Here’s the way it works, as I understand it (and this is not my area of expertise, so correct me if I’m wrong). The Speaker has a strategic advantage, in that she can bring a bill up for a vote when she’s ready…that is to say, when she’s got commitments for the necessary votes. So the vote will be delayed until/unless the outcome is known and favorable.
Pressure is brought to bear upon wavering votes. As I’ve noted, the party machine has many ways to bring an erring member into line. You can lose committee status or you can simply lose perks.
On the positive side, you can be promised goodies in exchange for your vote. You’ll get your bridge, your library, whatever. Maybe you’ll even get your name on it. You can go home to your district and claim you brought home the bacon. This is very good for your re-election prospects. The individual Congressmen know how to work the system.
Giving away goodies can get very expensive, of course. It’s impossible to rein in the deficit when Washington is free with commitments. Being frugal makes one unpopular in Washington. Fiscal responsibility may be good for the nation, but it’s bad politics. That’s why fiscal irresponsibility has especially ruled the day when the Dems ran the whole show or when the Reps ran the whole show. A balance of power has the advantage of each faction blocking the other’s stupid boondoggles.
Obama is pulling out all the stops to push this through. This probably means big political debts. So, although there will be pledges of fiscal responsibility to accompany this bill, in fact the budget-busting health control plan will probably result in reduced fiscal restraint on other fronts. Additional political debts will inevitably translate into bigger public debt. We’re accelerating into the train wreck.
“Here’s what our health insurance reform legislation will mean to American families, workers, and the economy. [To heckler:] Thank you, insurance companies of America. [Laughter and applause.]
“This is why this legislation is important: affordability for our middle-class that lowers costs for every patient, reins in premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, limits out of pocket costs, and lifts the cap on what insurance companies cover each year. Affordability for the middle-class and security for our seniors. By strengthening Medicare, it secures the financial stability and solvency of Medicare for years to come, provides seniors with better benefits and guaranteed access to their doctors. And in this legislation, we will immediately begin to close the donut hole. [click to continue…]
President Barack Obama said Friday the U.S. will overturn a 22-year-old travel and immigration ban against people with HIV early next year. The order will be finalized on Monday, Obama said, completing a process begun during the Bush administration.
Which diseases should be a basis to bar entry to America, either as a visitor or an immigrant? The major ailments on the current list are HIV, tuberculosis, gonorrhea, syphilis, and leprosy. The recent movement has been to remove HIV from the list, on the logic that it’s treatable (although not curable) and not easily transmitted.
On the other hand, there’s certainly a real cost to taxpayers and a real risk to citizens.
Immigration critics say they’re leery of the proposal that could allow an average of 4,275 HIV-infected people into the country annually, with a lifetime medical cost of about $94 million for those admitted during the first year, according to CDC estimates published this month in the Federal Register. [click to continue…]
The size of Bernie Madoff’s theft is astronomical. It makes you wonder how someone could get away with a deception of such monstrous proportions. It also makes you question the efficacy (or perhaps the integrity) of the watchdogs.
If it makes you feel any better, the phenomenon of the silver-tongued deceiver is not a new one. Ivar Kreuger, the “Match King”, set the bar in the first half of the twentieth century. Kreuger built an incredible empire worth more than a hundred billion of today’s dollars.
I recently happened to pick up one of the many books about Kreuger (this one, if you really want to know). It includes an introduction by John Kenneth Galbraith. He notes that the book dramatizes the three great weakness of the financial community. I think his warning bears repeating, in that it is timeless and applies to all walks of life. Reading these words, penned in 1960, I couldn’t help but think of Bernie Madoff and of course of Barack Obama.
Galbraith’s three points:
First of all, there is a tendency to confuse good manners, good tailoring, and, above all, an impressive bearing and speech with integrity and intelligence. Kreuger was an extraordinarily competent actor who had discovered that a quiet forceful manner plus the ability to remember and recite the latest banality about the international economic situation were sufficient to win him the respect of the very best men.
