It’s Because Your Leadership Sucks. . .

There's a Politico article today that needs to be addressed. This article talks about the problem Republican leaders are having with “the flamboyant rhetoric and angry tone of conservative activists and media personalities.” Let’s diagnose the problem, point some fingers, and present the solution.

What The Article Said

Before we delve into the contents of the article, let me say that I dismiss the article itself. This is just another one of those typical articles written by a leftist who wants to “help” us by suggesting that the evil Republican Party is captive to the far right and blah blah blah move left to find voters. I neither care about the author nor their wrong advice.

But what I do want to talk about is what the Republican establishment says in this article. According to the article, many Republican officials and operatives are concerned (1) that the angry tone of conservative activists will turn off the middle-of-the-road voters that the party must attract to regain power, and (2) that radio personalities like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are making life miserable for senators and House members by egging on the activists, so that the elected officials must pander to these activists at the expense of turning off moderate voters (particularly in moderate districts).

Here are some of the quotes and points from the article that you should note:

• House Whip Eric Cantor, described as “one of the party’s up-and-coming leaders” says: “We need more voices. Our party’s challenge has been that we need to be more inclusive -- we need to attract the middle again.” He then adds, “[Obama’s nastiness] gives us an opportunity now to try and harness the energy and point it in a positive direction, so that we can attract the middle of the country to the common-sense conservative views that we have been about as a party.”

• Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty implies (though he doesn’t quite say) that the activists are playing into the media’s hands by letting the media portray the party as narrow-minded. “The commentators are part of the coalition, not the whole coalition. The party needs to be about addition, not subtraction -- but not at the expense of watering down its principles.”

• Mitt Romney, apparently, is keeping a low profile and is sticking to speeches on specific policy issues to avoid (according to the author) “the trade off between placating party activists and appearing presidential.”

Diagnosing The Problem

Let me start off with a surprise. I agree with them about the problem. The Republican Party cannot win if it does not attract people beyond its hardcore base. Despite what you may see in the polls, both parties have a hardcore base of around 43% of the electorate. Beyond that, you get into the leaners and the self-described moderates. If you can’t attract more than half of the leaners and self-described moderates, you can’t win an election.

Yet, the activists, the bloggers, the callers, and the talk radio hosts are making it very hard for the Republican Party to attract those people. Like you, I have visited many other blogs, read many political journals, listened to talk radio and visited web boards. The truth is that right now, the right is not very appealing. So much of what you find is angry, ignorant, beset by paranoia and, frankly, whiny.

And this has many causes. Part of this stems from the fact that the people who are the most upset are the most likely to speak their minds. Part of this stems from the fact that to get noticed in a saturated world, you need to be more bombastic than the rest. Part of this stems from the collapse of journalism and the ease with which the internet allows opinion and rumor to be turned into fact and spread like wildfire -- hence, people no longer know what is true. Part of this stems from the fact that in times of great upheaval, many nuts come out of the woodwork to hide among the normal people, trying to lure them into their little cults.

That’s all true. But there is one more key ingredient: a vacuum.

If the Republican Party leadership had not been notably absent from the field, none of this would have mattered. A vibrant, trustworthy party that addresses issues as they arise, debunks rumors, and takes a clear stand that people can rely upon could have prevented this stew of anger, fear and resentment from ever coming into existence in the first place. But by remaining silent on issue after issue, and by failing to give people something to believe in -- the comfort that they would be represented, the party leadership let the noxious concoction boil away and the wounds it created fester. In other words, my dear Republican Party, your failure caused this.

So don’t whine about it, fix it.

But whine is what they are doing. Cantor is right that we need to attract the middle and that we can do it with conservative principles -- polls show over and over that “the middle” is actually rather far right. But read his quote again. He doesn’t know how to do this. He’s hoping that it all works itself out. Do you see any hint there that he could even enunciate what those principles are?

Look at Pawlenty. He seems to think we’re in a coalition rather than a party. Coalitions are a combination of divergent groups hoping to achieve their own interests through the support of others within the coalition. A party, on the other hand, is a group of like-minded individuals working toward certain goals that they all share. That may sound like nitpicking, but it’s not. This quote tells me that he doesn’t see the party as a collection of like-minded people who believe in conservative ideas, he sees us as a collection of interests.

Look at Romney. Now is the time Mr. President-wannabe to step up and lead. Difficult times forge leaders. Consider again Monday's quote from Abigail Adams:

"These are times in which a genius would wish to live. It is not in the still calm of life, or the repose of a pacific station, that great characters are formed."

A leader does not hide and hope not to get noticed.

The Solution

The solution is simple. Stop whining about it and do something. Lead. How do you do that? Easy:

First, come up with a conservative agenda. Outline the conservative principles for which you stand. Tell us what those are and show us that you intend to stick with them. If you need help, which apparently you do, read our on-going Rebuilding the Republican Party series. In fact, why not start with this:

I am a Republican because...

I believe in limited and accountable government. I believe in the Constitutional separation of powers between the branches of the government, between the federal government and the states, and between the government and its citizens. I believe in state’s rights. I believe in the protection of civil liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights. I reject judicial activism and the shift of power from the legislature to the executive. Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty.

I believe in fiscally responsible government. I reject deficit spending, unfair and excessive taxation, and unnecessary and irrational regulation.

I believe in free market economics and the protection of property rights. I reject government ownership of private business and the confiscation of private property. I believe in free and fair trade.

I believe in a strong national defense, and in promoting the values of democracy, freedom, and human rights around the world. I reject isolationism, but I also reject adventurism. Walk softly, but carry a big stick.

I am the Republican Party. I believe in freedom, liberty, and responsibility.

Then take those principles and apply them to the issues of the day. Show us how you plan to use conservative ideas to solve the nation’s problems -- and don’t just wait for the public to tell you something is a problem. It’s time to remake the country, issue by issue, along conservative lines.

Next, start introducing legislation to implement that agenda. If it passes, take the credit. If it fails, make an issue out of it.

At the same time, start taking a firm PUBLIC stand against the things Obama does wrong and supporting him openly on things he does right (if any). And don’t just criticize, tell the American people what you would have done differently and point to the legislation you’ve introduced to do that.

The American people want solutions to problems, not just finger pointing. And they hate cowards and they hate whiners.

Which brings us to the final point: stop whining about the activists and the guys on talk radio. Nobody trusts a “leader” who whines that his followers make things difficult. Gain our respect and this whole problem goes away.


** Update: Mike Pence (R- Indiana) calls the Politico story "hogwash."

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Baucus Bill Decoded

This is a long one, but probably kind of important to you. During the Bronco/Charger game on Monday night, the Senate Finance Committee finally released its health care bill (S 1796 -- the “Baucus Bill”) for public review. It’s 1502 pages, but I reviewed it. . . every twisted, confused word. In all my years of reading legislation, I’ve never seen anything as hopelessly complex and bizarrely written as this little ditty. Nevertheless, I think I broke the code. Here’s what you need to know.

Before we begin, remember that this turdburger still needs to be merged with the Health Committee version, no doubt behind closed doors. That could change this bill significantly, particularly by adding more goodies for Harry Reid’s vassals in Nevada and for whoever else is up on their bribes. . . er, campaign contributions.


1. General Impressions

Here are some general impressions:

(1) MicroMax Baucus

First, like all good socialists, Max Baucus loves micromanagement. He dedicates page after page to mind-numbing minutia, everything from coding for wheel chairs to ordering studies of how much medication is given in long term care facilities.

(2) Non-Solution Solutions For Cost Control

Baucus has clearly been reading CommentarmaCare. Yep. He didn’t understand it, but he’s been reading it. At various points, Baucus mentions many of the thing that we pointed out as needing to be fixed to get costs under control. Sadly, rather than fixing them (or changing the incentives as we suggested), Baucus punts to the Comptroller General or the Secretary of Health and Human Services to study how to fix them.

Indeed, this bill is full of non-solution solutions. For example, it proposes:

• Implementing a “hospital value-based purchasing program,” once HHS figures out how to do that. (§ 3001)

• Improving the “physician quality reporting system,” once HHS figures out how to do that. (§ 3002)

• Creating “incentives for healthy lifestyles,” once HHS figures out how to do that. (§ 2103)

• Funding a childhood obesity demonstration project, presumably to figure out how to cut childhood obesity. (§ 2105)

• Studying “barriers to appropriate utilization of generic medicine,” with the idea of switching to generics some day. (§ 1654)

FYI, there’s not a peep about medical malpractice reform.

I am concerned that some of these reports require recommendations by the Comptroller General, which will be considered by the committee -- then acted upon outside the normal Senate rules, i.e. no filibuster.

