq: “not working,” and the Patriot Act: “shoddy and dangerous”) that he has in fact employed, and apparently to great effect on our behalf. But his prior easy criticism was unfair and may well have eroded public confidence in the efficacy of these tools.
Once again, despite the Obama team's harsh rhetoric against past counter-terrorism efforts of the United States, I see no lessening in his present tenure, as a result of such harsh criticism of what we did between 2001–9, in efforts of terrorists to kill us. The recent plotters don't care much whether Guantanamo is open or not, or whether there is rendition or whether we attribute printing to the Islamic world, or whether we tell the Pakistanis, and the Afghans, and most in the Middle East that thank God the Bush cowboy years are over, since the problem transcends both Bush and Obama.
This was no cheap shot, but a serious effort to make two points: attacking a prior administration's policy to win favor with overseas actors will not lessen the incidence of terror; nor will plots at home lessen as a result of past serial disparagement of the Patriot Act, tribunals, wiretaps, and associated mechanisms. I would have thought that point was clear.
ObamaCare / PelosiCare Update
The Inevitable Debacle
By the Editors
The latest health-care bill, offered by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is more of the same. Like every other Democratic bill before Congress, this “comprehensive reform” has two major features: First, it transforms insurance into a product that few rational people would buy. Second, it forces them to buy it.
Like the Baucus bill, Pelosi’s alternative imposes massive costs on states and individuals so that its sponsors can describe it as “cheap” for the federal government. Like the Baucus bill, it contains disguised tax increases on middle-class Americans: In the case of Pelosi’s bill, the chief subterfuge is to impose taxes on “the rich” with no adjustment for inflation: Over time more and more Americans will pay the higher taxes.
Pelosi’s bill is being called “less liberal” than some of its predecessors because the government-run insurance program it creates would not be allowed to force bargain-basement rates on doctors. To dwell on this question — unless you are a lobbyist for one of the affected interests — is to miss the forest fire for the trees. The details of the “public option” are not what make this bill a mistake; and it would remain a mistake even if it lacked a public option altogether.
All of the Democratic bills are likely to increase premiums. All of them are too expensive, too coercive, too likely to generate governmental interference with medical practice, and too disruptive. All of them subsidize abortion. All of them reject incremental reform in favor of liberal hubris. House Republicans should promote alternatives that are the opposite on every count.
None of this is to deny that the differences among the Democratic bills have any import at all. They suggest that there is less than meets the eye to Democratic claims that passage of what they style “reform” is inevitable. Democrats have not agreed on how to pay for reform, for example, which is no small matter. The Democrats’ approach to health care remains unpopular. What seems most inevitable is that sooner or later they will pay for it.
More:
On the Pelosi health-care bill:
We've always had shamelessness, but we've never had it on this galactic scale. This is [the] shamelessness of a quarter-trillion-dollar trick.
And the trick works like this — the bill has in it the assumption (which the CBO has to accept) that they will cut a quarter trillion of Medicare by cutting the fees that doctors and others receive.
We know it's not going to happen because the House is going to have a separate bill in which it pays the quarter of a trillion — with no offsets — out of the borrowed money. So it is a huge hole in the budget, but it is in a separate bill.
The separate bill ought to be called the "Pinnacle of Cynicism Act," because that's exactly what it is. However, in the bill that will be called the National Healthcare Reform Act, it [the payment to doctors of that $250 billion] is not going to appear, and that's why it [net cost of the health-care bill] ends up under a trillion — when in fact it is over a trillion. And [that is] why it ends up with no deficit whereas it will increase the deficit by about $200 billion.
So that's the black hole at the center of all this.
Secondly, if you step back and say we're, in fact, creating an entitlement of $1 trillion dollars, and even if it is offset with raises in taxes, and …cuts in other spending, that is $1 trillion that you can otherwise apply to other parts of the ... deficit, which is now going to be $9 trillion over a decade.
So, in other words, you create an entitlement. You steal the possible revenue sources out of other deficit reduction, and in the end you blow a hole in the deficit that is just enormous.