Thus they rope us in.
There is also a troublesome and at times disastrous interdependence. The honest man becomes committed to the crook before he knows there is anything wrong. Then he must protect him to protect himself or, in the more usual case, refuse to believe there is anything wrong. [Kreuger's financial] partners were almost certainly honest men. And while they were unduly impressionable, they were, perhaps, not totally gullible. But after a certain time they could no longer afford to believe that Kreuger was a fraud. Despite repeated indications that there was something rotten to the north of Denmark, they denied the evidence of their eyes and ears.
Once we’re in, we find ourselves psychologically trapped.
Thirdly, there is the dangerous cliché that in the financial world everything depends on confidence. One could better argue the importance of unremitting suspicion. Kreuger made his career by exploiting the men who had confidence; he was brought down by the men who were trained to take nothing for granted. They would have got him earlier and with less damage done if they had not been restrained by those who thought it a betrayal of the canons of financial confidence to ask questions.
At the end, we’ve become just another agent of darkness, working, knowingly or unknowingly, in opposition to the good.
Our wisdom must be our shield against starting down the bad pathway in the first place. Because once started, it’s very hard to go back.
Okay, boys and girls, let’s test your knowledge of basic economics.
Imagine there’s an apple market where everyone goes to buy apples. And then a stranger appears and buys a significant portion of the apples. What happens at the marketplace?
If you answered that the ordinary buyers have to scramble for apples, and they would pay a higher price, then you’re a lot smarter than Congress and the President.
In her search for a cheap, used minivan for her and her husband, Krissy Dieroff has visited seven dealerships across Berks and Schuylkill counties in the last week, but to no avail.
“There’s not much to pick from, and the ones we do find are overpriced,” said Dieroff of Auburn, Schuylkill County, while browsing the lot of a city dealership on Monday.
Dieroff blames the shortage of inexpensive used cars on the federal cash-for-clunkers program, in which almost 700,000 used vehicles were traded in for newer, more fuel-efficient vehicles, and then scrapped.
Some local used car dealers specializing in vehicles priced $5,000 and under agreed that there are fewer inexpensive vehicles available.
The trend is occurring nationally as well.
The Manheim Used Vehicle Value Index reported that prices reached record highs in September. The consulting firm that publishes the index blamed low inventories.
That’s bad news in Berks, where many shoppers seek inexpensive, used vehicles, especially during difficult economic times, said George Tabakelis, general manager of Perry Auto Service & Sales on Route 61 in Perry Township.
“Customers used to be able to find a good car for their son or daughter to take to college for $2,000 or $3,000, but now that same car may cost $5,000,” Tabakelis said. “It’s sad.”
Bad news for people seeking cheap used cars. Bad news for the national debt. But good news for Japanese automakers. More importantly, good news for some UAW workers and a few new car dealers. And the momentary uptick in auto sales generates a useful headline.
Good news for foreigners and politically connected cronies. Bad news for struggling citizens and taxpayers. There’s your “hope and change”.
Bonus question: What’s your reward for understanding the foregoing?
Answer: The White House and Congressional leadership publicly proclaim you a racist, greedy, illicitly rich, bitter, dangerous, racist, swastika-carrying paid shill for big corporations. Because those are the only possible reasons for anyone to voice objection to the enlightened programs being cooked up in Washington. And did I mention you’re a racist?
I have great respect for the artistic talent of the movie-making Coen brothers. Their latest film, currently in limited theatrical release, is “A Serious Man”.
The film observes an American Jewish community, focusing mainly on the trials and tribulations of one Larry Gopnik. Or then again, maybe it’s a movie about Schrödinger’s cat.
Sounds fascinating, eh? Would it be surprising if I were to report the film is rather mundane? And yet…
“No Country for Old Men” was both deep and accessible (meaning you could watch it and enjoy it without necessarily being a pseudointellectual elitist). Its villain was particularly compelling. There’s something fascinating about evil personified. [click to continue…]
The White House is calling on other news organizations to isolate and alienate Fox News as it sends out top advisers to rail against the cable channel as a Republican Party mouthpiece.