(3) Harm To The Job Market: Temporary Workers

This bill has the potential to do some serious harm to the job market -- enter the law of unintended consequences. To avoid destroying small business, Baucus creates a scheme that allows employers to avoid the damaging consequences of his bill by eliminating permanent jobs and replacing them with temporary or part time positions. . . as they do in Europe. Moreover, the part time work will need to be cut off at less than 30 hours, as compared to less than 40 as is currently done.

Thus, it is likely that employers will replace permanent jobs with temporary jobs and reduce the number of hours given to part time workers.

FYI, in 1997, about 33% of workers in Spain and 37% in Denmark were temporary workers, compared to 2.2% in the USA. Companies in those countries did that to avoid the hassle of workplace laws. Expect that to happen here.

(4) This Bill Is Made For Sellin’

Baucus wrote this bill to reduce political resistance, not to be effective. He chose key constituencies and took out the things they might disagree with, e.g. no fine on small businesses, subsidies for “the poor” (67% of Americans), no illegal aliens, etc. However, by doing this, he’s set up the incentives just mentioned that will warp the job market and he’s jamming a time bomb into the heart of the federal budget.

Incidentally, nothing really applies until 2013, except for the taxes, which begin immediately. Maybe the Mayans were right?


2. Your Obligation To Get Coverage

Beginning on June 30, 2013, after Obama is safely re-elected, you will be required to obtain “essential health benefits coverage.” (§ 1301)

“Essential health benefits coverage” means (1) your current health insurance (“grandfathered health benefits”), (2) an employer sponsored plan, (3) a qualified health benefits plan, (4) Medicare/Medicaid or military coverage, or (5) federal employees coverage.

There does not appear to be any prohibition on you obtaining additional non-qualified coverage, but it will not count to satisfy your obligation under this bill.

(1) Existing Forms of Coverage

As noted, you can keep your current plan as a grandfathered plan. (§ 2221)

Federal employees also get to keep their plans. . . of course.

Medicaid coverage will be expanded to cover anyone with incomes as low as 133% of the poverty level. However, anyone between 100% and 133% of the poverty level can instead elect to get coverage from the “Exchange” (see below) rather than Medicaid.

(2) An Employer Sponsored Plan

Coverage can also come from an employer plan.

Baucus has dramatically changed the requirements on business from those in the House bill. Unlike the House bill, which requires all employers to provide health insurance, Baucus seems to have limited that requirement to any company with 50 or more full time employees. There is a $400 fine per employee if coverage is not offered. (§ 1306) (The employer must report your coverage to the IRS. (§ 1307)).

When it comes to small business, I cannot find a requirement that they provide you with health care, nor can I find a fine if they fail to provide such health care. Hence, you can see the incentive to reduce the number of full time employees. A small business has fewer than 50 full time employees. “Full time employees” includes any employee who works 30 or more hours per week, but does not include temporary workers or seasonal workers (which may include construction workers and farm workers).

For small businesses with fewer than 25 “full time equivalents” (any employee who works 30+ hours a week), there will be a subsidy to provide health insurance. (§ 1221) This subsidy will equal 50% of the employer’s contribution less (1) the amount of the credit multiplied by the number of full time equivalent employees above 10 divided by 15; and (2) the amount of the credit multiplied by the average annual wages of the employer above $20,000 divided by $20,000. Simple huh?

(3) A “Qualified Health Benefits Plan”

If you aren’t offered employer coverage, you can buy health care directly from an exchange.

The exchanges will be set up by the states, which remain responsible for regulating the insurance industry. (§ 2225) Exchanges can be set up within states or within regions by groups of states.

The exchanges must offer coverage in four levels. Each of these levels is designed to provide a level of benefits equal to a certain percentage of the actuarial value -- basically, the percent they intend to pay: Bronze (65% of actuarial value); Silver (70%), Gold (80%) and Platinum (90%). (§ 2241, § 2243)

There can also be a catastrophic plan, but only for people under the age of 26.

(4) Fines On You For Non-Compliance

If you fail to get the required coverage, you will owe a tax, which you must include with your income tax return. (FYI, you will also be fined for dependents and for spouses who file jointly.) Though, interestingly, the government cannot take collection action against you for not paying, except to offset tax overpayments or benefits payments. There can be no penalty or interest charged for non-payment.

This tax will be equal to $200 per person without insurance in 2014, but will rise to $750 per person who lacks insurance by 2017, and will thereafter increase using a cost-of-living adjustment. (§ 1301)

Thus, unlike the House version of this bill, the fine is significantly lower and there are no criminal penalties.

For those who can’t afford the premiums, there is a hardship exemption. If the premiums charged by your employer’s plan or the premiums charged by the cheapest plan in the state exchange exceed 8% of your income, then you are excused from the requirement to get health care. Of course, you won’t have coverage, but at least you can rest assured that your higher taxes are delivering health insurance to people who can afford to buy it now, but have refused to do so.

(5) Subsidies To You: “Premium Assistance”

There is also a subsidy (“premium assistance”) for people in certain income groups (§ 1205) -- this will be paid directly to the insurers (§ 2247).

The amount of the subsidy is determined using a ratio of the portion of your income that exceeds 100% of the poverty level divided by 200% of the poverty level. That is multiplied by 10% and added to 2% and then the whole thing dissolves into gibberish. If I read this correctly, the subsidy will cover most Americans, making it unsustainable. The amount of the subsidy seems to be capped at 10% of the cost of the policy.

Illegal aliens don’t qualify for the subsidy.

Low income persons (read: 67% of Americans) also can expect some reduction in their co-payments as follows 2/3 reduction for anyone at 100-200% of the poverty level; 1/2 reduction for anyone between 200-300% of the poverty level; and 1/3 reduction for anyone between 300-400% of the poverty level. (§ 2247)


3. Requirements To Be Considered “Qualified Health Benefits Plan”

To be considered a qualifying plan, the insurer/plan must agree to the following rate restrictions, must provide the following benefits, and must comply with certain restrictions/requirements.

(1) Rate Restrictions

The Baucus bill limits the factors that insurers may use to adjust the rates charged under the plan. Under Baucus, insurers can only adjust your rate for the following factors (§ 2204):

• Family size. Two adults may be charged twice what one adult can be charged. An adult with a child may be charged 1.8 times what a single adult may be charged. A family of any other size may be charged a maximum of three times what a single adult may be charged.

• Age. The highest-charged group may be charged as much as four times what the lowest-charged group gets charged.

• Tobacco use. Tobacco users may be charged up to 1.5 times what a non-user gets charged.

It is not clear if these can be cumulative, e.g. can you charge an old smoker four times as much as a young non-smoker or six times as much? In any event, these can still lead to significant differences in premiums.

(2) Required Benefits

The Baucus bill also requires that any qualifying plan provide the following “essential benefits package” (§ 2242):

• Hospitalization
• Outpatient clinics and emergency services
• Professional services (physicians and other health professionals)
• Surgical care
• Services, equipment, supplies incident to providing health care at hospitals, physicians offices, or patient homes
• Prescription drugs
• Rehabilitation services
• Mental health and substance use disorder services
• Preventative services, including vaccines
• Maternity benefits
• Well baby, well child, oral health, vision and hearing for children under 21

However, what this means is left up to the insurer, so don’t expect that there won’t be huge variances between policies or fights over what is and what isn’t covered.

(3) Limitations On Insurer

Insurers must also accept the following limits/requirements:

• There can be no co-pays or other “cost sharing” on preventative medicine.

• Deductibles will be limited to $2,000 per person and $4,000 per plan.

• Insurers may not impose annual coverage limits.

• Insurers may not impose lifetime coverage limits.

• Insurers may not impose pre-existing condition exclusions. (§ 2202)

• Insurers may not impose health status limits or terminate coverage because you get sick. (§ 2202)

• Insurers must accept all applicants, without discrimination, up to the capacity limits (i.e. the total number of people the insurer has offered to cover each year). (§ 2203)

• Insurers may not refuse to renew a policy or rescind a policy. (§ 2203)

None of these are particularly surprising.


4. Hot Button Issues

Next we come to the hot button issues. These are surprising.


• Illegal Aliens. Baucus forbids covering illegal aliens. (§ 2232) BUT, he knows that they will continue to do what they do now, which is to appear at hospitals without coverage. Thus, the federal government will continue to reimburse those costs through other programs. Basically, this is misleading.


• Abortion. (§ 2245). Oh boy. This one is confusingly written, I suspect intentionally so. Let’s cut to the chase. No insurer will be forced to provide abortion services, but they all can.

When it comes to funding, it appears that insurers will fall into one of two categories. In the first category, the use of any federal money for abortions will be prohibited. Thus, you will be able to join an insurer that is prohibited from using federal money to provide abortions. BUT, the insurers in the second category apparently will be allowed to use federal money to provide abortions.

HHS will be required to make sure that there is at least one of each plan available to everyone.

I suspect this is set up so that both groups can be told that they have won this debate.


• Abstinence Education. (§ 1804) For reasons unknown, Baucus wades into the abstinence debate, restoring funds for abstinence education. Keep it in your pants kids. . . oh, and stay in school.


