September 21-22, 2013
Sep 21 03:22 Repealing the PPACA Sep 21 04:17 Press release journalism = little truth Sep 21 09:28 Pelosi, Hoyer show how to play bad hand poorly Sep 21 19:09 Is this police brutality? Sep 22 03:44 Suicide squeeze or smart policy? Sep 22 06:29 Rethinking higher education Sep 22 08:58 Repealing the PPACA, 2014 and beyond
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Repealing the PPACA
Thanks to John Hinderaker's post about the fight over the PPACA, I can now see the GOP winning this fight. Here's what John said that makes sense:
The Senate will pass a continuing resolution that includes Obamacare. At that point, after a little grandstanding, the Republican House will graciously accept the Senate resolution in order to avoid a shutdown. The effect is that Democrats in both the House and the Senate have been forced to go on record in favor of Obamacare.
The Republican leadership thinks this is a desirable goal. Why? For at least two reasons. First, some Congressional Democrats were not in office when the ACA passed, and haven't yet cast a vote on it. Second, it was one thing to vote for Obamacare when no one had read the bill, and hardly anyone understood what its effects would be. Now, most people understand that Obamacare is a job-killer, a choice-destroyer, and an administrative horror. So there is, I think, something gained when Democrats are compelled to hold their noses and vote for the noxious law one more time.
John understands that the PPACA won't disappear until there's a Republican in the White House and Republicans control the House and Senate. Still, forcing people to vote for the PPACA is taking its toll on Democrats:
UPDATE: Traditionally, voters have trusted Republicans more on 'hard' issues-national security, taxes, the economy-and Democrats more on 'soft' issues-education, the environment and health care. So it is noteworthy that, despite ceaseless attacks in the Democratic press, Scott Rasmussen finds that voters trust Republicans over Democrats on health care by 43%-42%. That's a tie, of course, but it must reflect the public's dissatisfaction with Obamacare. Republicans can push their advantage by continuing to pound away at Obamacare, as the House leadership is now doing.
Despite Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's protestations , people hate the PPACA. They like some of the bill's provisions but they hate most of it. They certainly hate the bill's tax increases. They hate the employer and individual mandates. They don't trust the exchanges. In other words, while people like provisions like keeping young people on their parents' policy until they're 26 and preventing insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, they're disgusted with the biggest provisions of the PPACA.
When the PPACA is repealed, Repbulicans should resurrect the Patients Choice Act . The key components of the PCA focus on greater consumer choice, fewer mandates and a strengthened doctor-patient relationship. The IPAB would disappear. Ditto with the tax increaases and the 20,000 pages of regulations (thus far).
In short, the PCA, not to be confused with PPACA, would be popular because people instinctively prefer more options than less and less government interference over excessive government interference. That's what the PCA would deliver.
Posted Saturday, September 21, 2013 3:22 AM
No comments.
Press release journalism = little truth
This article reads like a press release from the MCEA. It isn't reporting. It's 'journalism' bia press release:
A campaign by critics of proposed copper-nickel mining in northern Minnesota says it has gathered petition signatures from all 87 Minnesota counties.
Mining Truth says more than 12,000 people have signed its petition, which asks Gov. Mark Dayton to ensure the environment will be protected in any copper-nickel mining.
Scott Strand of the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy says people statewide want Dayton to put water quality first when considering projects like the proposed PolyMet and Twin Metals mines.
First, how many of the 12,000 signatures came from Hennepin and Ramsey counties? It isn't a stretch to think that the majority of them came from those 2 counties. In fact, it's likely that a majority of signatures to the petition came from those counties.
Second, existing laws require mining companies not pollute. These laws' provisions are proactive, eliminating the need for taxpayer-financed superfund clean-ups. Plans are submitted to the state and federal regulating agencies. After approval, the mines are inspected on a regular basis to guarantee that pollution isn't happening. If the mining company isn't living up to their plans, operations can be shut down. Fines can be imposed, too.
The organizations spearheading this effort aren't committed to the truth. Conservation Minnesota, aka CM, insists that the previous mining operations polluted the land. I've cited examples of precious metal mining operations that improved environmental quality in the long run on this blog. That's irrefutable fact. That isn't speculation. MCEA is known for its hardball tactics. Its most notable 'accomplishment' was stopping the Big Stone II power plant project from happening. MCEA considers it a victory to make electricity more expensive and high-paying jobs extinct. That says everything you need to know about their priorities.