…White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN on Sunday that President Obama does not want “the CNNs and the others in the world [to] basically be led in following Fox.”
Obama senior adviser David Axelrod went further by calling on media outlets to join the administration in declaring that Fox is “not a news organization.”
“Other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way,” Axelrod counseled ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. “We’re not going to treat them that way.”
By urging other news outlets to side with the administration, Obama officials dramatically upped the ante in the war of words…
Americans should realize that the Administration’s behavior is seriously inappropriate.
Here’s how it works with the White House Press Corps: The pool of reporters with access to certain events and information is limited. Since everyone can’t fit in everywhere, the various news representatives generally rotate and share with each other. The Administration is now demanding that one of their number be blackballed. If everyone else plays along, then FOX ends up shut out of the news gathering process.
This isn’t the way we do things in America. The press is expected to challenge power. Will the nation be served if only the sycophants gain access to firsthand information?
This is a test of Obama’s supporters. Will they stand with the president when he’s gone badly wrong, or will they stand up for what’s right? (And of course the rest of the Press Corps should be aware that what is done to FOX today will be done to the next naughty boy tomorrow.)
Flashback: Here’s how they sold Social Security. The lies are a matter of historical record. It’s right on the government site. This is what people told they would get, and how much it would cost them:
After the first 3 year — that is to say, beginning in 1940 — you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5 cents for each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. This will be the tax for 3 years, and then, beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your employer, for every dollar you earn for the next 3 years. After that, you and your employer will each pay half a cent more for 3 years, and finally, beginning in 1949, twelve years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. That is the most you will ever pay.
Wow, that’s a sweet deal! I’d be a fool not to sign onto that! Who could possibly disagree? What could possibly go wrong? Government is wonderful!
They say whatever they need to say to sell the program. Once it starts up, it becomes an ever-growing unkillable Frankenstein monster. You’re stuck until you die or the system collapses, whichever comes first.
Do I have to note that anyone in the private sector who sold a plan like the government sells its plans would be in jail?
The biggest problems with this imperfect bill arise from cost. It does too little to tame health inflation, as Douglas Elmendorf, head of the CBO, hinted this week. And the bill is likely to cost far more than currently advertised, because of two wheezes. One is a lethargic implementation plan, which means that the full annual cost will not kick in for a few years yet (thus making the CBO’s mandatory ten-year cost estimate misleadingly low). The second is the assumption of heroic cost savings from Medicare and big cuts in payments. Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, scoffs that “this legislation is an example of the triumph of budgeting hope over experience.”
It’s a crucial point that the big costs start to ramp up years down the road. So the sales pitch of affordability (a mere trillion dollars) is based on a limited timeframe. The payment schedule will therefore be manageable in the early days, but then we get to the upward spiral of the cost curve. Sort of like those balloon mortgages that bankrupted so many people. Their benign projection doesn’t include the balloon.
It’s also important to remember that Medicare, like Social Security, is already on a path to insolvency. So any savings that can be wrung out of Medicare should be done to save Medicare itself.
Obama knows these things. He lies, and he doesn’t care, and too few people seem to realize what’s going down. The Left knows that once they get the structure in place, there’s no going back.
Hey, are any Republican or Blue Dog representatives reading this? How about you stick a “truth in advertising” provision into this monstrosity? If (when) the health care reform, in defiance of Obama’s solemn promises, starts adding to the deficit, it automatically scales back or is rescinded. How could anyone argue against that without admitting the plan is a huge fraud and the sales pitch is a pack of lies?
A few months back, Pat sent me a note that touched a nerve. After Tammy made a passing reference to friendly dolphins, I pointed out that dolphins were in fact capable of nasty behavior (see, for example, here or here).
Pat was observing the extent to which evil comes naturally to Man.