By the Editors
The latest health-care bill, offered by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is more of the same. Like every other Democratic bill before Congress, this “comprehensive reform” has two major features: First, it transforms insurance into a product that few rational people would buy. Second, it forces them to buy it.
Like the Baucus bill, Pelosi’s alternative imposes massive costs on states and individuals so that its sponsors can describe it as “cheap” for the federal government. Like the Baucus bill, it contains disguised tax increases on middle-class Americans: In the case of Pelosi’s bill, the chief subterfuge is to impose taxes on “the rich” with no adjustment for inflation: Over time more and more Americans will pay the higher taxes.
Pelosi’s bill is being called “less liberal” than some of its predecessors because the government-run insurance program it creates would not be allowed to force bargain-basement rates on doctors. To dwell on this question — unless you are a lobbyist for one of the affected interests — is to miss the forest fire for the trees. The details of the “public option” are not what make this bill a mistake; and it would remain a mistake even if it lacked a public option altogether.
All of the Democratic bills are likely to increase premiums. All of them are too expensive, too coercive, too likely to generate governmental interference with medical practice, and too disruptive. All of them subsidize abortion. All of them reject incremental reform in favor of liberal hubris. House Republicans should promote alternatives that are the opposite on every count.
None of this is to deny that the differences among the Democratic bills have any import at all. They suggest that there is less than meets the eye to Democratic claims that passage of what they style “reform” is inevitable. Democrats have not agreed on how to pay for reform, for example, which is no small matter. The Democrats’ approach to health care remains unpopular. What seems most inevitable is that sooner or later they will pay for it.
More:
On the Pelosi health-care bill:
We've always had shamelessness, but we've never had it on this galactic scale. This is [the] shamelessness of a quarter-trillion-dollar trick.
And the trick works like this — the bill has in it the assumption (which the CBO has to accept) that they will cut a quarter trillion of Medicare by cutting the fees that doctors and others receive.
We know it's not going to happen because the House is going to have a separate bill in which it pays the quarter of a trillion — with no offsets — out of the borrowed money. So it is a huge hole in the budget, but it is in a separate bill.
The separate bill ought to be called the "Pinnacle of Cynicism Act," because that's exactly what it is. However, in the bill that will be called the National Healthcare Reform Act, it [the payment to doctors of that $250 billion] is not going to appear, and that's why it [net cost of the health-care bill] ends up under a trillion — when in fact it is over a trillion. And [that is] why it ends up with no deficit whereas it will increase the deficit by about $200 billion.
So that's the black hole at the center of all this.
Secondly, if you step back and say we're, in fact, creating an entitlement of $1 trillion dollars, and even if it is offset with raises in taxes, and …cuts in other spending, that is $1 trillion that you can otherwise apply to other parts of the ... deficit, which is now going to be $9 trillion over a decade.
So, in other words, you create an entitlement. You steal the possible revenue sources out of other deficit reduction, and in the end you blow a hole in the deficit that is just enormous.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Transparency ? Uh, no.
The hypocrisy and cynicism that is the hallmark of Obama's presidency knows no bounds ...
Can We Call the Final Bill 'Devastator'?
[Stephen Spruiell]
I have a piece on the home page today about the Obama administration's attempt to pressure colleges and universities into complying with its student-loan takeover, even though the authorizing legislation is hung up in the Senate. Passage in the upper chamber is far from certain. In talking to Senate staffers and others who are watching the process, I learned something amazing:
The administration’s strong-arm tactics extend to the Senate, where its allies plan to abuse the budget-reconciliation process to pass the bill. (“That’s the only way it gets passed,” says a Senate GOP staffer, who points to opposition from Democrats Ben Nelson and Arlen Specter.) And because the Senate can consider only one reconciliation bill each year, we might see a scenario in which the Democrats try to combine the health-care bill with the education bill and pass the whole thing with 51 votes.