• Assisted Suicide. (§ 1921) This one is confusing as well. Baucus very clearly states that no provider or insurer who receives funds under this act may participate in assisted suicide in any way. BUT then Baucus says that this prohibition doesn’t apply to withholding or withdrawing medical care, withholding or withdrawing nutrition or hydration. So I guess you can let people die from neglect, but you can’t kill-kill them.


5. No Public Option

There does not appear to be a public option in this bill. It does require HHS to establish co-op plans (of multiple insurers) to make sure that enough plans exist in each market to satisfy the obligations set forth within the bill, i.e. so that there are four levels of plans and/or plans that provide the required benefits. (§ 1401). But as currently written, this does not appear to be a public option.

FYI, Deranged Nancy Pelosi told CNBC today that, "according to the polls", support for the public option "continues to grow, into the 60%" range. Whether she's just lying or deluded, expect her to demand that a public option be added to the Baucus bill.


6. How Do We Pay For This?

Finally, how do we pay for this plan? Baucus imposes a number of taxes that will increase all aspects of the costs of health care:

• A yearly tax on manufactures and importers of branded prescription pharmaceuticals. (§ 6008)

• A yearly tax on manufacturers and importers of medical devices. (§ 6009)

• An annual fee on health insurance providers. (§ 6010)

• Health care providers may no longer deduct certain high salaries. (§ 6014)

Every one of these taxes will be added to the price of the product, which means that most of this tax (at least half) will be charged right back to the government. Stupid huh? The other half will be paid by . . . you.

There are also tax changes aimed at individuals:

• A 40% tax on any “excess benefits” you get from your employer. Excess benefits are benefits that cost your employer more than $8,000 for an individual plan or $21,000 for family coverage (these amounts go up to $9,850 and $25,000 in certain blue states. . . er, high cost states, and for certain “high risk professions” including emergency responders, construction workers, miners, farmers, forestry workers and fishing industry workers ). (§ 6001)

• An increase in the tax penalty on unqualified distributions from your HSAS from 10% to 20%. (§ 6004)

• Further limits on the deductibility of unreimbursed health care expenses when you itemize. You must now exceed 10% of gross income rather than 7.5% to deduct. (§ 6013)

Right now, I can’t price how much these taxes will bring in or what the bill will actually cost. But it's clear that the figures are so false that Baucus should be charged with fraud. My guess is that these taxes will cover the cost of the program until the bill actually kicks in four years later, then all hell will break loose in the budget.

That’s it for now. Go forth and medicate.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Deranged Fun! ;-)

Sometimes I wonder what it was like to have Bush Derangement Syndrome: angry liberals foaming at the mouth, spewing hate every time they heard Bush’s name, blaming every one of their own failures on Dick Cheney, who apparently hid under a lot of beds in the past ten years. Ah, blame, is there no personal failure you cannot soothe?! Let’s try on a little Obama Derangement Syndrome for fun today, just to see how it feels. How do we do that you ask? Let’s start with this innocuous story. . .

On Monday, the crazed baboons that make up the Iranian government accused the United States and Britain of directly backing a suicide bomber who killed six of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. Oh, stop snickering. You and I know Obama’s a pansy, but the Iranians don’t, so don’t spoil it for them. Besides, this is the type of story liberals used to run with. So put on your running shoes and keep up!

The Iranian “media” said (via note strapped to a goat that reached an AP reporter) that the Sunni Muslim insurgent group Jundollah (not to be confused with Bobby Jindahl) claimed responsibility for a suicide bomber who set off a bomb in the Sistan-Baluchestan province, killing 42 people including six senior commanders of the IRG. Said guard commander-in-chief Mohammad Ali “the Bumblebee” Jafari, Iran has been presented with documents proving “direct ties” between Jundollah and the United States and Britain, possibly including the IRG’s finding a McDonalds Royale With Cheese wrapper in the debris.

Fair enough. No big deal right? WRONG! Clearly, Obama is waging an illegal war against Iran! How do we know? Because Bumblebee said so dammit! What motive could he possibly have to lie? None! Nothing! Nada! Zip! The Iranians are blameless holy creatures who have suffered too long under the oppressive policies of Obama and his secret corporate friends.

What? Why are you shaking your head. Oh, you don’t think Obama has a motive? I’ll tell you his motive. He hates Arabs. Yep, and children. Granted, no children were killed, but we know he hates children and he clearly was hoping children would die in this explosion. *sniff* I feel so used as an American citizen that my government. . . no, not my government, THE illegal Obama government would try to kill Arab children in Iran.

What do you mean Iranians aren’t Arabs? Whose side are you on? You must work for the Obama administration! Hater. Let’s look it up on the internet, I’m sure there’s some trustworthy blog that will confirm my opinions, and if not I’ll make one. . . fine, I’ll look it up.

WhatareIranians.com says. . . Persians. Oh, but they’re part of the system. What does wikipedia say. . . nutjobs. Outrageous! Oh wait, there it is. . .

As I said, Obama hates Persians. . . and children. . . and children of Persians. . . and polar bear genitalia, but that’s a different issue. Clearly he wants to destabilize (more) Iran so that his sneaky friends can impose a world government on Iran and take away the rights they enjoy right now, which are SOOOOOO much more rights than anything we have in this country. They have freedom of speech and freedom from hurtful speech, freedom from most religions, freedom to save the environment and freedom to be free, freedoms we just don’t have here under hateful Democratic administrations!

Where is Hugo Chavez in this? Your Persian brothers are dying Hugo! Where is Frank Murtha to accuse American soldiers of war crimes? Where is Nancy Pelosi to call for hearings? Where is Code Pink to disrupt bake sales? Where is Jimmy Carter to assure us that he knows our government really did this?

You know what? I can’t do this anymore. Sure, I can fake it. But I don’t feel it. We all know that Obama’s no warrior. He’s an indecisive idiot. He probably doesn’t even know where Iran is. There’s no way he has an Iran policy. . . probably just wants to “talk” to them. Yeah, let me know how that works out for ya bud.

I guess you really have to be nuts to suffer from a derangement syndrome.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Copenhagen: Danger Will Robinson. . .

Many of you have probably heard us mention the Copenhagen Treaty in passing. This week, the Copenhagen Treaty took center stage when Margaret Thatcher’s former science advisor, Lord Christopher Monchton, warned us that the United States was about to hand over its sovereignty to a world government. Let’s discuss. . .


What Monchton Said

On Wednesday night at an event sponsored by the Minnesota Free Market Institute, Lord Monchton warned that Obama intended to sign something called the Copenhagen Treaty in December of this year. This 200 page treaty, according to Monchton, would create a “world government” which would draft environmental regulations, which each signatory to the treaty would be required to enforce. This “government” also would oversee the transfer of wealth from the West to third world countries, to satisfy something called a “climate debt” based on the idea that the West has caused more pollution than the rest of the world.

Monchton then stated that if Obama signs the treaty, it will take precedence over the Constitution, and that the United States could not withdraw from the treaty without the agreement of all other treaty signatories.

Is he right? Not quite, though there is reason to be concerned.


What Is The Copenhagen Treaty?

Between December 7-18, 2009, the United Nations Climate Change Conference will meet in Copenhagen, Denmark for the purposes of completing a treaty (the Copenhagen Treaty) that will replace the Kyoto Treaty, which expires in 2012.

The Kyoto Treaty (actually the Kyoto Protocol) is an environmental treaty negotiated through the United Nations, which aims to achieve “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” In other words, the treaty aims to force countries to cut their “greenhouse gas emissions” to levels that will not affect the climate. The term “anthropogenic inference” is bureau-speak for “human activity.”

Kyoto was adopted in December 1997 and took effect in February 2005. As of October 2009, 184 countries have signed and ratified the treaty. However, Kyoto does not apply equally. Under Kyoto, only 37 industrialized countries must make cuts -- they must reduce various “greenhouse gases” by 5% from their 1990 levels. These gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride, hydroflurocarbons, and perfluorocarbons.

The remaining countries are not required to cut their emissions at all. These are the so-called “developing countries.” This includes both China and India, even though both are heavy polluters. Indeed, as of August 2008, China is the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases. India is third, just behind the United States.

It was because the developing countries were not included that the United States government never ratified Kyoto. On November 12, 1998, Vice President Algore symbolically signed the protocol, even though he acknowledged that the protocol would not be acted upon by the United States until the developing nations were required to participate. And indeed, the Clinton Administration never submitted the treaty to the Senate for ratification.

The Bush Administration also refused to submit the treaty to the Senate for ratification.

Many environmentalists thought Obama would submit the treaty to the Senate, but he too has refused. In April 2009, Obama said that “it doesn’t make sense for the United States to sign the Kyoto Protocol because it is about to end.”