We have a beast within ourselves as well. Maybe I’m a mono-maniac when it comes to politics for turning your dirty dolphin exposé into a political tract. I’m not kidding about this. We have our darker nature just below the surface. The frenzied reaction to the AIG bonuses was sobering to me. Egregious as they were (I too was—am—outraged.) we have to be careful about being manipulated. The madness of crowds and all that. The mob is the mother of tyrants —Diogenes. We’ve talked about that before.
You think we’re not natively cruel? Pay attention to small children and what their instincts are. We can lose the façade of civilization in a snap.
It’s the example of children in the playground that nails it. The universal phenomenon of the schoolyard bully does not arise because of injustice or privation. This is not about race or culture or gender or economic status. We are born with a mean streak, and that’s all there is to it. If righteousness is to prevail, our darkness must be managed. The management can take one of two forms: Either we control ourselves, or we are controlled by external coercion.
I favor self-control, to the extent this is practical. Obviously the world cannot be limited only by self-control; that would be anarchy, and anarchy does not foster civilization. Authority is, to a certain extent, a necessary evil. But too much authority crushes the life out of us. Without liberty, there may be humans, but there is no humanity. [click to continue…]
Don’t worry, people. It’s only a fictional show about an alternate reality — and a warped and unbelievable reality at that. Nothing so stupid could ever happen here.
Considering the shortages of ammunition lately which leave gun owners scrambling for supplies, this bill effectively becomes a ban on ammunition. It also treats anyone that buys ammunition like a criminal.
I intend to go out of state for future ammunition sales. So will many, many other legitimate gun owners. Ammunition clubs for the purpose of developing new supply lines are forming as we speak.
The result of California’s new law will be to drive business out of state, to turn law-abiding citizens into criminals and conspirators, and to deprive citizens of their Constitutional rights. The law will have zero impact on real criminals, and in fact the state will know less about who has ammunition than before the law, since most gun owners will buy surreptitiously. The law does nothing except express, at a significant dollar cost, the contempt legislators have for legitimate gun owners.
So I’m to be declared a criminal, at least on paper. As a practical matter, I figure there’s nothing the state can do about my violations. But if they ever come to punish me, I refuse to play along. I won’t pay their fines or be jailed.
Does the state really need to come after me with forceful coercion? Is that the sort of threat I represent? Is this the level we’ve sunk to?
I’m not saying that with bravado. In fact, I feel pretty queasy about it. I don’t want them to come and get me, and I figure it’s not going to happen. I don’t want to have this fight at all. I just want to get on with my stupid life. But there are some lines that cannot be crossed, and this is one of them.
The battles between free citizens and avaricious governments never end. But some of the skirmishes are more important than others. This one is as big as it gets.
First, a note about where we are and how get got here.
Last year, in the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller case (See my blog post), the Supreme Court narrowly acknowledged that the right to bear arms is indeed an individual right. This victory was very important, but it was narrow in this respect: While denying the Federal government the power to disarm citizens, there is still the possibility that states or localities can disarm citizens.
NRA applauds the Supreme Court’s recent decision to hear the landmark Second Amendment case of McDonald v. Chicago. The case will address the application of the Second Amendment to the states through either the Due Process clause or the Privileges or Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case has major implications for the legality of restrictive gun laws not only in Chicago, but also in other cities across the United States. The decision to hear the case, which will be argued early next year, gives Second Amendment advocates across America hope that this fundamental freedom will not be infringed by unreasonable state and local laws.
“The Second Amendment applies to every citizen, not just to those living in federal enclaves like Washington, D.C. In the historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed what most Americans have known all along—that the Second Amendment protects an individual right and that it applies to all Americans. The government should respect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens throughout our country, regardless of where they live, and NRA is determined to make sure that happens,” said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. [click to continue…]
Who knew Obama would transcend Malignant Narcissist? After Ft. Hood, Narcissistic Sociopath seems a better fit. http://is.gd/4PVCGabout 10 minutes ago
from web
A post by Maynard
