We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
President Obama’s appointee, Rocco Landesman, as Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is an ignoramus, whose own words keep reaffirming his lackyism and lack of knowledge.One might not think him unqualified by reading his official NEA bio: Yale PhD in Dramatic Literature, Yale assistant professor, president of a company that owns five major NYC theaters, successful Broadway show producer, board membership on several prestigious arts foundations.But, that impressive background has not stopped him from saying some outrageously idiotic and incorrect things in excess praise of President Obama’s purported literary skills.
Scott Johnson, of PowerLine blog, critiqued Landesman’s assertions: “Well, so what if Landesman is a bootlicker? Landesman is also an idiot….It would be hard to pack so much ignorance into one short paragraph if one were really trying.”
Today, Johnson gives Landesman space for reply. Landesman’s reply displays further ignorance of what he speaks, and Landesman’s attempt to slipperly elide from his previous stupid statement.Johnson comments: “It's the bootlicking, the ignorance, and the higher illiteracy that are Rocco's problems, not the lack of an editor. He really need not worry. Those of us concerned about the politicization of the cultural agencies and intrigued by the phenomenon of Obama worship will continue to find Rocco of interest.”
Remember, this is the NEA that a few weeks ago was caught trying to elicit pro-Obama propaganda from its grants beneficiaries. Now, the trail back to the White House is being exposed.
A couple I’m friendly with teach drama at a prestigious university.They are politically quite liberal, supporters of President Obama.Both are quite knowledgeable about literature and the arts, a pleasure to discuss these topics with, and also very well versed in political and other topics.Either would have made a superior appointee to Landesman.
So, why weren’t they?Simple.They are not rich and highly connected contributors to President Obama.
Michelle Malkin delves deeper into what she titles, “No Bundler Left Behind.” Despite, as in other areas, Obama’s campaign pledges otherwise, he has stuffed his administration with rich sycophants, some clearly unqualified, acting nefariously, or displaying embarrassing inanity.
In earlier administrations, certainly Republican ones but Democrat as well, we might have seen media exposes and uproars over NEA and this wider pattern of appointments (not to mention VP Biden's inanities).Instead, the media is behaving like relatives at a poorly performed way-off-Broadway production starring favorite incompetent relation Barack Obama.
Send him a few bucks today, if you like him. Every little bit helps, and it looks to be tight. Plus the race has become nationalized: The O did a fund-raiser in NYC for the Dem in the race, and the RNC finally took down their ads against Hoffman.
We would like to see this modest, non-pol, Reagan-Conservative Republican guy elected.
The implications for my business are staggering. I have already mentioned in the previous post that it imposes an 8% tax on wages on my business — a business where 50% of revenues go to wages and margins are in the 6-7% range. You do the math.
Just these 27 pages are enough to see what this bill is all about. I bet you will agree. PLEASE take time to read these 27 pages. Anyone who reads these pages and still says this bill isn’t about the government takeover of health care is either a fool or a liar. It’s just that simple.
Daniel Henninger writes a biting and inspired column today in the WSJ. Oh, the irony! Democrats caught hopelessly in the out-moded and tired ways of the past? In an age of iPhone apps and de-centralizing trends, Dems are pushing a miserable model of government that should have been left in the 1930s where it originated. Obama rides on a false reputation as a hipster. He's actually a crusty throw-back. As Henninger puts it, it appears irrefutable.
Ah well, the economy's getting worse then. Debt spending is not economic growth. Printing fake money does not create wealth no matter how many trillions you order up. The idea that GDP growth on the back of the Fed's printing press means a growing economy is the boneheaded thinking that got the US into this position in the first place. In fact the economy is in an even worse state now than when the recession hit; Americans have been saddled with a debt they cannot ever repay, unemployment is around twenty percent, the Dollar is sinking, inflation has gone orbital and prices will follow when the banks flood the markets. The fundamentals are not only still chronic, they're getting worse.