The Copenhagen Treaty is an attempt to replace the Kyoto Treaty when it expires in 2012. Obama has not committed to signing that treaty yet.


What Does The Copenhagen Treaty Do?

Does the Copenhagen Treaty do what Monchton states? Unfortunately, I can’t tell you because there does not appear to be any draft of the Copenhagen Treaty available for the public to read. Thus, I have no way to confirm whether or not Monchton is correct in his assertion that the treaty includes the word “government” -- not to mention that negotiations on the treaty are not complete.

Indeed, the Treaty is 200 pages long, and at least 2000 of its parts are in dispute. From comments made by Obama’s chief negotiator, Todd Stern, there are at least two major issues that may result in the total failure of the Copenhagen conference: (1) Obama wants China, India, Brazil, South Africa and other developing nations to cut their own emissions, which is not going over too well with those countries, and (2) negotiations have been deadlocked for months about who will pay to help developing countries go low-carbon (estimated cost: $100 billion a year). The developing nations want the West to pay for this, the West has refused.

We also know that Obama has refused to agree to the limits wanted by treaty proponents. At the G8 conference in July, the G8 industrial nations agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, which they hoped would limit global warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels. This is actually less restrictive than the Kyoto Treaty. Thus, the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said this was not enough. Nevertheless, this appears to be what Obama is proposing for Copenhagen. (Big business has also signed on to this level of cuts and is actively pushing for adoption of laws that would apply these limits to their smaller competitors.)

Beyond that, there is not much that can be said of the treaty at this time.


So Should We Be Worried?

Of course we should be worried. We should never trust treaties or legislation that is not made available for the public to read. Also, the third world has a history of using these treaties to get goodies from guilt-ridden western diplomats. Further, the environmental/socialist movement has a long history now of using these treaties as attacks on capitalism and as attempts to steal national sovereignty. Likewise, big business has a long history of using such regulations to tie the hands of their smaller competitors.

Yet, there is no reason to panic just yet.

Obama can sign this thing in blood if he wants to, but that doesn’t make it law. Before any treaty can become legally binding under United States law, the treaty must be submitted to the Senate for ratification. When (if) that happens, we will get a chance to see the treaty and assess it -- at which point we can make a rational assessment of the treaty and Obama’s negotiating skills, and we can challenge what needs to be challenged. Shadowboxing against something we cannot read or see is counter-productive.

Also, it’s not at all clear that a treaty can hand over significant legislative control to a foreign body. While it is true that a treaty, once ratified, becomes the same as United States law, it still must comply with the requirements of the Constitution. In other words, a treaty could not be used to do anything that the government could not do on its own -- though this may be small conciliation if it still allows significant legislation to be made. Though, that brings up the next question: can Congress cede its legislative duties to a foreign body? This is unlikely because of the clear responsibilities set out by the Constitution -- though I am unaware of this issue having been resolved before (probably because no one has tried to do this before).

Finally, on Lord Monchton’s point about the United States being trapped once it signs, it should be pointed out that “international law” is based on a false premise -- that it is enforceable. The reality is that international law is voluntary. Those who teach international law will cringe at that, but they are deluding themselves. Treaties are voluntary agreements. Sure they can claim to have “binding effect” and there is a whole pile of confused “law” which you can use to interpret those treaties and the such. . . blah blah blah, but the truth is that there is no organization out there that enforces those agreements. No international sheriff is going to come padlock the doors to the United States. Thus, these agreements are not “binding” or “enforceable” in any real sense of those words. And if the United States chooses to renounce the treaty or to simply ignore it, there is no force that will make the United States live up to the treaty.


Conclusion

So in the end, we should thank Lord Monchton for raising this issue and we should be wary of what is going on in Copenhagen. But at the same time, that is all we should do. The ball is in Obama’s court. If and when he gets a treaty completed and signed, then we should examine it closely and blast him for his failures. In the meantime, keep your powder dry.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama Calls Obama A Liar. . .

This week we found out just how high Obama shoveled the Pelosi when he told the public how many jobs his stimulus plan had created and how many more it would create. Not surprisingly, Honest Barack’s projections proved to be laughably bogus (overstated by a factor of twenty-five), and his claims of “verifiable job creation” were flat out false (overstated by a factor of five).

Let’s step into the way back machine. The year is 2008. The horrible Bush economy is wheezing along at a miserable 6.9% unemployment. A whopping total of 10.6 million of Americas 155 million workers are unemployed. It’s hopeless.

But there is a light shining in the tunnel of economic despair. . . Barack Obama. Candidate Obama stood proudly in the town square and promised that he could favor us with five million jobs with one shake of his job-giving beads! Hallelujah! A new age was about to dawn.

Fast forward a few weeks. As Obama assumed the position behind his desk in the Oval Office, he changed the deal. Now he would deliver only 3.5 million jobs, and he would take until January 2011 to do it. The other 1.5 million would have to fend for themselves. Moreover, he would not shake his magic beads until we agreed to pass a little stimulus. The price tag on the stimulus bill was $787 billion (not counting the $152 billion already provided in the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 or the $700 billion spent on the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)).

Thus, depending on what you included, Obama’s plan called for spending either $939 billion or $1.649 trillion to create those 3.5 million jobs. That works out to either $286,285 or $471,142 per job. Still, we needed the jobs and the man’s got magic beads. . .

Fast forward again, this time to June 2009. The stimulus passed, the beads were shaken. But something went wrong. Unemployment skyrocketed to 9.8%, with 14.5 million people unemployed!! That’s right, 3.9 million more people were unemployed than before he shook the magic beads! That's 3.9 million people who had jobs under the evil W.

Stay calm, Obama assured us. . . things were starting to work. The stimulus had already created 150,000 jobs. Oh thank God! Of course, those 3.5 million jobs wouldn’t replace the 3.9 million he had lost, but they would certainly help. And even though those 150,000 jobs represented a mere 4% of what he’d promised, to be fair, he’d only spent $719 billion of the stimulus at that point. That’s around $4.8 million per job.

So Obama made another bold promise. He would shake his beads again and create 600,000 jobs within the next 100 days. And these would be permanent, private sector jobs. This claim was backed up numerous times by Joe “The Truth” Biden, who swore on the grave of his dear departed sympathy ploy, that the stimulus was working. In fact, only a heartless, unAmerican fascist pig could possible suggest that the stimulus wasn’t working.

Fast forward to the present, just over 100 days later. Thursday, Team Obama released a report that determined that all of 30,383 jobs have been created by the stimulus. Not 750,000. . . not 600,000. . . not 150,000. . . 30,383. That’s one fifth of what Obama claimed in June, and 1/25th of what he promised. And that makes him a liar.

Further, while the White House claims these jobs cost us only $71,500 each, the actual number is closer to $34 million per job.

I don’t know about you, but I’m pretty sure I can better than that.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama Agenda: The Environment

Let's continue our discussion of Obama’s agenda. Obama is not an environmentalist, that's obvious from his lack of passion and his fealty to the unions. Though, he must placate his base, which includes environmentalists. However, as previously discussed, the environmental movement has been partially co-opted by socialists who want to remake the American economy. Hence, his policies are a mix of liberal environmentalism (forced conservation, massive subsidies, pet projects) and down right socialism masquerading as environmental policy.

Obama's environmental policies come in four parts. The first two are premised on liberal environmentalism. The other two are pure socialism.


Part One: Alternative Energies

Obama's stated goal is to ensure that by 2025, 25% of our energy comes from solar, wind, biofuel, and geothermal sources (note the absence of natural gas and nuclear). To achieve this, he proposes:

• Weatherizing one million homes annually.

• Pouring $150 billion into alternative fuel technology.

This is fairly standard liberal environmentalism. Obama believes that by picking "winners" and subsidizing them, he can bend the laws of physics and economics. But reality tells us otherwise. Physics bends for no one and the history of subsidies is a history of waste, fraud, and failure. Indeed, subsidies keep better solutions from emerging, and thus ultimately prove entirely counter productive. But that's the kind of solution you get from the left.

Undeterred, Obama has already spent considerable amounts toward these goals. For example, the stimulus bill included five billion dollars to weatherize low-income homes. This may cover 500,000 homes by the end of 2009, if you believe the estimates. More insidiously, cap and trade, currently D.O.A. in the Senate, includes a provision that would require an environmental inspection for all homes prior to sale, with the homeowner being required to raise the energy efficiency of the home before a sale would be allowed. If this passes, look for home sales to plummet, fixer-uper’s to disappear, and poor people to be priced out of the housing market.

The stimulus also included $18 billion in grants and loans to renewable energy companies, $100 billion in tax credits, and $6 billion to modernize the nation’s electricity grid. The FY2010 budget inclues another $39 billion in spending and $20 billion in tax incentives on renewable energy.

Obama claims this will generate five million "green" jobs, though the history of subsidies says otherwise.