Simply put, MCEA's and CM's priorities aren't Minnesota's priorities. They're the priorities of their plutocrat donors. They're the special interests' priorities.
This paragraph is laughable:
Dayton has been feeling conflicting political pressure over mining from his environmentalist allies on one side, who oppose copper-nickel mining, and his labor and Iron Range supporters on the other side, who want the jobs. The Democratic governor has said he's pro-environment and pro-jobs, and there needs to be a balance.
Gov. Dayton isn't just pro-environment. He's pro-environmental extremist. MCEA and CM don't play nice. They won't hesitate in lying if that's what's needed to win a fight.
Northern Minnesota needs mining jobs. Tourism hasn't come close in replacing mining in terms of jobs. Meanwhile, poverty rates on the Range are disgustingly high, approaching 16% in the Arrowhead. If Gov. Dayton won't tell these extremists to take a hike, then Minnesotans need to fire him ASAP. Restoring prosperity to the Iron Range isn't just important, it's essential.
Posted Saturday, September 21, 2013 4:17 AM
No comments.
Pelosi, Hoyer show how to play bad hand poorly
This video is a how-to instructional on how to play a bad hand poorly:
First, it's amazing how shrill the Democrats are. The American people have tuned House Democrats out, starting with Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer. Here's what Hoyer said:
HOYER: It is a blatant attempt at hostage-taking.
After that, Ms. Pelosi added this:
PELOSI: What is brought to the floor today is, without a doubt, without a doubt, a measure designed to shut down government.
Hoyer is disgraceful. What's worse is that his mini-diatribe fits with what a drama queen, not a congressman, would say. Unfortunately, it fits with language from President Obama's whining diatribe in Kansas City, MO. As for Ms. Pelosi's whining, she knows there won't be a shutdown. Talk about a shutdown is just that: talk. It's all about the things the DC echochamber repeats, not what Main Street America thinks about.
The reality is that people want the PPACA repealed. They've wanted that since the bill was passed. In fact, the ercentage of people that didn't want it passed pretty much equals the percentage of people that want it repealed.
During his presentation in KS Friday, President Obama accused Republicans of attempting to mess with him :
"They're not focused on you," the president told about 2,000 Ford autoworkers gathered on the floor of the stamping plant. "They're focused on politics. They're focused on trying to mess with me."
The dirty little secret is that President Obama isn't focused on the middle class. He's focused on not having his signature legislation, a bill the American people didn't want, defunded. A hour before the start of a new fiscal year, a continuing resolution will be passed, which President Obama will sign.
The other thing that isn't being highlighted by the dead tree media is something that Eric Cantor said yesterday :
Speaking at a rally where Republican leaders cheered the House's passage of a government spending bill that would permanently strip funding from the Affordable Care Act, Cantor called out by name each red state Senate Democrat facing reelection: Sens. Mark Begich (Alaska), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Mary Landrieu (La.) and Kay Hagan (N.C.). As the majority leader asked what those Democrats were doing to protect their states from Obamacare, audience members cheered loudly and applauded his remarks.
"Many Senate Republicans have promised to leave no stone unturned in fighting for this bill, and all of us here support that effort," Cantor said. "We are calling on Senate Democrats to do the same thing."
"I want to know where Senator Pryor stands on protecting the middle class," he added. "How about Kay Hagan in North Carolina? Does she understand the consequences that Obamacare is having in her state?"
"What about Mary Landrieu of Louisiana?" Cantor continued. "And finally, what about Mark Begich of Alaska? ... Will he vote to keep Obamacare in place?"
Cantor has disappointed conservatives for not enthusiastically backing the defund Obamacare legislation. That criticism is justified. Still, he's right to highlight these vulnerable Democrats' votes right before fighting to win uphill re-election fights. That, more than anything else, is what these votes are about.
The other thing President Obama doesn't want America focusing on is the fact that he shoved the PPACA down Americans' throats, thanks in large part to Harry Reid's and Nancy Pelosi's arm-twisting. Americans hate each of the major provisions in the PPACA, from the tax increases to the individual and employer mandates. They don't like the skyrocketing premiums, either.