A massive overhaul of health care and a massive overhaul of higher education, jammed together and rammed through the Senate using an obscure procedural tactic — it's a new era of transparency! Do you think they'll try to staple on the cap-and-trade bill while they're at it?
The Hill newspaper has more on this story, including pushback from centrist Democrats who are "blanching" at the idea.
(Devastator reference explained here.)
Can We Call the Final Bill 'Devastator'?
[Stephen Spruiell]
I have a piece on the home page today about the Obama administration's attempt to pressure colleges and universities into complying with its student-loan takeover, even though the authorizing legislation is hung up in the Senate. Passage in the upper chamber is far from certain. In talking to Senate staffers and others who are watching the process, I learned something amazing:
The administration’s strong-arm tactics extend to the Senate, where its allies plan to abuse the budget-reconciliation process to pass the bill. (“That’s the only way it gets passed,” says a Senate GOP staffer, who points to opposition from Democrats Ben Nelson and Arlen Specter.) And because the Senate can consider only one reconciliation bill each year, we might see a scenario in which the Democrats try to combine the health-care bill with the education bill and pass the whole thing with 51 votes.
A massive overhaul of health care and a massive overhaul of higher education, jammed together and rammed through the Senate using an obscure procedural tactic — it's a new era of transparency! Do you think they'll try to staple on the cap-and-trade bill while they're at it?
The Hill newspaper has more on this story, including pushback from centrist Democrats who are "blanching" at the idea.
(Devastator reference explained here.)
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Obama Dithers Some More ... and excoriated for it
by Charles Krauthammer
Its the continuous blame game that gets on one's nerves, you see...
On the record number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan this month:
It does, of course, impress us with the urgency of the matter and how it has to be decided. But I want to point out one thing about what Obama said when he talked about the “long years of drift.” There is something truly disgusting about the way he cannot refrain from attacking Bush when he is being defensive about himself. I mean, it is beyond disgraceful here.
He won the election a year ago. He became commander in chief two months later. He announced his own strategy — not the Bush strategy, his strategy — six months ago. And it [the announcement] wasn't offhanded. It was in a major address with the secretary of defense and the secretary of state standing with him.
And now he is still talking about the drift in the Bush years? What is happening today is not as a result of the drift, so-called, in the Bush years. It is because of the drift in his years. It is because of the flaws in his own strategy, which is what he is now reexamining.
He has every right as commander in chief to reexamine his own strategy, but he ought to be honest, forthright, and courageous enough as the president to simply say: “I'm rethinking the strategy I adopted six months ago” — and not, once again, in a child-like way, attack his predecessor.
Its the continuous blame game that gets on one's nerves, you see...
On the record number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan this month:
It does, of course, impress us with the urgency of the matter and how it has to be decided. But I want to point out one thing about what Obama said when he talked about the “long years of drift.” There is something truly disgusting about the way he cannot refrain from attacking Bush when he is being defensive about himself. I mean, it is beyond disgraceful here.
He won the election a year ago. He became commander in chief two months later. He announced his own strategy — not the Bush strategy, his strategy — six months ago. And it [the announcement] wasn't offhanded. It was in a major address with the secretary of defense and the secretary of state standing with him.
And now he is still talking about the drift in the Bush years? What is happening today is not as a result of the drift, so-called, in the Bush years. It is because of the drift in his years. It is because of the flaws in his own strategy, which is what he is now reexamining.
He has every right as commander in chief to reexamine his own strategy, but he ought to be honest, forthright, and courageous enough as the president to simply say: “I'm rethinking the strategy I adopted six months ago” — and not, once again, in a child-like way, attack his predecessor.
Buffonery from the White House continues re: War on Fox News
Valerie Jarrett claims the White House to be speaking "truth to power". These people are pathetic.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2009/10/cnn_campbell_brown_valerie_jar.html
After being called out on this by Campbell Brown, Jarrett then makes the ridiculous claim that they aren't only directing this at Fox News (oh, really ?).
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2009/10/cnn_campbell_brown_valerie_jar.html
After being called out on this by Campbell Brown, Jarrett then makes the ridiculous claim that they aren't only directing this at Fox News (oh, really ?).