The cap and trade bill also includes a requirement that utility companies produce 20% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

Despite all of this, the Energy Information Administration estimates that all of the above will only increase the share of electricity generated from renewable sources to 15.8% by 2030 from its current 7%.


Part Two: End Dependence on Foreign Oil

Obama next proposes to reduce our oil consumption by 35% by 2030. That would represent an amount equal to what we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela (combined). Here's how:

• Increasing fuel economy (CAFE) standards for vehicle fleets.

• Putting one million plug-in hybrid (American made) cars on the road by 2015.

• Implementing a $7,000 tax credit for buying a hybrid.

Obama’s Dept. of Transporation is drafting rules that will require cars and trucks (not previously included) to be 5% more efficient each year until 2016. They will also require that the amount of ethanol or biodiesel used in the US increases from 9 billion blended gallons to 36 billion gallons by 2022.

As for Obama’s hybrid goal, current hybrid sales rates are approximately 175,000 a year, so he may just get his wish. But none of them are American made.


Part Three: Stop “climate change”

This is where Obama's environmental policy loses touch with environmentalism and drives fully into socialism. Obama's goal here is to save the world from "climate change" by:

• Implementing an economy-wide cap and trade program to reduce “greenhouse gas” emissions by 80% by 2050.

• Developing and deploying clean coal technology.

The undistorted scientific evidence is clear that all of the claims that the Earth is heating up are wrong, the assertions that "carbon causes warming" are false, and the idea that mankind contributes significantly to carbon emissions is an obvious lie. Indeed, as we pointed out before, everything mankind does represents around 3% of all carbon emissions. It is thus logically impossible to rationally conclude that capping carbon will have any effect on global temperatures.

Obama knows this. Yet he's proposing a cap and trade bill, that will severely damage or retard the American economy. Why would he propose a painful cure, that can't work, for a disease that isn't real? Because the socialists in the environmental lobby want to remake the American economy along European-socialist lines.

Not coincidentally, 65% of Americans oppose cap and trade.


Part Four: Punish oil companies and speculators

Finally, Obama proposes a little classic socialism, consisting of class warfare and redistribution. This has never worked before, but, like a typical liberal, he thinks he can make it work. Go figure? Here's his plan:

• Enact a “windfall profits” tax and redistribute the proceeds to poor people in the form of $1,000 energy rebates.

• End tax loopholes (read: deductions) for oil and gas companies.

• Limit “excessive energy speculation.”

• Implement a “use it or lose” it approach to existing oil and gas leases.

Obama’s FY2010 budget ended around $30 billion (over ten years) in tax deductions for oil and gas companies. Beyond that, he hasn’t bothered with any of these promises.


So that’s Obama’s environmental agenda, a mixture of heavy-handed, ineffective and stupid environmental ideas (with obvious “unintented consequences” that they are overlooking) and flat out socialism. That’s why Obama has only a 43% approval rating on environmental issues.


Note: Unless otherwise indicated, everything above comes from Obama’s own website.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Peace In Our Minds. . .

You don’t have to be stupid to be a member of the Norgie Prize Patrol, but it helps. And you don’t have to be naive to handle Obama’s foreign policy, but that helps too. So what happens when you mix liberal and stupid with liberal and naive? You get nuclear war. Let’s quiz the Prize Patrol. . .

For those of you who missed it, the Norgie Prize Patrol has been under fire ever since giving Obama a surprise Norgie. Many critics asked what Obama had done to possibly warrant receiving such an award. Other suggested it was too soon. To you, committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland responds: “We simply disagree. He got the prize for what he has done. Who has done more for [peace] than Barack Obama?”

So what has he done you ask? Well, Jagland is nothing if not prepared to answer that question. First, he singled out Obama’s efforts to heal the divide between the West and Muslim world. Of course, he didn’t seem to know that only 19% of Americans think that our relations with the Muslim world will improve. And he apparently didn’t read the Palestinian memo that said: "All hopes placed in the new US administration and President Obama have evaporated." That’s not good right? Maybe he also missed the fact that Israel is planning to bomb Iran before Christmas?

Hmm. I’m gonna have to call bull on that one Jagoff. What else you got?

Obama also eliminated the Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe: “[This] has contributed to -- I wouldn’t say a safer world -- but a world with less tension.”

Uh, wow.

So the European view is that being unable to defend yourself from a missile attack by a group of nutjobs who want to turn your cities into slag reduces the tension in Europe? You people must love being robbed. Do your sports teams play to lose? Do you all stuffer from Stockholm Syndrome? Do Norwegians pass out blackmail material about themselves on the street -- “ya, this ist me und mein sexy Schnauzer. . . I love beingk blackmailed.” You, my dear Jagoff, are sick. . . seek help.

But even putting your national masochism aside, let me point out that you also are a stupid, stupid man. Obama gave the Russians exactly what they wanted by showing weakness, by submitting to Putin, and by eliminating the missile shield. He crawled, he begged, and I’m pretty sure he cried. . . “can’t we all just get along?” And what did this get him? A proverbial beat down.

This week the Russians announced that they will not allow sanctions against Iran: "There is no need to frighten the Iranians," Putin told reporters in Beijing. So much for Obama’s master plan.

And do you want to hear what this did to your “tensions” Jagoff?

Russian Presidential Security Council chief Nikolai Patrushev declared Monday that Russia reserves the right to use pre-emptive nuclear strikes on both a “large, regional and even local” scale to safeguard Russia from aggression. But lest you think Patrushev was only talking about smoking Poland or Georgia, he specifically singled out Obama’s United States and NATO as foes who still pose threats to Russia. He noted for example, that

“activity on receiving new members into NATO is not ceasing. The military activity of the bloc is stepping up. U.S. strategic forces are conducting intensive training on using strategic nuclear weapons.”

How about them tense apples!

Interestingly, this interview was given at the same time that Hillary Clinton was in Russia prostrating herself at the foot of the Russian bear. Said our naive Secretary of State,

"We have people in our government and you have people in your government who are still living in the past. They do not believe that the United States and Russia can cooperate to this extent. They do not trust each other. And we have to prove them wrong. That is our goal. Our goal is to be as cooperative as we can."

I wonder who in Obama’s cabinet is living in the past? Biden? Rahm? I’m pretty sure I know who it is in Russia. . . some guy called Putin. Apparently, Hillary wanted to meet with this “Putin”, but he blew her off. Oops, sorry, they couldn’t get together. Said a red-faced Hillary:

"I would have enjoyed meeting with Prime Minister Putin and we certainly had intended to do so but our schedules didn't allow us, so I am looking forward to seeing him on a future date."

Yeah, sure Hillary. I’m sure it isn’t a lack respect. I’m sure it’s just that Putin’s schedule is so busy that he just couldn’t make time to meet with the U.S. Secretary of State to discuss nuclear weapons. . . after all, he’s got a lot of socks to sort out before they ease a few tensions on Georgia.

So back to the Norgie. Tell me again Jagoff what Obama did to warrant getting this award? Oh, that’s all you got. Maybe Ms. Aagot Valle, a lefter-wing Norwegian politician who joined the Norgie Committee this year, has something to add?



Aagot Valle, noted idiot.




What do you say about the suggestion that Obama hasn’t earned this award yet madam? “Don't you think that comments like that patronize Obama?” No, actually, I think they patronize you, sweetie. Didn’t you think there would be criticism of your stupid vote?

“Where do these people come from?” The critics? You didn’t expect any criticism for this? What kind of liberal bubble do you live in? Oh, that’s right, Norway -- I’ll bet you read the New York Times too, don’t you? “Of course I expected disagreement and debate.” Clearly not, based on your surprised (and very liberal-bubblish) reaction.

“Of course, all arguments have to be considered seriously. I'm not afraid of a debate on the Peace Prize decision. That's fine.” Great, so lay it on me. Prove this vast army of critics wrong. What say you about this argument that Obama is undeserving? “I take note of it. My response is only the judgment of the committee, which was unanimous.”

That’s it? Well that’s stupid. Just because everyone else made the same mistake doesn’t mean it’s not a mistake. Are you sure you're not afraid of debate?

“What I want now is that we seriously raise a discussion regarding nuclear disarmament.” Sorry toots, no can do. See, when you act like the world’s biggest dumbass, people don’t look beyond your dipsh*tocity and then engage in the debate you hoped they’d have. They talk about how stupid you are. . . and trust me, you got a lot of people talking.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

This Time I Agree With The Democrats

That's right, I agree with the Democrats. Strange huh? Here’s the what and why. Democratic Representative Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) has introduced a bill to require the FCC to prohibit commercials from being shockingly loud, and I support that. Get off my lawn you damn kids!!!

Nobody likes loud commercials. . . nobody. I don’t know anyone who hasn’t complained about them at some point or another. People I know clutch their remotes waiting to mute the commercials. Others complain repeatedly to their cable companies and the networks, but to no avail. This is more than a minor annoyance.