Apparently, President Obama doesn't care about that. President Obama cares about saving face. There's no proof that the PPACA will lower health care costs, give people health care or insure more people.
For all of their drama queen language, President Obama, Ms. Pelosi and Steny Hoyer know what will happen. Thanks to the GOP hardliners, vulnerable Democrats have to vote for an unpopular bill heading into an election year.
That's why Democrats are whining like drama queens.
Posted Saturday, September 21, 2013 9:28 AM
No comments.
Is this police brutality?
I'm not a lawyer but what I saw in this video is a police officer, moonlighting as a security guard, acting like a thug:
I don't know the name of the thug with a badge but he overstepped his authority. I'll come back to that later.
First, it's insulting that citizens weren't permitted to speak at a public hearing. Unfortunately, school boards frequently use this tactic. I know because a friend of mine, who shall remain nameless, has gone to school board meetings with the hope of asking questions, only to have the school board not have an open question and answer period.
Whether it's the school board, the city council, the county commission, the legislature or the president of the United States, the same rule applies: they work for We The People. Clearly, the school board doesn't think they work for parents. It's apparent that they want to limit contact with their employers.
That type of dictatorial behavior isn't acceptable. That's the type of thug tactics employed by banana dictators. Which brings us back to the thug with a badge. The man speaking was dragged from the room because he dared speak out against Common Core. That's just the start of it. Here's some additional information on what happened after he was dragged out of the meeting:
Small also urged other parents to demand answers on Common Core and the curriculum being used to educate their children.
As the Baltimore Sun reports, the officer then 'pushed Small and then escorted him into the hall, handcuffed him and had him sit on the curb in front of the school.' Small was charged with second-degree assault of a police officer and faces a $2,500 fine and up to 10 years in prison. He was also charged with disturbing a school operation, which carries an additional $2,500 and up to six months in jail.
The thug with a badge pushes a parent attempting to speak at a public hearing and it's the parent that's arrested? Seriously? While it's true that the parent didn't go quietly, that isn't justification for arresting him on charges that he assaulted a police officer.
The thug repeatedly physically jostled the parent, pushing him once and pulling him another time. Adding insult to injury, the man running the meeting insisted that the man not speak. If the man running the meeting accepted public input, which is what's supposed to happen at a public meeting, this incident wouldn't have happened.
Still, the thug with a badge acted in a reckless manner. Getting in the face of a person wanting to speak at a public meeting isn't a reasonable use of force.
There are two villains in this incident. The thug with a badge is a villain for bullying a citizen whose only real crime was speaking at a public hearing. The school board chairman running the meeting is a villain, too, for attempting to stifle debate on an important subject. That's a tactic public servants wouldn't approve of. Unfortunately, this autocrat isn't a public servant. He's a thug with an agenda. Apparently, he didn't hesitate in bullying a citizen attempting a high priority on his agenda.
When public servants think that the public is a nuisance instead of thinking of them as their bosses, things are getting close to that infamous slippery slope. The thug's actions are reprehensible. If the district attorney prosecutes the citizen, then I hope the jury or the judge slaps the DA and the thug down. Hard.
Posted Saturday, September 21, 2013 7:09 PM
No comments.
Suicide squeeze or smart policy?
John Dickerson's article insists in the opening paragraph that Republicans are committing political suicide. That isn't what's happening. Republicans are forcing House and Senate Democrats to vote again for a bill that's just barely more popular than pneumonia.
During the periodic budget fits that have seized Washington for the last several years, President Obama and his team have made a consistent claim about negotiating with Republicans. No matter what the president tries, or whom he negotiates with, the White House can never make progress because congressional Republicans are controlled by a hard-right faction that refuses to compromise or accept anything less than total victory.
According to Obama, that is what killed the famous "grand bargain" talks with House Speaker John Boehner in the summer of 2011, and it's what killed the so-called Supper Club negotiations on the budget this summer with Republican senators. Now the GOP is handing the president more evidence for his claim. Republicans, including staunch conservatives, admit that a small band of ultrapure conservatives have forced the larger congressional GOP membership into a witless act of blundering self-destruction.
During the periodic budget fits that have seized Washington for the last several years, President Obama and his team have made a consistent claim about negotiating with Republicans. No matter what the president tries, or whom he negotiates with, the White House can never make progress because congressional Republicans are controlled by a hard-right faction that refuses to compromise or accept anything less than total victory.