...the key to the success of this program, writes Cato Institute analyst Michael Cannon, is that "government possesses both the power to hide its true costs (which keeps its premiums artificially low) and to impose costs on its competitors (which unnecessarily pushes private insurance premiums higher)." Private insurers will be "competing" against a team that gets to write the rules, run the draft and hire the referees.
With those artificial advantages, the public option could eventually become the only option. If that happens, a lot of Americans will be surprised. But I suspect Harry Reid and Barack Obama will not be among them.
Democratic Congressmen and Senators should think twice about whether they'd rather have an angry wife by lining up for Pelosi and Reid.
In a recent poll of women, Obamacare is rejected by most women.This is important because there are more female than male voters, because women are usually more involved with and sensitive to medical coverage, and because women are most influential in making decisions about medical coverage.
Although John Hinderaker’s conclusion is telling that the various ObamaCare proposals from Congressional Democrats all add up to socialized medicine, the rejection of ObamaCare in this poll is even high among Democrat women. The poll identifies political leanings, but the questions are not ideological. Practical and personal concerns are polled, and are primary over ideology.
After several decades of experience in health insurance brokerage and consulting, I can tell you that women are far more concerned and demanding as to their coverage.At least before middle-age, women have more health care issues and make more visits to their doctors.Women are most often the decisive influence on the choice made in the workplace, including that most HR people are female, and the wives of the senior executives or owners make their desires quite clear to their husbands. For example, try to separate a woman from her favored gynecologist or their children from their favored pediatrician and the broker usually faces a fight, the women willing to even pay higher premiums to retain their favorite personal doctors.
A conservative-leaning organization, The Independent Women’s Forum, hired an independent pollster to question in depth what appears to be a representative national sample of female voters about their preferences in the health care legislation debates.The poll analysis is here, and more details of the questions and responses are here.
Some of the key poll results:
75% want few to no changes to their own healthcare (40% ?? be modified, but mostly left as is; 35% ?? be left as?is) while 19% want it to undergo dramatic overhaul.
67% of women agree with the following statement: “I would prefer that United States Senators and Member of Congress not support poorly?crafted or rushed healthcare legislation. It is more important to get it done right than to get it done fast.”
When asked how much should be spent on healthcare reform, most put the acceptable amounts in the thousands (16%), millions (24%), or billions (16%). Only 10% say that $1 trillion (5%) or more than $1 trillion (5%) should be spent on healthcare reform.
66% of women describe the quality of their health insurance as “excellent” or “good.” 74% use the same terms to describe the quality of their healthcare. 29% say their health insurance is “fair” or “poor” while 24% say the same of their healthcare.
By a margin of 64%?27% of women would “rather have private health insurance than a government?run health insurance plan.”
55% think that the CBO projection of $829 billion is an underestimation of how much will ultimately be spent on healthcare reform. 17% think the figure is too high and 12% think the guess is about right.
46% of women predict that “increased federal involvement in healthcare” will result in more doctors leaving the practice of medicine while 12% think it will cause more to join; 34% think the ranks will remain unchanged.
58% disagree and 29% agree that “more federal involvement in healthcare will improve the relationships members of my family have with their doctors.”
51% of women think more federal involvement will cause declines in the quality of healthcare they and their families receive; 15% feel it will lead to improvements; and 28% believe the quality will remain unchanged.
Among Independents, 73% would be less likely to support a “candidate for Congress knowing he or she favored moving people from their private healthcare plans to government?run healthcare plans.”
Among Independents, 47% would be less likely to support a candidate “knowing he or she supports this new $829 billion healthcare bill,” 31% would be more likely.
Among small business owners, 65% trust that the private sector does a better job of providing choice in healthcare; 25% think the federal government does.
Among small business owners, 56% believe the private sector can offer lower costs while ensuring high quality healthcare; 36% give the federal government the advantage.