The networks are aware of this. I’ve seen a dozen interviews in which network executives felt compelled to address the sheer volume of complaints they received on this topic. Most lied. I recall an executive for the Sci-Fi Channel (aka NBC, aka USA Network, aka AMC, aka Bravo, etc.) once ludicrously claiming that they had no control over the volume of the commercials. Like helpless sheep they could only play what they were given. Pathetic.

So with the networks refusing to address this issue and with vast armies of people nearing riot stage, Congress stepped in last year with the Commercial Advertising Loudness Mitigation Act (CALM). What this law did was to limit the loudness of commercials to a maximum of the loudest part of the program during which they were shown. But this didn’t work. If the show included a gun shot, a falling plate, or a shriek, the commercials still could be jarringly loud. Advertisers also found ways to cheat by compressing the sound, which gives greater volume without violating the upper limit.

So Congress is stepping in again. Rep. Eshoo (. . . gesundheit) will hold hearings with the intent of giving the FTC the power to prohibit commercials from being “excessively noisy or strident.” Good.

But wait, the industry says, they’ll fix the problem. Yeah sure. According to Mark Richer, president of the Advanced Television Systems Committee, a “nonprofit” (aka “lobbying organization”) whose members include broadcast networks and cable operators, ATSC is working to develop “voluntary standards” to fix this problem:

“We’ve been working for over two years to help broadcasters, cable operators, and others to come up with a uniform strategy so we can minimize the subjective perception of the volume change during commercials.”

Well, if you put it that way, what were we thinking? Clearly, it takes more than two years and the threat of Congressional action to write the following phrase on a napkin: “Let’s not turn up the volume on the commercials”! (Assuming it even needs an agreement. . . or a napkin.)

Sorry Mark, no one’s buying your el toro kaka. Why you ask? Because I can translate lobbying-whore speak into English, and here’s what you said:

“After ignoring this 'problem' for years, we were horrified when Congress started to act. So we created a fake industry group to pretend to create a solution to the problem, in the hopes that Congress wouldn’t act and we could keep doing exactly what we had been doing. But Congress acted anyways.

Fortunately for us, Congress blew it and we found glorious, glorious loopholes. But now they want to plug those loopholes. So we again ask that you not act. Trust us to fix this problem. . . a problem that we not only failed to address for twenty years, but that we lied about and that even now we won’t admit exists.”

That’s what Mark would have said if he wasn’t lacking the shame gene. Oh, and be sure to note his description of the problem as a “subjective perception.” That’s legal speak for “something that stupid people claim to believe in, but we all know isn’t a real problem, wink wink.”

So should we trust the same people who created this problem, have allowed it to grow unchecked for twenty years, and profit from it? Should we trust them to fix that same problem with voluntary standards? Don’t make me laugh.

But I’m a conservative with libertarian leanings. Should I really support regulation? Actually, there’s no inconsistency here. Here’s why:

In a functioning market environment, new companies will move into a market to satisfy consumer demand if the companies in the market fail or refuse. This is called market discipline. But when companies are insulated from competition, there is no market discipline. What you get is called market failure.

Market failure alone does not necessarily warrant regulation, though it should be a prerequisite. But when the market failure is caused by an oligopoly market (like the television industry), regulation becomes much more warranted. And in this instance, there is one more factor that pushes this over the top -- the oligopoly was created by the government.

The government created these oligopolies by rationing bandwidth, by allowing consolidation to the point of oligopoly, and by regulating what channels can (and must) appear on provider networks. This prevents competitors from appearing and allows the existing companies to hide behind the protections of government regulation.

When an oligopoly exists because of government action, then I have zero heartburn with regulating that oligopoly if it is non-responsive to consumer needs. If you want to make your living hiding behind government regulation, then we have the right to tell you what to do.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama"Care" Update

Ever since the Obamacrats produced their health care bill, I’ve been trying to get my hands on it. They won’t release it, because they’re afraid of you. Indeed, despite demands that the bill be available for viewing before it is voted upon, Sen. Baucus (D-Marx) has held this bill tighter to his chest than photos of himself sodomizing a poodle. But details have slipped out. . . this poodle talked.

Here are some of the recent nuggets of which you should be aware. First, my little Obama supporters, don’t expect to get coverage. Secondly, the amount of pain you and your state experience will depend on who your Senator is:

Coverage? You Don’t Get No Stinking Coverage

Most of Obama’s supporters are in for a shock on health care. Like greedy children staring at the big box under the (non-denominational) Christmas tree, they think that with the stroke of a pen, their Lord and Master Obama will provide them with government provided health insurance. Suddenly, keeping that second SUV doesn’t seem like such a hardship!

But guess what children, the box is empty. The Baucus bill provides government coverage by expanding Medicaid. But it doesn’t expand it very far. Under the Baucus bill, anyone making 133% or less of the poverty level will become eligible for free coverage. That’s anyone making $14,440 or less per year. The rest of you have to buy your own.

Yes, you read that right. If you make $14,441 or more, you don’t get coverage! What? That's not what you were promised? Just wait. . . there’s more. You will be required to buy your own coverage. Yep. No more skipping that cost just because you think you’re healthy. If you don’t buy insurance, you will be fined up to $1,900. And if you continue to refuse, you will be sent to jail and fined $25,000. You dirty, disloyal criminal.

But don’t worry, the Democrats feel your pain. They understand this could be a hardship: “For some people it's going to be a heavy lift,” said Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del. They just don’t care. Now that’s tough love!

By the way, ever wonder who will turn you in for not having insurance? Doctors. Isn’t it interesting that the Democrats don’t want doctors turning in illegal aliens because they don’t want to discourage them from getting needed medical treatment. . . but, somehow, that concern goes away when it comes to you?

So how will this play out? Let’s assume you make $15,000 a year. If you can find health insurance at the current private sector rates, you will now need to cough up $4,700 just for the insurance (on average, people spend another $2,500 out of pocket if they actually use it -- so we’ll just assume you can’t afford to use it. . . though you still need to buy it). Sounds like a great deal huh? Oh, it doesn’t? Well, fortunately, you have an out. Just pay the fine rich boy.

So what will Obamacare mean for you? It means that you will get to pay $1,900 of your $15,000 income to Obama so that others can have insurance. Aren’t you glad you voted for this clown? Make sure you write “Yes We Can” on your check. :-)

But don’t worry, at least you’ll get plenty of schadenfreude out of it. The Obamacrats are promising 15 new taxes on health care providers -- because nothing controls costs and encourages innovation better than tax hikes. The insurance industry now is also claiming that the cost of private insurance will go up 49% within 10 years -- that’s another $6,000 a year for a family of four.

Oh, and if your employer does decide to provide health insurance, as unlikely as that may seem, you will be required to enroll in that plan no matter what the cost. At least, you’ll get a tax credit to the extent the cost of the insurance exceeds 13% of your income. . . up to that, you’re on your own.

That's Democratic solutions for you. . .

(Not)Spreading The Pain: Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others

And there is one more really fascinating detail about which you should be aware (thanks to Cheryl for pointing this out). According to the Wall Street Journal, some groups are being exempted from the pain. . .

As mentioned above, ObamaCare works by expanding Medicaid (and by forcing the rest of you to help yourselves). Medicaid is paid for largely by state government, though they do receive some blockgrants from the feds.

According to the Journal, four states will have the federal government pick up the tag: Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island and Michigan. According to Harry Reid (D- NEVADA), these are the states that “are suffering the most.” Did I mention that Harry Reid, who is losing his re-election campaign in a big way in Nevada, represents Nevada? Perhaps that’s just a coincidence? Perhaps it’s also just a coincidence that Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan) and Ron Wyde (D-Oregon) sit on the Finance Committee, which drafted this bill?

But wait, there are more coincidences:

• Debbie Stabenow (D-UAW) and John Kerry (D-Masshole) got $5 billion dollars included in the bill to defray the costs of medical insurance for union members. How nice.

• Chucky Cheese Schumer (D-Wall Street) got a higher threshold for New Yorkers and Massholes before the feds start taxing your insurance benefits. So if you live in Kentucky, you get taxed on any plan that costs more than $21,000 a year. Chuck’s friends don’t get taxed until their plans cost $25,000 a year. Strangely, this increased threshold (which applies to only 17 states) applies almost entirely to blue states.

• Bob Menendez (D-Pfizer) of New Jersey got $1 billion in tax credits for New Jersey drug makers, to offset the taxes that Baucus is imposing on. . . drug makers.

And there’s more to come when this sucker hits the floor of the house!

So the next time you hear some self-righteous leftist whine that they are finally going to get theirs or that the Democrats somehow represent the little guy or are somehow ethical, you laugh in their dirty little face and you assure them that they are indeed about to get theirs. . .