As Halloween Approaches, Be Very Afraid -- Of Barney Frank; and Big(ger) Government
Another one of the Democratic Party's Leading Buffoons Speaks:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/10/26/frank_we_are_trying_on_every_front_to_increase_the_role_of_government.html
In a normal universe, Barney Frank would be serving time w/ Bernie Madoff by now for his role in Fannie and Freddie's failures and the ultimately devasting impact on our economy.
Instead, he enjoys a leading and powerful role in the House of Representatives.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/10/26/frank_we_are_trying_on_every_front_to_increase_the_role_of_government.html
In a normal universe, Barney Frank would be serving time w/ Bernie Madoff by now for his role in Fannie and Freddie's failures and the ultimately devasting impact on our economy.
Instead, he enjoys a leading and powerful role in the House of Representatives.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Health Care Debacle Update: The Undertaker Takes The Stage
The Undertaker is not a WWF wrestler.
The Undertaker is none other than Nevada Sen. Harry Reid (D), who is so inspiring that he reminds me of an undertaker from the movies.
T.U. showed up today with a "new plan"
The Public Option 'Opt-Out' [Stephen Spruiell]
It looks like the Democratic leadership is coverging around a "public option" government-run insurance plan. Reid et al hope to bring moderates on board by allowing states to opt out:
Mr. Reid spent the weekend shoring up support for the bill from Democrats in the chamber. But some key moderate Democrats signaled Sunday that they remain uneasy about main planks of the legislation. "I certainly am not excited about a public option where states would opt out," Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) said on CNN's "State of the Union."
This would give states more power to dictate health choices to their residents. We should be moving in the opposite direction by creating a national marketplace for health insurance. (See Duncan Currie's piece today for more on that.) That's not to endorse the public option — far from it. It's just to say that a public option with an "opt out" for states might actually be worse than one that's available to everyone. At least the latter leaves the door open for a future reform allowing people to purchase health insurance across state lines.
The Opt-Out Cop Out [Michael G. Franc]
So, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his colleagues have agreed to include a still undefined government-run health plan in the newest Senate health-reform scheme. The big unanswered question is whether the public plan is "robust" enough to sway liberals. Maybe so, because Senate Democrats also felt it necessary to allow States that find this particular road to serfdom intolerable to "opt out."
What should we make of this latest development?
First, liberals in and out of the Senate prevailed.... for now. My guess is that this is just a temporary – but politically necessary - feint to the single-payer wing of the Democratic party. (“We love you guys; we need you; you are part of the family. And, believe us, we’ll do everything — everything! — in our power to achieve a “robust” public plan.”) But, once it becomes clear that the magical 60 votes are lacking, Reid and the president will explain to their base that it is time to move on. There’s plenty of time, they’ll say. We’ll come back for the rest later. Will it appease the leftist masses? Unclear.
Second, Maine Senator Olympia Snowe is back in the Republican fold. Left hanging out there in the ether is the murky and unworkable “trigger” proposal she favors, under which the government would not get to run a health plan of its own until various complex cost criteria are met. Thus, the next phase of health reform will be conducted on an entirely partisan basis. Until, that is, the hard Left is forced to admit defeat and agrees to move on to an alternative (but equally lethal) approach that could lure Snowe back.
Finally, don’t expect many states to successfully liberate their citizens from the government-run option. Though details are lacking, Reid noted that in order to opt out state legislatures (presumably in cooperation with the governor) would have “to act” before 2014. This suggests that a one-vote majority of obstructionists in one chamber of a state legislature, by refusing to act, can consign a state’s residents to an eternity of government-run health care. The deck will be stacked in favor of the default option — i.e., a government plan. Cass Sunstein and admirers of his "Nudge" theory of policymaking must be smiling.
Bear in mind that in 17 states Democrats control both houses of the legislature and the state house. Public plan, anyone? In another 24, Democrats control at least one legislative chamber or the governor’s mansion. Count those states as leaning strongly toward a public plan. That leaves a total of only 9 states where Republicans run the entire show — Texas, Utah, South Carolina, South Dakota, North Dakota, Missouri, Idaho, Florida, and Georgia.