Majorities of voters in all age, regional, and educational attainment cohorts believed the private sector to be superior when it comes to providing choice in healthcare. Pluralities of selfidentified Democrats (45%) and liberals (49%) agreed, as well as majorities of self?identified Independents (64%), Republicans (81%), moderates (54%), and conservatives (74%).
Two?thirds of women objected to government paying for abortions in the healthcare bill, including majorities of women of all ages, races, regions, marital and parental statuses, and political parties (55% of self?identified Democrats, 66% of Independents, and 84% of Republicans). Even 39% of “prochoicers” qualified their views with their unwillingness to pay for it.
When informed that “one of the reasons why the deficit is expected to decrease is because the federal government is going to decrease how much it spends on Medicare,” 77% of women deemed this tactic a “mostly bad” one. Just 13% considered this approach a “mostly good” idea. Majorities of women of all ages, races, regions, marital and parental statuses, incomes, educational attainments, political parties, ideologies, and regions considered these cuts to Medicare to be a “bad idea.” At least 70% of women in every age cohort not benefitting from Medicare rejected this.
Under the House bill, it is scarcely an exaggeration to say that health insurance companies are no longer in the insurance business. They can't rate and underwrite risks, which is the essence of insurance. That's illegal. They can't decide to whom they will issue policies; that's illegal, too. They can't offer novel or innovative coverages; their coverages are dictated by law. To a limited extent they can make decisions on paying claims, but under the watchful eye of government regulators. Meaningful competition among insurance companies will be, in effect, illegal. (In that context, it is a sick joke that the Pelosi bill also subjects health insurance companies to the antitrust laws, from which they had been exempted in consideration of their regulation by state, not federal, authorities.)
In the world that the House bill would create, the money we will pay to insurance companies won't really be insurance premiums. Insurance premiums are contractual payments which the parties voluntarily agree upon and which are based on a mutual assessment of risk. Rather, the checks we write to insurance companies will be taxes--legally compelled, at rates set by the federal government that are designed to punish some and subsidize others.
Isn't this socialized medicine in all but name? The only difference, perhaps, is that when things start to go badly, as they inevitably will--spiraling costs, long waits for treatment--Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues will have someone to blame: the insurance companies. Maybe old-fashioned socialized medicine would be better. Then, at least, the government would have to take responsibility for its folly.
Exactly. Turn them into form-processors instead of free enterprises. Regulate them to death.
“Soros will establish the Climate Policy Initiative, an organization that will work with the US, China, India, Brazil and Europe and ensure that public interests are represented as new issues that affect climate change are established. According to Thomas Holler, who will lead the initiative, “It will be part advisory service, part policy developer and part watchdog.”
What a coincidence !!
That will tie in nicely with this: Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty, Claims British Lord (see video and red text below) – in December President Obama will fly off to Copenhagen again, this time to put his signature onto a document which effectively establishes a New World Government, based on “Climate Change” – formerly known as “global warming”.
The mess the Dems are creating with health care. From Robb at RCP:
...the change in incentives in the Democratic reform will turn the entire health care market topsy-turvy. Politically, this could be disastrous.
A very large number of people will have to change their health care coverage regardless of whether they want to. That's a hassle to begin with. The combination of a weak individual mandate, guaranteed issue and a public option will mean declining private sector options and a large increase in the number of people on some form of government health care.
Every health care provider, even the government, has to say no sometimes. Even Medicare says no. But now, rather than some demonic health insurance company saying no, it will be the government.
Republicans think the Democrats are engaged in a ruse, that they really want a government takeover of health care.
In their heart of hearts, Democrats do believe that health care should be a public good, provided by government irrespective of ability to pay. But I don't think they've purposely set out to achieve that by misdirection.
Instead, I think they honestly don't appreciate how fundamentally they are changing health care incentives and what the huge consequences of such changes will be.
Imus was never too impressed, but now he is getting a bit rough on Obama:
Because the President is a whiny little titty baby and a girly man and doesn't have enough guts to figure out what to do in Afghanistan, he's going to take on, what — Fox News and get his ass kicked there?