Finally, let me state officially that it's time to throw Sen. Olympia Snowe (RINO-Traitorville) out of the Republican Party. Despite the utter immorality, stupidity, and futility of this bill, Snowe decided to betray America because: "when history calls, history calls." Ah yes, the logic of serial killers, dictators, quislings, and RINOs.



[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama Agenda: Gays

One of the interesting findings from last week’s Commentarama Poll was that few people understand Obama’s agenda. So let’s see if we can’t flesh that out (assuming there is an agenda). Fortuitously, Saturday night, Obama reaffirmed his agenda vis-à-vis gays.

Prior to the election, Obama backed gay rights in speeches and legislation 18 times, though as a candidate he refused to back gay marriage. This weekend he became only the second President to speak at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign (a gay group). In his speech, Obama repeated the following promises:

• To work with the Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which keeps states from recognizing gay marriages in other states. Right now 29 states have changed their constitutions to ban gay marriage. Six states recognize gay marriage and six more provide some level of spousal rights to gay couples. Though Obama has refused to outright support gay marriage, repealing the DOMA would be the same thing.

• To expand hate-crime laws to include sexual orientation through passage of the Matthew Sheppard Act, which has now been attached to the Department of Defense budget.

• To “reinvigorate enforcement” of hate crimes by the Department of Justice’s Criminal Section.

• To overturn the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that allows the military to expel openly gay soldiers.

• To prohibit work place discrimination based on sexual orientation or “gender identity or expression” (e.g. transgender and cross-dressing), by passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

• To appoint openly gay individuals, like David Heubner, who was appointed as the first openly gay ambassador to New Zealand.

In June of this year, Obama also extended some benefits to gay partners of federal employees, though he did not extend full benefits. The benefits extended will:

• Open up long-term care insurance.

• Allow federal employees to use their sick leave to care for a gay partner or the partner’s children.

• Allow gay partners of foreign-service employees to use medical facilities at overseas posts and get evacuations if necessary.

• Include same-sex partners and their children when calculating family size for overseas housing allocations.

• Extend current anti-discrimination rules in the federal workforce to cover transgender employees.

However, Obama did not extend the most sought after benefits -- health insurance and retirement benefits.

Despite these promises and actions, gay groups remain upset at Obama because he continues to refuse to endorse gay marriage. They are also upset that he did not extend full benefits to gay partners of federal workers. And they are upset that he refuses to set specific timelines for the promises above.

None of this should be surprising. As noted in my article outlining the make up of the Democratic Party, gays are one of the up and coming power tribes within the party, though they don’t control the leadership. Thus, it is in Obama's interest to promise them what they want, but to deliver sparingly, lest they get what they want and stop supporting the other identity tribes. And that is exactly what Obama has done here -- he's handed out a taste only. If he had wanted to, he could have done much more and could have set a time table for the rest. . . but that's not how tribal reciprocity works.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama's Unpopularity Analyzed

Now that el Presidente Obama has won the Norwegian Choice Award (“the Norgie”), it’s time to see what Americans think. . . you know, the people who hired him. Let’s analyze a few polls from Rasmussen, along with our own recent Commentarama poll. You may find this interesting. . .

The Great Polarizer

Obama’s approval rating is hovering right at 50%. But this figure hides the extreme feelings Obama engenders. Indeed, two thirds of Americans feel “strongly” about Obama one way or the other:

• Of the 50% that support Obama, “strongly approve” beats the more tepid “approve” by 32% to 18%. That’s almost 2 to 1.

• Of the 50% that disapprove, “strongly disapprove” beats mere “disapprove” by 35% to 15%. That’s slightly more than 2 to 1.

Thus, on either side, the feelings are rather intense. The reason for this strength of opinion could be that only 30% of Americans think Obama is acting in a bipartisan manner.

Our Commentarama Poll confirms this. While it's not surprising that 86% of you aren’t fans of Obama, it was surprising that 51% of you declared him the worst President ever. That's a surprisingly strong judgment given the total disaster that was Jimmy Carter.

When we asked you who is most happy with Obama, 73% of you indicated that the left was most happy with him, which fits with Rasmussen's finding that 71% of Americans think he’s a liberal (as compared to a moderate or conservative). This also suggests that Commentarama readers aren't convinced he's failed his supporters.

More interesting was your response when we asked who was the most unhappy with Obama. Of the four choices given, 64% of you responded with the center right or far right, and 34% of you responded with “the far left,” but only 2% of you responded with “the center left.” Indeed, the center left was the only choice to receive an insignificant number of votes. Thus, one can reasonably conclude that whatever Obama’s rhetoric, Commentarama readers believe that Obama has governed “center left,” not “far left.”

What We Have Here Is A Failure To Communicate

What is perhaps most interesting from the Commentarama poll was how few of you understand his policy goals. You are certainly a well informed audience and there is no doubt that you’re all attuned to politics. Thus, the idea that you don’t know what Obama’s policy goals are is telling. At the least, this represents a failure on his part to explain himself. But it could also mean that he has no real policies.

And when we say that you aren’t sure what his goals are, we mean it. Check out these numbers:

• 88% of you said you understand his health care reform goals. That sounds good until you realize that he’s been talking about health care reform for months -- even going so far as to outline his ideas in a national speech that most of you watched. Moreover, if you realize that 20% of you refused to answer this question (which we take as "none of the above"), that means only 59% of those who took the poll understand his goals.

• Only 51% of you claimed to understand his environmental goals. Though this falls to 35% when you factor in the “none of the aboves”.

• Only 33% (or 23%) of you claim to understand his goals for fixing the economy. Whatever his goals, 63% of you think this is the area where he’s failed the worst at achieving his goals

• Only 29% (or 20%) understand his education goals.

• Only 29% (or 20%) understand his foreign policy goals.

Perhaps fleshing these out would be a fertile area for future articles? Indeed, it might be a good idea to start breaking down his policy goals item by item? I’ll see what I can do.

Rasmussen: People Don’t Like What They Hear

Whatever Obama’s goals are, Americans do not agree with what they’re hearing from Obama. According to Rasmussen, only 31% of Americans believe the country is heading in the right direction. Here are some of the reasons:

Health Care Reform

• The Obamacrats have been pushing a public option, but 63% of Americans fear this will result in their being forced to give up their insurance coverage. And while Obama thinks getting a public option is more important than protecting existing coverage, only 29% agree with that.

• The Obamacrats promise not to raise taxes on anyone who makes less than $250,000 a year, but 72% of Americans expect such taxes will be raised. And 59% oppose such taxes.

• ObamaCare fines (and jails) anyone who does not buy insurance. Yet, 55% oppose such penalties.

• 54% of Americans favor a middle-class tax cut over new spending on health care.

Environmental Policy

• Obama has only a 43% approval rating on environmental issues.

• Only 35% of Americans favor cap and trade.

• 60% of Americans prefer finding new sources of energy to energy conservation.

Economic Policy

• Obama has only a 40% approval on economic issues, and only 29% of Americans trust Obama on economic issues more than they trust themselves.

• Team Obama assures us that the first stimulus worked and is now pushing for a second stimulus package. However, only 36% of Americans believe the stimulus helped the economy, and 62% oppose a second stimulus package.

• Nancy O’Pelosi is proposing a national sales tax to pay for various spending items, but 67% of Americans disapprove of a national sales tax.

Education Policy

• Good luck finding Obama’s education policy. So far, Obama wants students to spend more time in school. Yet, only 49% agree with him (37% disagree), and 65% would disagree with extending school to twelve months.

Foreign Policy

• Only 43% give Obama positive marks on national security.

• 55% expect the war in Afghanistan to get worse.

• 51% say that Obama has not been aggressive enough with Iran.

• Only 19% think that our relations with the Muslim world will improve.

General Perception

• 60% of Americans view society as fair and decent. But only 41% believe that Obama shares that view.

• Only 40% of Americans rate Obama excellent/good on the issue of ethics, and only 32% believe that he’s more ethical than most politicians.

Conclusion

So what do we make of this? Overwhelming majorities of Americans disagree with Obama on each of the key issues mentioned above. It is therefore no surprise that his popularity is low and that he is such a polarizing figure? If he does not address this disconnect very quickly he runs the risk of becoming a minority President (like Bush II became).

Indeed, when Obama ran, he made the statement that he didn’t just want to be the President of the Democrats, he wanted to be the President of everyone. Yet, he’s governing as if he represented only 40% of the population time and time again.

If he stays that course, he’ll have to change his nickname from “The One” to “One and Done.”


Note: We plan to do more polls in the future. We know that there are a great many more of you that read but who didn’t vote. Please make sure you vote. The more of you that vote the more interesting and representative the results. Also, please feel free to leave comments. We really do want to hear from all of you.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Commentarama Policies: Product Placements

Many of you have probably heard about some recent scandals involving bloggers making endorsements without disclosing that they were paid for the endorsement. Some advertisers have even set up fake "fan sites" just to pimp their products. (Not surprisingly, the government may soon require disclosures for all endorsements.)