Given the highly partisan nature of health reform, the 41 states with mixed or total Democratic control are unlikely to press the opt-out button. But, ironically, state legislative and gubernatorial elections between now and 2014 could very well become referendums on the merits of government-run health care.
Last observation: opting out does not result in some sort of a Milton Friedman-esque free market utopia. Residents in opt-out states will still have to grapple with all the other pitfalls of government-run health care — individual and (maybe) employer mandates, higher premiums, government designed health-benefit packages, etc.
------------
As for the Undertaker's sidekick, Blinky (aka Nancy Pelosi (D - CA) her big contribution today was to say let's not call it the Public Option anymore, let's call it the "Consumer Option" and maybe people won't know what the hell we are talking about.
The Undertaker is none other than Nevada Sen. Harry Reid (D), who is so inspiring that he reminds me of an undertaker from the movies.
T.U. showed up today with a "new plan"
The Public Option 'Opt-Out' [Stephen Spruiell]
It looks like the Democratic leadership is coverging around a "public option" government-run insurance plan. Reid et al hope to bring moderates on board by allowing states to opt out:
Mr. Reid spent the weekend shoring up support for the bill from Democrats in the chamber. But some key moderate Democrats signaled Sunday that they remain uneasy about main planks of the legislation. "I certainly am not excited about a public option where states would opt out," Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) said on CNN's "State of the Union."
This would give states more power to dictate health choices to their residents. We should be moving in the opposite direction by creating a national marketplace for health insurance. (See Duncan Currie's piece today for more on that.) That's not to endorse the public option — far from it. It's just to say that a public option with an "opt out" for states might actually be worse than one that's available to everyone. At least the latter leaves the door open for a future reform allowing people to purchase health insurance across state lines.
The Opt-Out Cop Out [Michael G. Franc]
So, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his colleagues have agreed to include a still undefined government-run health plan in the newest Senate health-reform scheme. The big unanswered question is whether the public plan is "robust" enough to sway liberals. Maybe so, because Senate Democrats also felt it necessary to allow States that find this particular road to serfdom intolerable to "opt out."
What should we make of this latest development?
First, liberals in and out of the Senate prevailed.... for now. My guess is that this is just a temporary – but politically necessary - feint to the single-payer wing of the Democratic party. (“We love you guys; we need you; you are part of the family. And, believe us, we’ll do everything — everything! — in our power to achieve a “robust” public plan.”) But, once it becomes clear that the magical 60 votes are lacking, Reid and the president will explain to their base that it is time to move on. There’s plenty of time, they’ll say. We’ll come back for the rest later. Will it appease the leftist masses? Unclear.
Second, Maine Senator Olympia Snowe is back in the Republican fold. Left hanging out there in the ether is the murky and unworkable “trigger” proposal she favors, under which the government would not get to run a health plan of its own until various complex cost criteria are met. Thus, the next phase of health reform will be conducted on an entirely partisan basis. Until, that is, the hard Left is forced to admit defeat and agrees to move on to an alternative (but equally lethal) approach that could lure Snowe back.
Finally, don’t expect many states to successfully liberate their citizens from the government-run option. Though details are lacking, Reid noted that in order to opt out state legislatures (presumably in cooperation with the governor) would have “to act” before 2014. This suggests that a one-vote majority of obstructionists in one chamber of a state legislature, by refusing to act, can consign a state’s residents to an eternity of government-run health care. The deck will be stacked in favor of the default option — i.e., a government plan. Cass Sunstein and admirers of his "Nudge" theory of policymaking must be smiling.
Bear in mind that in 17 states Democrats control both houses of the legislature and the state house. Public plan, anyone? In another 24, Democrats control at least one legislative chamber or the governor’s mansion. Count those states as leaning strongly toward a public plan. That leaves a total of only 9 states where Republicans run the entire show — Texas, Utah, South Carolina, South Dakota, North Dakota, Missouri, Idaho, Florida, and Georgia.