Dickerson's article should be ignored because he apparently thinks that President Obama represents the political mainstream. He doesn't. He's a far left ideologue.
Let's look at the things President Obama stands for and against. President Obama thinks that Congress is a nuisance to be ignored when they don't do what he tells them to do. He didn't get cap & trade passed so he's implementing it through the EPA's rulemaking process. He didn't get Card Check passed so he tried 'passing' it through the NLRB. The American people spoke loudly that they didn't want the PPACA. He shoved it down America's throats.
President Obama's EPA doesn't want more new coal-fired power plants built. That isn't enough, though. They're putting in regulations that will silence natural gas power plants by 2035. That fits with Steven Chu's goal to make energy prices in America as expensive as they are in Europe. That, in turn, fits with then-candidate Obama's goal of a Cap & Trade policy that would require " electricity prices to necessarily skyrocket ."
Dickerson isn't focusing on what's really hurting negotiations. It isn't that Republicans are unreasonable. It's that President Obama's policies are disasters. Immediately upon taking office, President Obama insisted on passing a stimulus bill to jumpstart the economy. When that failed, the Fed started their quantitative easing policy to prop up a terrible economy. Without the Fed's help, this struggling economy would be a total disaster.
Then there's the impact that the PPACA has had on the economy. It's stalled a struggling economy while turning the United States into Part-Time Nation. Economic growth is struggling. If not for hiring tens of thousands of part-time workers and hundreds of thousands of people dropping out of the workforce, the unemployment rate would be near 10%.
With those statistics in mind, it's fair to ask why Dickerson isn't questioning President Obama's economic credibility, especially considering the fact that President Obama's economic record of lackluster economic growth and stagnating job growth.
If Dickerson wanted to write a fair article, he'd question why President Obama insists on sticking with his failed economic policies.
While Republicans are pursuing a potentially politically dangerous strategy, it must be said that they're proposing better economic policies than Democrats. They aren't proposing economic policies that will drive up electric rates. They aren't proposing reckless spending policies, either.
If Mr. Dickerson insists on criticizing Republicans' strategy, I'll highlight the fact that President Obama's economic policies are hurting hundreds of thousands of Americans across the heartland and on Main Street.
President Obama's stubbornness is unforgivable. (Except, apparently, in the media's eyes.)
Posted Sunday, September 22, 2013 3:44 AM
No comments.
Rethinking higher education
Victor Davis Hanson's post about higher education should be must reading for college administrators. The model is broken and it needs repair. Here's part of what's wrong:
Administrators used to come from among the top faculty, who rotated a few years from teaching and scholarship to do the unenviable nuts-and-bolts work of running the university. Now, administrators rarely, if ever, teach. Instead, they became part of a high-paid, careerist professional caste, one that has grown exponentially. In the CSU system, their numbers have exploded in recent years, a 221 percent increase from 1975 to 2008. There are now more administrators in that system than full-time faculty .
Recently, a professor at St. Cloud State insisted that professors that didn't support tax increases didn't want the best for their university. That's an ill-informed opinion. This study highlights the wasteful spending at universities:
Even five years ago, $500,000 was considered an extremely high salary for a university president, whereas today a growing number make $1 million or more. Chief financial officers of universities that made $175,000 five years ago often make $300,000 or more today.
Going from $175,000 to $300,000 is a 71% pay increase. That's 14% per year. Going from $500,000 five years ago to $1,000,000 is a 100% increase, or 20% increase per year.
These statistics are stunning:
At the California State University system, the largest university complex in the world, well under 20 percent of students graduate in four years despite massive student aid. Fewer than half graduate in six years.
That's a major contributor to student loan debt:
The idea of deeply indebted college students in their 20s without degrees or even traditional reading and writing skills is something relatively new in America. Yet aggregate student debt has reached a staggering $1 trillion. More than half of recent college graduates, who ultimately support the huge college industry, are either unemployed or working in jobs that don't require bachelor's degrees. About a quarter of those under 25 are jobless and still seeking employment.
In 2012, I wrote a post titled " Overeducated and underemployed ." College degrees have been devalued:
On my visit to Chicago to learn more about this seemingly pointless degree, the director made a comment that has stuck with me. He said that the master's is the new bachelor's.