Well, Commentarama doesn't do that. We haven't been paid by anyone, and if we ever are -- we'll tell you. So if we speak favorably about our favorite drinks, like Slurm with its rich, full, addictive taste, you know it's really our opinions. [+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Vent Away: Nobel Prize for Hopey

"Hope is nature's veil for hiding truth's nakedness."

-- Alfred Nobel

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Don't Believe CBO Health Care Cost Estimate

Just a short one today. By now you’ve all heard that the CBO scored the Democratic “Baucus” health care bill favorably at $829 billion -- just below the original $900 billion “expected price tag.” You’ve also probably heard that the bill will not increase the deficit one penny. Thus, trumpet the Obamacrats and their fellow travelers in the media. Don’t believe it.

The CBO scoring process is not what you think, nor is it what the Obamacrats are portraying. They want you to believe that the CBO independently evaluated the bill and determined its likely price tag to be “only” $829 billion over ten years. But that’s not how scoring works.

The CBO does not do independent work. When Congress presents the CBO with a bill, the Congress also includes a list of assumptions. In this instance, for example, those assumptions include expected tax increases, magic cost savings from improved health, and spending cuts that will never happen -- unless you believe they really are going to cut Medicare payments in half.

The CBO does not determine whether or not the tax increases, spending cuts or cost savings are real. It just plugs them into its scoring model and spits out a total cost for the bill. Thus, while the score may be accurate for what is presented, the real question is how accurate are the assumptions. In programming speak, this is called garbage in, garbage out.

Think of it this way. If a dieter says that they will eat 10 cakes a day for the next three days, but will then reduce their calories below starvation levels for the next month to burn off those cakes, does any rational person believe that the dieter will be able to complete that diet? Of course not. Yet, if the CBO scored this plan, it would simply accept the assumptions and would conclude that this diet indeed balances out perfectly. Welcome to government reality.

However, there actually is a reason to believe that the bill might be as “cheap” as advertised: it doesn’t cover anyone.

From the Obamacrats themselves, even if the bill works as planned, it will only reduce the number of people without insurance from 46 million to 25 million. . . and it takes until 2019 to do this!

Thus, looking at the ten year budget, the only year that really bears the full cost of the program is the final year. Thus, it's 20 year cost will be many times its 10 year cost, not just double. Moreover, another 21 million Americans will remain uninsured. Further, of the 25 million covered, most will become covered because they will be forced to buying their own insurance (under threat of a $1,900 fine and jail (with a $25,000 fine)).

The Democrats note that this could be a hardship on many people: “For some people it's going to be a heavy lift,” said Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del. But then who cares when you have a legacy to put into law.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Liberal Thinking: Follow The Leader

We’ve talked twice now about the difference between conservative and liberal thinking. Today we’re going to put the last piece of the puzzle in place. Then we’ll talk about how this knowledge can help us.

In the first discussion, I pointed out that liberals are short term thinkers, whereas conservatives are long term thinkers. Short term thinkers live for the now, i.e. they value instant gratification and discount the future. Long term thinkers are the reverse, they seek to maximize their gratification in the future and will sacrifice in the present to achieve that goal.

This isn’t necessarily a criticism as both types of thinking have their place. For example, without short term thinkers, no one would set out to Hollywood to become a movie star. . . which, by the way, explains why Hollywood is full of liberals. But when it comes to problem solving, short term thinking is a disaster.

Short term thinkers don’t realize that people will change their behavior in response to the solution offered. If you give a man a fish, more men will choose dependency. If you raise taxes, people will work less. If you make it less profitable to become a doctor, fewer people will become doctors. Short term thinkers don’t realize this. Thus, while short term solutions may solve a problem momentarily, they will almost always make the problem worse in the long term.

In the second discussion, I described how liberal policies are often premised on the idea of changing human nature: “If we can only ban people from saying the wrong things, they won’t have the wrong desires anymore.” Yet, thousands of years of liberal attempts at changing human nature -- from wishful liberal thinking to political correctness to communist reeducation camps -- all failed. The simple fact is that human nature cannot be changed. We are hardwired to want, to need, to hope, to fear, and to feel the whole gambit of emotions. We can hope to “incentivize” people with punishments and rewards, but we cannot change their fundamental natures.

So what’s still missing? Liberals believe that superior people should make all of the decisions for the rest of humanity. Of course, they won’t admit this. To the contrary, they will assert that they strive to keep an open mind, to examine all sides of an argument and be independent thinkers, blah blah blah. Yeah, right, and they’re all moderates too. Consider the evidence. . .

First, with rare exceptions, liberal policies always involve handing off decisions to some higher authority, i.e. an “expert” who is supposedly trained in making the specific decision. Liberals want experts to tell you how to spend your money and how much you can earn. They want “consumer advocates” to decide what loan terms you can accept. They want the government to make health care decisions for you. They want you to stop smoking and they want experts to tell you what to eat. Government experts will invest your retirement for you. Counselors will instruct you on how to raise your children. And so on.

This should be proof enough that liberals innately put their faith in distant experts over average people (sometimes even themselves). They want someone better than us to make all of the important decisions of our lives. Many don’t want the responsibility of making critical decisions. Other simply don’t trust us mere ignorant fools to make these decisions for ourselves and they want these experts to take care of us idiots. Indeed, they don’t call it the “nanny state” because it trusts average people to take care of themselves.

The fact that liberals view these experts as superior people can be seen in their rhetoric, which is simultaneously worshipful of the experts and dismissive of the public at large. These experts are deemed to be of superior intelligence and ability. . . visionary and noble. If you want proof, consider how they idolize their experts, i.e. their “higher authority.”

It is not enough for liberals to respect their leaders. They feel compelled to worship their leaders. They don’t want merely to agree with their leaders, they want to fall blindly in love with their leaders, to give themselves over entirely. How else do you explain the insatiable liberal need to put their leaders on a cult-like pedestal. They want to wear what their leaders wear, to eat the same foods, to own the same pets. They regularly declare their leaders as the most handsome or beautiful or stylish people on the planet. They cry or faint at their leaders’ speeches and describe them as the greatest speeches they’ve ever heard. They compare them to stars or gods. They talk about their leaders being heroic. They are historic. They are greater than all that has ever come before or ever will come again.

And lest you think this was just some fascination with Obama, where journalists brought their kids to his rallies and cheered him uncontrollably and wrote columns describing their sexual fantasies involving him, the same was true with Clinton when he was first elected. Moreover, look at the way they idolized JFK, RFK, MLK, and FDR, and the way they’ve mythologized monsters like Che Guevara and Fidel Castro. It is not enough that these were men with whom they agree, they need to be seen as messiahs. . . shining moments in humanity that promised to bring about Heaven on earth.

Liberals trust these super humans implicitly, no matter what evidence exists to the contrary. They forgive all their sins and failures (at least until it becomes clear they’ve been betrayed by these false messiahs). They refuse to hear anything that contradicts their unconditional love. Indeed, as anyone who has ever argued with liberals has discovered, liberals don’t think -- they repeat what they’ve been told by the people they consider authorities. They will uncritically repeat obvious lies, they will repeat obvious contradictions and logical inconsistencies, and they will even repeat mantra that flies in the face of their own experience. Their leader’s words are gospel and you contradict them at the risk of speaking heresy.

Indeed, if you try to argue with them, your assertions are immediately dismissed as distortions or lies. If you produce evidence contradicting their chosen authority, they will dismiss the evidence as being from a biased source or incomplete. These self-described open-minded individuals will not accept anything as true unless it comes from an approved authority. Finally, if the evidence cannot be refuted in any way, e.g. it comes from liberal sources, they will declare that there must be some mistake and they will drop the matter, sure that their leader has told them the truth. Like cultists, they have inoculated themselves from truth.

So what does this mean? It means that arguing with liberals is difficult. Though, this gives us points to raise in arguments. Point out the long term effects of their solutions and the inability to change human nature. Point out the arrogance of their position, claiming to be superior to “average” people. Know to have sources that they cannot refute, particularly from liberal sources.

Moreover, careful use of this knowledge can help conservatives defuse liberal resistance in the policy arena. For example, conservatives looking to advance a legislative agenda should always include an expert report or two from sources that liberals will accept as authoritative -- like the CBO. They should also include what one might call “placebo experts” in legislation to placate liberals. If you wanted to privatize social security, for example, you could offer to include plenty of “experts” who can advise taxpayers on how to invest (in a non-binding way of course). And realizing that liberals are short term thinkers, conservative legislators should consider including “placebo solutions” that liberals would see as fixing the immediate problem, while the conservatives implement the real, long term solution. Again, committees of experts aksed to examine issues are a great way to buy time and yet placate liberals.

Consider each of these traits the next time you argue with a liberal or you try to sort out something they’ve proposed. Knowledge is power.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...