Given the highly partisan nature of health reform, the 41 states with mixed or total Democratic control are unlikely to press the opt-out button. But, ironically, state legislative and gubernatorial elections between now and 2014 could very well become referendums on the merits of government-run health care.
Last observation: opting out does not result in some sort of a Milton Friedman-esque free market utopia. Residents in opt-out states will still have to grapple with all the other pitfalls of government-run health care — individual and (maybe) employer mandates, higher premiums, government designed health-benefit packages, etc.
------------
As for the Undertaker's sidekick, Blinky (aka Nancy Pelosi (D - CA) her big contribution today was to say let's not call it the Public Option anymore, let's call it the "Consumer Option" and maybe people won't know what the hell we are talking about.
Stimulus / Porkulus: Romer "little effect" in 2010 ?!?
Charles Krauthammer: On Christina Romer’s statement that the stimulus would have little effect in 2010:
The administration was trying to explain away for months why it spends almost $1 trillion and there is no effect — [with] numbers showing increasing unemployment relentlessly.
So the line was: Well, it's kicking in next year, it will all kick in next year.
And now we get the chief economist at the White House telling us that it's already had its effect and next year it [the stimulus’ effect] will plateau and won't have any effect on unemployment.
And you can only conclude that the stimulus is a bust. There's no other conclusion. If it didn't have its effect this year, and it's not going to have an effect next year, then it had no effect — and we wasted $1 trillion.
On the administration claim that the stimulus saved 600,000 to 1,000,000 jobs:
That is angels on the head of a pin. This idea of saved jobs is completely unempirical. There's no way to show it in any way in any model. It is an invention.
What you do is you look at real numbers. The real numbers show a radical increase in unemployment, and we're told it is going to remain that way….
One thing that we know it did do which is indisputable, it added $1 trillion dollars on our deficit which will have an effect on unemployment in the future because it will increase our debt service.
How's that Stimulus Working for You? [Veronique de Rugy]
According to John Taylor of Stanford University, the administration's bragging about how stimulus spending created economic growth is at best overstated. Out of the 5.7 percent GDP growth between the 1st and the 2nd quarter, only 0.3 percent can be attributed to direct spending from the stimulus.
He writes on his blog, Economics One:
Growth improved by 5.7 percent (from -6.4 percent to -0.7 percent). Private investment was by far the major source. Government spending contributed 1.9 percentage points, but more than half of that was defense spending which was not part of the stimulus...This one-page brief provides more details and also shows that direct spending from the stimulus contributed only 0.3 percent of 5.7 percent. We will learn more when the Department of Commerce releases data from the third quarter next week, but so far their data are very clear that the stimulus is having a negligible impact.
Several things need to be added. First, let's not forget that the economy is still not growing. It's just not doing as bad at it was.
More important, we should be really careful with GDP estimates because of the impact of government spending. The GDP includes government spending and it assumes that you're getting what you pay for. In other words, the assumption is that if the federal government pays a contractor $200,000 per year to repave some unused roads in the middle of nowhere, they assume he's creating $200,000 per year of genuine value.
By contrast, as my colleague Garett Jones explained to me recently:
GDP measures are tougher on private-sector spending: So if Exxon Mobil pays an engineer $200,000 per year, that only shows up in GDP if the engineer finds an extra $200,000 of oil to sell, or builds a new machine that sells for $200,000, something like that. So our GDP measures of "government spending" are awful — and when the government is in a race to spend money as quickly as possible, these measures are going to be even worse than usual.
Plus, let's not forget where the stimulus money is going: Over 85 percent of the money so far has gone to the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, the Department of Labor, and the Social Security Administration. These agencies don't oversee exactly what I would call shovel-ready projects. It's more like bureaucrat-ready projects. But of course as we know, the administration doesn't really care since what matters it to get money out the door and getting that Keynesian multiplier working.
Never mind that this is a myth.