Now, here I sit, two years after graduating from the University of Chicago and the University of Minnesota, working a menial job in the service industry (luckily, I had contacts, otherwise I fear I would have been seen as an overqualified, underexperienced risk to most human-resources departments).
It's time to dispel the myth that a college degree is a guaranteed ticket to prosperity. While it's still worth something, choosing the right major quickly is important. Picking a nothing degree won't help with unemployment high and not improving.
What might we expect in the future? Even more online courses will entice students away from campuses through taped lectures from top teachers, together with interactive follow-ups from teaching assistants, all at a fraction of current tuition costs. Technical schools that dispense with therapeutic, hyphenated 'studies' courses will offer students marketable skills far more cheaply and efficiently. Periodic teaching contracts, predicated on meeting teaching and research obligations, will probably replace lifelong tenure.
Simply put, there isn't a market for "hyphenated studies" degrees or classes. If something can't support itself, it'll eventually go the way of the dinosaur. Hard degrees will be in demand. Victimology degrees won't have much of a demand. Online universities will flourish. Campuses won't disappear entirely but they'll change dramatically.
Posted Sunday, September 22, 2013 6:29 AM
No comments.
Repealing the PPACA, 2014 and beyond
Salena Zito's columns are one of the highlights to my Sunday mornings. Ms. Zito's latest column , titled "The 6-Year Itch", talks about President Obama's re-election campaign and his fading influence. Here's what Ms. Zito said about President Obama's re-election campaign:
Yet, in Obama, you have a president who chose to run his second-term campaign almost devoid of an agenda. His campaign focused almost entirely on character assassination, portraying Mitt Romney as a heartless corporate raider who didn't care about average Americans.
Obama chose to say almost nothing about what he would do in a second term and, interestingly, chose not to brag about anything he'd done in his first term.
You get the mandates you ask for in elections. And Obama's only mandate is that he is not Mitt Romney. This brings Obama well into his second term with no equity on issues.
Just like Seinfeld was the show about nothing, President Obama's second term is the term about nothing. That's probably a bit harsh considering the fact that President Obama doesn't want his signature 'accomplishments' to be exposed as failures in the eyes of the American people.
One of the highlights of Zito's columns is that she's constantly in touch with Everytown USA. Many of her interviews happen on the road in Indiana, West Virginia or northern Pennsylvania. This column highlights those same areas in a general way rather than dealing with a specific city:
This column has often discussed the disconnection between Obama's Washington and America's Main Street, since evidence of a 'wave' election began to form in the summer of 2009. In election after election since that time, Republicans have won seats or even whole legislative chambers across the country in areas they had no business winning, which led many political observers to believe the president was doomed to lose last year.
It's true that President Obama won despite his disconnect with Main Street America. That doesn't mean Democrats will fare well in 2014. They clearly won't. The implementation of the PPACA is already hurting Senate Democrats. Voting to sustain the PPACA won't help Kay Hagan, Mary Landrieu, Mark Begich or Mark Pryor. If Democrats lose those seats, Harry Reid will be the minority leader in 2015. If that flips, Republicans will force Democrats to vote against popular legislation.
Most importantly, President Obama will have to veto bill after bill, which will force Democrats to look like the obstructionist party in DC. That isn't the position politicians want to be in.
Obama's recent failings on Syria, and his ill-timed partisan speech following a mass murder not far from the White House, are not new behavioral patterns. This is who he has always been. It just appears that his supporters have taken notice of that persona now, as they prepare for the next election cycle and realize that Democrats are much more fractured than Republicans.
The Democratic brand isn't what it was in 2008. Senate Democrats are distancing themselves from President Obama, too. I can't imagine Mary Landrieu or Mark Pryor would want him campaigning with them at this point.
Frankly, President Obama's stumbling on Syria must've frightened Democrats. In 2012, President Obama campaigned as the experienced Commander-in-Chief who killed bin Laden. This year, he's looked like a freshman senator with national security. Saying that he's had a 180-degree turn on national security image is understatement.
It isn't fair to just pick on President Obama, though he's earned the criticism. Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Harry Reid haven't exactly distinguished themselves, either. While nothing points to another wave election for Republicans, the Democrats' puzzle doesn't inspire confidence.
Posted Sunday, September 22, 2013 8:58 AM
No comments.