The administration was trying to explain away for months why it spends almost $1 trillion and there is no effect — [with] numbers showing increasing unemployment relentlessly.
So the line was: Well, it's kicking in next year, it will all kick in next year.
And now we get the chief economist at the White House telling us that it's already had its effect and next year it [the stimulus’ effect] will plateau and won't have any effect on unemployment.
And you can only conclude that the stimulus is a bust. There's no other conclusion. If it didn't have its effect this year, and it's not going to have an effect next year, then it had no effect — and we wasted $1 trillion.
On the administration claim that the stimulus saved 600,000 to 1,000,000 jobs:
That is angels on the head of a pin. This idea of saved jobs is completely unempirical. There's no way to show it in any way in any model. It is an invention.
What you do is you look at real numbers. The real numbers show a radical increase in unemployment, and we're told it is going to remain that way….
One thing that we know it did do which is indisputable, it added $1 trillion dollars on our deficit which will have an effect on unemployment in the future because it will increase our debt service.
How's that Stimulus Working for You? [Veronique de Rugy]
According to John Taylor of Stanford University, the administration's bragging about how stimulus spending created economic growth is at best overstated. Out of the 5.7 percent GDP growth between the 1st and the 2nd quarter, only 0.3 percent can be attributed to direct spending from the stimulus.
He writes on his blog, Economics One:
Growth improved by 5.7 percent (from -6.4 percent to -0.7 percent). Private investment was by far the major source. Government spending contributed 1.9 percentage points, but more than half of that was defense spending which was not part of the stimulus...This one-page brief provides more details and also shows that direct spending from the stimulus contributed only 0.3 percent of 5.7 percent. We will learn more when the Department of Commerce releases data from the third quarter next week, but so far their data are very clear that the stimulus is having a negligible impact.
Several things need to be added. First, let's not forget that the economy is still not growing. It's just not doing as bad at it was.
More important, we should be really careful with GDP estimates because of the impact of government spending. The GDP includes government spending and it assumes that you're getting what you pay for. In other words, the assumption is that if the federal government pays a contractor $200,000 per year to repave some unused roads in the middle of nowhere, they assume he's creating $200,000 per year of genuine value.
By contrast, as my colleague Garett Jones explained to me recently:
GDP measures are tougher on private-sector spending: So if Exxon Mobil pays an engineer $200,000 per year, that only shows up in GDP if the engineer finds an extra $200,000 of oil to sell, or builds a new machine that sells for $200,000, something like that. So our GDP measures of "government spending" are awful — and when the government is in a race to spend money as quickly as possible, these measures are going to be even worse than usual.
Plus, let's not forget where the stimulus money is going: Over 85 percent of the money so far has gone to the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, the Department of Labor, and the Social Security Administration. These agencies don't oversee exactly what I would call shovel-ready projects. It's more like bureaucrat-ready projects. But of course as we know, the administration doesn't really care since what matters it to get money out the door and getting that Keynesian multiplier working.
Never mind that this is a myth.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Obama's Poll Ratings continue to drop
Gallup: Approval Rating = 53%. This is down from 62% last quarter. The 9-point drop quarter to quarter is the largest ever measured by Gallup dating back to 1953.
He has negative ratings on handling of various issues as follows:
Unemployment = 74%
Taxes = 73%
Health Care = 69&
The economy = 67%
War in Iraq = 66%
Education = 60%
Environmnet = 60%
These are negative ratings ! What are the positive ratings that get him to 53% ??
Looks ? Charm ? Not George W. Bush ? Hopeychangeism ?
What's his rating for his "War on Fox News" ? LOL.
He has negative ratings on handling of various issues as follows:
Unemployment = 74%
Taxes = 73%
Health Care = 69&
The economy = 67%
War in Iraq = 66%
Education = 60%
Environmnet = 60%
These are negative ratings ! What are the positive ratings that get him to 53% ??
Looks ? Charm ? Not George W. Bush ? Hopeychangeism ?
What's his rating for his "War on Fox News" ? LOL.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
